So you thought Genesis 1:1 claims that God created the universe? That’s because you don’t understand Hebrew:
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”
[. . .]
She said technically “bara” does mean “create” but added: “Something was wrong with the verb.
“God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?”
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
I’m glad she was able to correct this misperception. Now if she could explain how scholars for thousands of years seem to have missed this point.
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.”
For a scholar trained in languages, Professor Van Wolde appears not to understand the common meanings of many words and phrases. For instance, she seems to think the word “untenable” means “can’t be defended since I settled the issue” and that “fresh textual analysis” is synonymous with “stuff I just made up.”
October 12th, 2009 | 8:41 am
Some time ago I read of another controversy involving Genesis in which it was alleged that a certain passage, “tohu wa bohu” could be translated as “God re-created…”
Now I suppose this is of interest to those who lay awake at night wondering, ‘Who was Lilith…really?’ Or those who imagine lost empires of the dinosaurs, but for the rest of us…Who cares?
A quick Google Search of Professor Ellen von Wolde reveals her to be a serious and respected scholar and not just a crank. So it’s best to think of this as another of those teacup tempests that so often roil the ivory towers and vineyards of academe. Move along, there’s nothing to see here.
Of more interest, to me at least, is the “Copernican Moment” that hit the Darwinists last week. Seems that the human species is older than previously thought and that it is the ape and not Man that has been undergoing rapid evolution (at least as far as their respective hands go.) Hah! Somewhere Ben Stein (Expelled) is doing his Happy Dance.”
It is somehow comforting to know that we don’t yet know everything, or even as much as we thought we did. And that there is no shortage of discoveries left to be made by those generations yet unborn.
October 12th, 2009 | 9:11 am
I wouldn’t jump too quickly to the conclusion that she is wrong, although she definitely has a pompous way of expressing her theory. Also, perhaps this yet again demonstrates a need for Protestants to not hold tightly to Sola Scriptura or to a solely literal interpretation of Scripture, as there is plenty of coherent precedent in the tradition and traditional interpretation for belief in God the Creator.
October 12th, 2009 | 9:56 am
Then there is this:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1535
October 12th, 2009 | 10:05 am
Ha, so God is actually the first home organizer. It should read, in the Beginning, before there was the Container Store or Stacks and Stacks…
October 12th, 2009 | 11:36 am
Funny. Saint Augustine on the last chapters of Confessions dissects these verses. According to his exegesis, Heavens are the spiritual reality, the angels. The “sky” was done on other days (I think the 4th).
So, by this meaning, we cannot really see the material universe being “separated’ of the spiritual universe. And it would be odd that latter God would make the man, a creature that have material and spiritual components
October 12th, 2009 | 12:06 pm
Who cares, even “spatially separate” does not imply he didn’t create. There are plenty of other passages that say he did create Heaven and Earth. Even if this is a true translation, it doesn’t change a thing about God the creator.
October 12th, 2009 | 12:12 pm
What exactly is the news here? When I was doing graduate religious studies fifteen years ago it was no secret that (a) the idea of creation ex nihilo can’t be derived from a critical reading of Genesis 1 by itself, that (b) it is quite possible to read Genesis 1 as depicting God working with preexisting stuff, and (c) God acts in Genesis by distinguishing or separating (not just when bara’ is used, as in the heavens and the earth, but also light and darkness, night and day, waters above and waters below, etc.).
OTOH, 2 Maccabees 7:28 does imply creation ex nihilo: “I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.”
October 12th, 2009 | 12:33 pm
[...] Hebrew linguist has managed to create a translation of Genesis that is muddled and unsatisfactory to both creationist and evolutionary understandings of our [...]
October 12th, 2009 | 2:33 pm
I’m going to have to throw my hat in with the “who cares?” crowd. Doesn’t it matter in the least that the idea of a creator is accessible to human reason alone, and that whatever the first verse of Genesis does or does not say, no matter has ever brought itself into existence?
