Dlx2

We spend a lot of time trying to explain the details of evolutionary biology to creationists here. Most of them, as recent events remind us, do not take the time to read or consider the material and sources we post, and instead throw google-searched creationist canards at us in lieu of an actual discussion.

So let's turn this around.

I want to know EXACTLY the specific hypothesis concerning the creation of the world and life forwarded in the book B'reishit (Genesis) and the various empirical observations that should be seen if this hypothesis is correct.

I want sources on the original Hebrew if possible.

Jobar

Ah, but to them, the original source is the KJV. God speaks English, don'cha know.

Dlx2

We know when the KJV was written, and by whom, and we know that it was written as a translation of the Greek and Hebrew sources. So, we should assume the Hebrew and Greek sources to be more authoritative than the English, yes?

Peez

They should assume this, but will not necessarily.

Peez

Mike Elphick

How about starting with the ancient Hebrew's view of the world, with its dome, waters of the deep, pillars of the earth etc.



Did God tell really tell Moses the world was like this? What geological mechanisms managed to change a flat Earth into a round one? Creationists, was this the aftermath of the Curse or the Flood?

lee_merrill

Well, verse 1, "in the beginning" would state there was a beginning; empirical observation 1: a beginning.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, though, do you mean confirmation that a translation is correct?

Sauron

That is not an empirical observation; it is a claim - one that needs supporting.

lee_merrill

Now verse 2, "the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep," so observations 2 and 3: the earth was initially formless, and void of all we see around us now, the surface of the earth was dark, and the predominate form of matter there was liquid (as here).

Make that three more observations, observations 2, 3 and 4.

Dlx2

Please respond, then, to the translation by eminent ancient semitic languages scholar Nahum Sarna which suggests that a more appropriate translation of B'reishit bara elohim is "When God began to create..."

I want you to discuss the exact connotation and denotation of the Hebrew, taking into account intention of the original author, not your personal desire to interprete the KJV in a specific manner.

Realize that the original author wrote:

Breisheet bara elohim et hashamayim v'et haaretz

not

"In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

These are drastically different sentences.

Dlx2

You're using a popular mistranslation of the couplet Tohu v'Vohu. Tohu and Vohu are both proper nouns with mythological significance. Post-facto explanations of Tohu and Vohu are found in the Midrash, but there exists distinct etymological links between Tohu and Tihamat, and equivalent etymological links between Vohu and Behemot. Tihamat is the great sea monster of Sumerian/Babylonian/Akkadian mythology, and Behemot is a great land beast. Perhaps the best way to translate the couplet would be "sea-drake and earthquake," which changes the meaning of the entire sentence significantly.

There's also an etymological link between the word you're translating as "unformed" (tohu) and the word you're translating as "deep" (tehom). So that sentence translates more closely as:

"The earth was dominated by Sea-Drake and Earthquake, and Darkness was upon the Dragon."

The next sentence, which is critical in this couplet, you have omitted, but it translates approximately thusly:


"And the life-breath of God shimmered upon the waters"

This is a distinct polarity with the Darkness of Tehom (i.e. the primordial chaotic sea monster).

This is really quite equivalent to the beginning of the Akkadian poem enuma elish, in which an initial polarity exists after the universe diverges from an eternal chaotic singularity into the polarity of Tihamat and Apsu.

So, if anything, we're so far seeing Genesis as a literary adaptation of an existing Pagan tradition.

You're not getting very far, Lee_Merril.