Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-13-2009, 12:27 PM

I agree that BRA need not mean creation ex nihilo, but I'm dubious about rendering it as separated in Genesis 1:1.

IIUC from the cognate languages and other evidence BRA in proto-Hebrew did mean separate/divide/cut but apart from special cases such as the Piel form of the verb it would seem to have largely lost this meaning in Biblical Hebrew. It typically means make or produce.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 10-13-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

New English Bible (1970)

In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, (a) the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept (b) over the surface of the waters.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.html

Quote:

Here the New English Bible presents an interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 favored by many Old Testament scholars since about 1920. The grammar is interpreted in line with the opening verses of other ancient Near Eastern stories of creation, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which begins, "When above, the heavens had not been named, and below, the earth had not been called by name ..." Also, the ruach of God is understood as a "wind" rather than his "Spirit." On the alleged parallels with the Babylonian myth, see the very full discussion by Alexander Heidel in his book The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago, 1951).

I wonder if my having mainly read the NEB was what led to my kitten eating. I am puzzled that it seems to have been withdrawn from circulation, when it was in every Anglican Church in Britain!

semiopen · 10-13-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I agree that BRA need not mean creation ex nihilo, but I'm dubious about rendering it as separated in Genesis 1:1.

IIUC from the cognate languages and other evidence BRA in proto-Hebrew did mean separate/divide/cut but apart from special cases such as the Piel form of the verb it would seem to have largely lost this meaning in Biblical Hebrew. It typically means make or produce.

Andrew Criddle

I think I've seen that translated in Jewish commentary as meaning create, but only by a divine being.

In another forum, someone there says that Genesis 1 makes perfect sense if read in proto hebrew, where the shape of the letters suggest creation ex nihilo... I've been afraid to look.

mountainman · 10-13-2009, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Additionally, in the Baylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, water exists before the creation of heaven and earth. Even gods didn't always exist, but came about when "sweet" and "bitter" water combined:

Quote:

Tablet 1
When there was no heaven, no earth, no height, no depth, no name, when Apsu was alone, the sweet water, the first begetter; and Tiamat the bitter water, and that return to the womb, her Mummu, when there were no gods-

When sweet and bitter mingled together, no reed was plaited, no rushes muddied the water, the gods were nameless, nature less, futureless, then from Apsu and Tiamat in the waters gods were created, in the waters silt precipitated...

It is interesting to compare the creation myths of all the earliest traditions. So much has flowed out of India in terms of mathematics and astronomy in antiquity that the creation myth mentioned in the Rig Veda should at least also be scanned in order to afford comparison. Certainly the formalised concept of zero (and thus the "void") is often traced to India. In all likelihood the following account has the greatest antiquity. Each borrows from the other. Here is the beginning ...

The Hymn

At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?

There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.

.....

PhilosopherJay · 10-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Hi Ipetrich,

From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...6_0_06004.html

Quote:

Agreements, however, both in content and literary form, between rabbinism and Epicureanism are striking: study for its own sake (Vatican fragment 45 and Avot 6:1); removal of doubt (Life 121b, Doctr. 22 and Avot 1:16); mortality and urgency (Vat. fr. 10 and Avot 2:15); acquisition of a companion (To Menoeceus, end, and Avot 1:6); diet of bread and water (Bailey, fr. 37 and Avot 6:4); satisfaction with one's lot (Bailey, fr. 69–70 and Avot 4:1); and avoidance of public office (Bailey, fr. 85–87; Vat. fr. 58; Doctr. 7 and Avot 1:10–11; 2:3; etc.). Epicurus anticipated Judaism's denial of astral divinity and rule. With the general rise of the lower classes he accorded human dignity even to the prostitute, an evaluation continued in the Midrash (Sif. Num. 78; Gen. R. 85:8) and the Gospels (Matt. 1:3; 5, etc.). In Hellenism and Christianity, too, denunciation of Epicurus together with partial adoption of his ethics is frequent. The centrality of the sage in post-Socratic ethics and rhetoric facilitated such developments.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The idea that a God created the world from nothing was a response to Epicurus' declaration that "Nothing comes from nothing." The reinterpretation of the opening passage of Genesis would have come as a response to Epicurus, sometime after the Third century B.C.E. Just as Jews misinterpreted Plato to get their monotheistic God, they misinterpreted Epicurus to turn him into a creator God.

I don't know what gives you that idea -- is there any direct evidence of wanting to rebut the Epicureans there?

Tammuz · 10-18-2009, 07:30 AM

From the Telegraph:

Quote:

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

...

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

...

Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."

...

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

"There was already water," she said.

...

She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.

She said: "Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust."

A spokesman for the Radboud University said: "The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."

Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."

I wonder what theological implications this will carry.

Maybe Christians will spend hundreds of millions combatting the heretic linguistics:huh:

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 10-18-2009, 07:32 AM

Merging into already existing thread on this topic.

Iskander · 10-18-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecularFuture

I wonder if others are going to rethink those lines in Genesis now.

This isn't new, but perhaps it is just now becoming popular to look at what the Greek and Hebrew really say, instead of what people just wish they said. There do see to be a rash of recent works based on faithful translations instead of just King James nonsense.

That Genesis 1:1-2:4a. opens with the phrase,” when God began to create the heaven and the earth," and that then the god proceeds to transform an already existing matter has been known for many years. The Jewish Study Bible says:” When God began”. Why is this piece of news important?

Genesis 1:1 is translated as “in the beginning” by Hebrew scholars and thus it has nothing to do with King James.

Bereishit - Chapter 1
Hide Rashi's Commentary1.
In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.In the beginning Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments). Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?”
.http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

Minnesota Joe · 05-17-2010, 04:30 AM

God is not the 'Creator'

The URL describes a translation made by an Old Testament scholar that suggests that God was not thought of as the Creator of the earth.

Comments?

Thanks,

Joe

John Kesler · 05-17-2010, 05:03 AM

Previous thread: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276651

05-17-2010, 04:30 AM	#19
Minnesota Joe Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,322	God didn't create the earth? God is not the 'Creator' The URL describes a translation made by an Old Testament scholar that suggests that God was not thought of as the Creator of the earth. Comments? Thanks, Joe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2009, 12:27 PM	#11
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I agree that BRA need not mean creation ex nihilo, but I'm dubious about rendering it as separated in Genesis 1:1. IIUC from the cognate languages and other evidence BRA in proto-Hebrew did mean separate/divide/cut but apart from special cases such as the Piel form of the verb it would seem to have largely lost this meaning in Biblical Hebrew. It typically means make or produce. Andrew Criddle

10-18-2009, 07:32 AM	#17
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	Merging into already existing thread on this topic.

05-17-2010, 05:03 AM	#20
John Kesler Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 1,037	Previous thread: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=276651

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.