This Van Wolde person obviously misunderstands the role of this one verse in the belief in a Creator God.
“Untenable”?? Is “LOL” allowed on FirstThings.com?
October 12th, 2009 | 4:28 pm
I think it’s interesting. Most scientists support the big bang theory of the universe’s beginning but there are also some other explanations by guys like Stephen Hawking that seem to say the universe didn’t have a beginning. Maybe there’s a shift from God creating the universe from nothing to God as the sustainer of the universe?
October 12th, 2009 | 5:24 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Creig Bush and Peter Johnson. Peter Johnson said: RT @ROFTERS: Breaking News: God Didn’t Create the Heavens and Earth http://bit.ly/HR8KN [...]
October 12th, 2009 | 6:16 pm
IMO, this reinterpretation is nonsense. Until the discovery of the Big Bang, most of the non-Abrahamic Faith and secular world thought that the universe was eternal. Christians looked like fools and St. Thomas and Muslim scholars spent a lot of time and energy trying to convince people that the “obvious fact” that the universe was eternal was a lie. If this reinterpretation were possible, it would be an easy way of saving face to claim that both God and the universe existed eternally, but before God decided to clean house, the universe was a mess. Why go thorough all this effort, unless it was the belief from the beginning?
The question, “Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?” can be answered by a 5 year old — because he can. What can’t two things happen at the same time? I can read, write, breath, pump my heart, think, listen, and speak at the same time. Surely God is a bit more capable than I am? Perhaps this academic can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, and thus has a hard time believing that multitasking is possible? Perhaps this academic has never heard of a summary of events?
Or perhaps, the statement “she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia. ” sums it up. She believes the Bible couldn’t have been Divinely inspired so it must have been just a variation of other Mesopotamian Myths were god was powerless to create — only shape forces beyond his control.
October 13th, 2009 | 12:09 pm
This idea that God merely “organized” the universe is completely inconsistent with the generally accepted Christian attributes of God. Under this “organization” theory, God is merely a contingent being, like the rest of us and clearly is not all powerful. His ability to create would be contingent on the existence of this pre-existing matter.
October 13th, 2009 | 1:09 pm
More than that. Since God is contingent, the following naturally follows:
(1) The Bible would no longer predict the Big Bang and instead favour an eternal universe. Thus Atheists can claim that “Yet again religion has it wrong and that science saved the day and affirmed Atheism”.
(2) We don’t know who created God, since God is not the foundation. God might actually have evolved and is thus little more than the first Extra Terrestrial
(3) If God is just an Extra Terrestrial, why should we worship him? Sure we can be thankful that he seeded the earth, but that doesn’t mean his has complete moral authority and worthiness of being worshiped. After all, we don’t have complete moral authority over our children and even if our children look up to us, they should now worship us. In this sense, God is just a big insecure cosmic bully that threatens to eternally torment us if we don’t like his boots.
(4) Evil is out of God’s control, and there’s no guarantee that Jesus’ Second Coming will accomplish anything.
(5) Since God is just an Extra Terrestrial, God might die. Now God might think he’s eternal since he’s lived so long, but perhaps when the heat death of the universe happens, God will be to old and too cold to survive. Thus heaven could be temporary.
(6) Since God is just an Extra Terrestrial, God is subject to the laws of nature, thus miracles are impossible and it’s possible for individuals to die out of sight and not make it into heaven (if that even exists).
Except for the first point, I’ve heard these “arguments” repeatedly on atheist friendly news aggregate blogs and anti-theist books like “The Golden Compass” trilogy, and it’s usually possible to say “your god is too small” as part of a refutation. This bit of “scholarship” pulls the rug off this, and one of the best pieces of apologetics a Christian has, namely the prediction of the Big Bang and need of a creator. So it needs to be debunked as soundly as has been done with “The Jesus Seminar” and “The Da Vinci Code”.
