anime

And the earth BECAME without form and void...

Scholars, including Dr. E.W. Bullinger, translate Genesis 1:2 in this manner. The millions of years of time separating verses 1 and 2 are documented by scientific research.

Unforutnately, it has been claimed that this translation is a "desperate reaction" to scientific finding that came about in the 19thy century.

Fortunately, this is not the case:

"Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7)."

JEST2ASK

Very nice, well written and it shows a lot of effort on your part, however I would like to make some strickly low level observation.


Hopefully you will not take this as an attempt to hijack the thread or discount the validity of what you posted.

It is possible to get a two year degree, it is known as an Assoicates, which I take to mean a person has acquired basic knowledge covering a wide range of study. Next comes a four year degree where one limits that scope to a general field of study. That can be followed by a Masters degree where one becomes focused on a particular branch. Finally one can earn their Ph.d which is even further specialized. Pardon me but the trend seems to be learning more and more about less and less with the apparent goal to learn everything about nothing.

Please excuse the weak humor but to write a book and to expend thirty plus years of one's life devouted to the opening lines of another book seems to validated the idea of more & more about less & less.

2 - The very little I have read suggest that the Jewish religion underwent changes througout it long history and while what we see today seems to have a single common root , that is an illusion.

Even during the time of Jesus there were major differences in theology and practice. The Sadducees and the Pharisees (not to mention the Essenes and others) had widely different interpretation about an after-life, the existence of angels, the nature of the messiah etc.

3 - There appears to have been a multitude of theologies (Heresies) in the early church what most quote now are the winners / surviours.

To sum up my comments to simply say that someone else long before now had some of the same arguements still does not prove the motivation behind the present advocates posistion.

The greater problem to me still is that regardless of the intrepretation the entire account still does not agree with modern science. Nor does it have any effect on the question of was it divinely inspired.

Respectfully

anime

Thank you for your reply and for stating your position.

Is there any area of modern science in particular that you feel the account does not agree with?

Amos

Multiply that by millions of people and it becomes even much more ado about nothing. As a 30 year critic of Shakespeare once concluded: "He must had more education than me"-- while others can read him as if it was written for everybody.

It is important to remember that the bible is myth and therefore true (sic). This removes it from history and now means that Gen.1:2 makes reference to the mind of man wherein the capacity to understand exists but until organization is found there will be no knowledge. So before order (heaven) was placed opposite to earth (reason), darkness prevailed and the mighty wind was the chaos that yearned for understanding. So we can say that in Gen.1:2 the TOL was created to be placed opposite the TOK or they could not be conceived to exist in Eden (essence must precede existence)

Amos

So the whole purpose of writing Gen.1 is to make possible, or foreshadow, what would happen in Gen.2 and Gen.3. Heaven is the Tree of Life and earth is the Tree of Knowledge. Notice that in Gen.1 "God said" and in Gen. 2 "Lord God formed." Point here is that Lord God does not create because God is creator and it is not until Gen. 3 that the TOK ("like god"= God while under ovblivion) becomes co-creator with the TOL.

JEST2ASK

You are most welcome

My reading of Genesis Chapter 1: 1 - 5 indicates that The Earth & Heaven(s) were created on the same day (Day 1 within the same period) if one reads it literally.

While the Sun, Moon and stars were not created (placed) until Day 4, Geneesis 1: 14 - 19). That sequence of events does not agree (IMO) with modern science.

Also I would like to ask what is your opinion on the possible polytheistic roots of the opening (When The Gods Began ...) interpretation put forth.

I know your orginal post was centered on vs2 and the earth, but how do you react to possible alternate readings of vs1.

Finally I do not consider myself a biblical or any other form of scholar, so if at any point I am out of line please consider the source as my intent is to learn. Unfortunately my curiousty is often unfocused and I tend to bounce from area to area with no (except in my mind) apparent pattern, so be patient.

Regards

JEST2ASK

I think I agree , that the purpose of Genesis chapters 1 - 11 was to give a cosomology not history the story of Noah, the Tower of Babel, Cain & Able etc were all to explain the nature (?) of this world (how / why things were). In all probability (IMO) they started as oral traditions with many different elements and versions.

Which is one of my biggest disagreements with attempts to retrofit later concepts unto these passages, we have no way to document who were the orginators of these stories, when and where they came into being and what influenced their transition into the later forms.

Just my uninformed observations.

Hawkingfan

Yes. Please consider the following absurdities compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Library:

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

And then there are inconsistencies with the creation myth:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Also, creation does not mention dinosaurs and it seems man was created without undergoing evolution.

Amos

The mechanics that make evolution possible is the reason why man was banished from Eden. Notice that only the Tree of Knowledge exists outside of Eden from where it must supply the Tree of Life with data as received through our sense perception. So from the omniscient Tree of Life perspective (which is our womanity), man does not undergo evolution but he is in charge of his destiny. It is only from our human Tree on Knowledge perspective that we undergo evolution.

A good picture of the TOK outside of Eden is found on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel called "The Creation of Adam"(?) where Adam is placed outside the human skull that serves as the backdrop for the rest of the painting.

JEST2ASK

I am being to feel a little guilty in that the thread has drifted so far from your orginal post. It really was not by intent to do this, however I can understand your relectance to respond.

I would like to know from any other Christian in particular but any theist in general about the possible multiple meanings of Genesis Chapter 1 (not expanding into any other portion of Genesis)?

How you decide on what fits or doesn't in terms of your theology?

Amos has a most unique viewpoint and is very (I want to use vocal) aggresive in presenting those ideas, however, I would like to hear (not so much in terms of scholarly reasearch) how others feel and why.

I am not such much interested in debate as in seeking information, and raising questions is just my way of doing that.