October 14th, 2009 | 2:45 pm
In 1844, Joseph Smith, prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taught the doctrine that God did not create, but rather “organized” the earth. He said:
October 15th, 2009 | 5:44 pm
I am aware of Joseph Smith’s pronouncement on the pre-existence of matter (I was actually waiting to see if anyone brought that fact up). In fact, I consider this to be perhaps the largest hole in Mormon theology.
October 16th, 2009 | 8:04 pm
There’s been a minority view among scholars for at least a decade along these lines, maybe longer. The New Jewish Publication Society translation in the early or mid 90s had something along these lines. So there’s no new novelty element here, unless it’s some particular detail.
Also, evangelical authors and other biblical conservatives have had a lot of time to respond to this kind of thing. I’m pretty sure Gordon Wenham, Victor Hamilton, and Bruce Waltke (who I think are the three most important evangelical commentators on Genesis of the last couple decades) all admit that Genesis 1 doesn’t imply creation ex nihilo but insist that other biblical passages do. So I’m not sure why this is news at all.
October 17th, 2009 | 11:41 am
“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. (Isa 45:12)” – Now how do you argue this?
October 17th, 2009 | 10:59 pm
The Insanity of Unbelief
by Dan Delzell
Who could ever create a story as wild as the one in the Bible? What mastermind could put together 66 books by more than 40 authors and have it written over a period of 1500 years? Incredibly, all of these authors point to the same two ultimate destinations: first, an everlasting paradise offered as a free gift to those who believe; and second, a place of eternal torment for those who reject the gift.
What could this many authors possibly gain by coming up with such an extraordinary story on their own and then presenting it as truth? It certainly didn’t make their lives any easier. Why would some of these same authors allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than recant their message? These clues provide healing from spiritual insanity for anyone who is open-minded. Are you open-minded or close-minded about Christ?
Who would ever make up a story that a God of love sent His only Son to suffer torture at the hands of men? How loving is that unless God really did love the world so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins just as the Bible states? Why out of thousands of religions in the world does only one religion offer forgiveness of sins as a free gift? Why does this one religion just so happen to be the only religion that has each of these 40 authors over 1500 years describing the same reality? How did they all get their writings to fit together so well and with so much consistency?
Were each one of these authors insane, except for their remarkable ability to agree with one another about heaven and hell and the Messiah? If they were not insane, then why would all the authors over many centuries contribute to such a conspiracy of deceit about a mythical God and a far-fetched narrative of redemption? Do you have enough faith and enough evidence to truly believe that it has all just been a worldwide hoax? Are you sane enough to see how it takes more faith based on less evidence to reject Christ than it takes to accept Him as your Lord and Savior?
How insane is it for you to live 80 years upon this earth for yourself just hoping that the Bible is wrong about Jesus and about heaven and hell? How crazy is it for you to risk spending one year in agony, yet alone forever and ever in unimaginable torment? Who would ever lie and make up such a place? In a postmodern age where people are brainwashed to believe that nothing is absolute, are you absolutely, 100% sure that Christianity is a lie and that Jesus was a fraud?
If you don’t believe in absolutes, then you are not really positive that Christianity is wrong, are you? Please read this next sentence slowly and carefully: Are you really willing to risk spending billions upon billions of years in hell rather than repent of your sin and accept a free gift from a loving God who has given us a written revelation of eternity? What if you really were insane on this issue? You wouldn’t know that you were insane, would you? Are you willing to admit that it is possible that you are insane about Christianity and about your need for salvation?
How can you be absolutely sure that Christianity is wrong and that you are right? You! Not the 40 authors over 1500 years, but you! What makes you the right one? “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” (Proverbs 14:12)
To quote a well-known motivational speaker from the 1990’s, I plead with you to “Stop the Insanity” before it is too late. Do you realize why God has allowed you to read this article right now at this very moment in your life? If you are unwilling to be healed of your spiritual insanity, then you won’t have a clue about what you have just read. That rejection of God’s good news for you would provide you with proof of the insanity of unbelief. Are you too insane to recognize your own insanity, or is there a glimmer of spiritual sanity in your soul today?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact