Genisis

by Paradise Found 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Actually the "earth" (h'rts) is described in Genesis 1:2 as thwwbhw, a hendiadys expression based on thw "nothingness" (cf. 1 Samuel 12:21; Job 26:7; Isaiah 29:21, 40:17, 41:23, 44:9, 49:4), so basically the idea is "the earth had been in a state of confused non-existence", not just that the earth was "shapeless" (which Westerman points out is not quite accurate). The LXX translates as "invisible and not yet in order" which suggests a confused mingling of disordered and unformed elements in darkness in a state of chaos. Thw can also mean "desert" which carries through the idea of devastation and loss of order, but this is not appropriate since the 'rts is in the midst of the thm "watery deep". That the conception in Genesis 1:2 corresponds to ANE, and specifically Canaanite, creation myths, consider the following passage from Philo of Byblos, presenting the Phoenican creation story:

  "At the beginning of everything there was darkness and a strong wind or darkness and a whining wind and a black slimy chaos. It was unordered and undefined and remained so for an age" (Philo of Byblos, PE, cited in Westerman, p. 104)

  The notion of darkness preceding everything can be found in Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian creation myths. In the OT, darkness is also coupled with thw "nothingness, waste" in Isaiah 45:19, Jeremiah 4:23, and with thm "watery deep" in Psalm 88:7; Isaiah 5:30, and with Sheol in Job 17:13. As a place of darkness, the deep, and nothingness, Sheol remains in an uncreated state. Regarding the separation of light and darkness, this is a motif from cosmogonies of division and the separation also sets in motion the march and rhythm of time, the time-cycle of night and day. To talk about this as setting the earth rotating on its axis is to read modern concepts into an ancient narrative that had no such concept. The light mentioned here is not illumination from the sun, which was not created until 1:14-18.
• 

  peacefulpete

  four stars Leolaia. btw what does the cartouche thingy mean?
• 

  Leolaia

  It is a cartouche of Jacob-har.
• 

  LittleToe

  You give the impression that "nothing" was there, yet surely the language used in the story indicates that "something" was there, albeit in a state of chaos and disarray?
• 

  Leolaia

  No, no, it was the earth (h'rts), or specifically the "dry land" of Genesis 1:10 that did not yet exist, or was in a state of non-existence. Since the land is what was left when the water was extracted in v. 9-10, the primeval thwm "watery deep" would have included what later became "dry land" and "seas" (ymym) in a comingled state (along with the waters that formed the firmament). Genesis 1:2 clearly states what did exist: darkness, the watery deep, and wind (or spirit, rwch).
• 

  LittleToe

  That's clearer. Thanks

  So we have a pre-existant universe, including a chaotic, water-covered planet, which undergoes some form of terraforming (as described by a primitive race of man) within a space of "seven" (likely symbolic) stages or periods of time.
  Would that be a fair summary of the Genesis creation account, to you?
• 

  Leolaia

  Not quite.

  The notion of a "pre-existent universe" before creation is especially evident if we translate the first verse as a dependent temporal clause (e.g. "When God began creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and waste and there was darkness....), which is how many scholars understand the passage (especially since it is not grammatical as a main clause), and interestingly is how the Enuma Elish and other ANE creation stories begin.

  However, there is no conception at all of a "planet", especially one situated in the "heavens". The heavens were not created until v. 7-8, and there is no indication of the "watery deep" existing on some other object (i.e. planet). The concept is rather that the whole cosmos before creation was nothing but darkness, wind (or God's spirit), and the watery deep. The heavens were created through a division of the waters in two (with heaven being an expanse between the two), and earth being created through a division of the waters underneath the expanse. It is the same division in waters that occurs in the Reed Sea episode in Exodus that creates "dry land" for the Israelites to pass on. On the concept of the watery deep in the heavens, this is analoguous to the Abzu notion in Sumerian/Akkadian mythology and the "double-deeps" notion in Canaanite myths.
• 

  Farkel

  : Genisis says God createted light then God created a" Division between the light and the Darkness."

  Actually Genesis states that God FIRST created the heavens and the earth and THEN created light. That means the earth and all the stars had to be cold, since solar energy comes from exploding hydrogen. The big bang theory states that a tremendous explosion of infinitely dense matter caused the creation of the universe in a singularity. Even though that singularity cannot be explained via the theory of relativity, it still makes more sense than a universe starting out absurdly cold.

  Farkel
• 

  Leolaia

  Farkel...Going back to what I said above, the translation of v. 1 is controversial and your interpretation is dependent on v. 1 indicating a creative act by itself (and the sentence as a main clause by itself), before the creative acts narrated in the six days. This is highly doubtful. Most importantly, the account separately narrates the creation of the "heavens" in v. 7-8 and the creation of the "earth" in v. 9-10. Second, there are grammatical problems with the traditional translation. The critical word br'syt, usually translated "in the beginning", is composed of a preposition and the verbal noun rs'yt -- which occurs 50 times in the OT and in all of these, except possibly Isaiah 46:10, it occurs not as an absolute state (e.g. functions by itself) but as a construct state, meaning that it functions in close connection with another noun. The MT confirms the construct state interpretation by vocalizing the word as bere'shith, and not bare'shith which is what we would expect in an absolute noun. In other words, the word is grammatically better translated as "In [the] beginning of" and not "In [the] beginning". The interpretation of the verse as a temporal clause is at least as old as Rashi, if not older. In other words, we might translate as:

  "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was non-existent and without order, and darkness lay upon the primeval deep and God's wind was moving across the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light!' And there was light" (Genesis 1:1-3)

  This rendering is thus found in the NEB, NAB, NJPS, RSV, and AB, but usually in footnotes. Young's Literal Translation also reads: "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth..." The traditional rendering is maintained in most other translations. Also consider how many other ANE creation stories begin with a temporal clause. Examples:

  "When Yahweh God made earth and the heavens, there was not yet any plant of the field on the earth nor had any shrub yet sprung up" (J's Creation Story; Genesis 2:4b-5)

  "When nothing at all had yet come forth, while the earth was still in night and darkness...." (Egyptian Creation Story, cited in Westerman, p. 104)

  "When on high the heaven had not been named, firm ground below had not been called by name, then it was that the gods were formed within then..." (Enuma Elish)

  If v. 1 is to be interpreted as a main clause, it would then likely function as a summary statement introducing the entire narrative as a story about the "creation of the heavens and the earth". Since the creation of each is later described in the story, it is highly unlikely that v. 1 is describing a creative act before the six days. In fact, v. 2 militates against this since it says that the earth (h'rts) was in a state of nothingness, in an uncreated state (compare Isaiah 45:18; also Job 26:7, 1 Samuel 12:21; Isaiah 29:21, 40:17, 49:4, where thw is used to indicate nothingness or chaos).
• 

  Farkel

  leolaia,

  Your arguments are all apologetic nonsense. You simply cannot reconcile the first few chapters of Genesis with each other as they contradict themselves. All your attempts at accurate exegesis fail.

  Genesis is a fairy tale. Get used to it. It doesn't fit facts that are carefully documented and it doesn't even fit common reason which doesn't need to be documented. It is garbage given what learned people know. The story in Gen 1-3 is fantasy.

  Furthermore, if you have to resort to idioms in translation, you must admit to a fatal problem: "God cannot protect his own book: some versions are better than others." Why is God so pathetic that he cannot protect the very book he inspired through holy whatever to be inspired? If he cared to much to have such a book written, why did he not care so much to protect its integrity? I need an good answer for this. I mean a GOOD answer for this. Excusogetics, don't count. If Bible God wants me to again become a True Believer(tm), then he'd better well give me a reason to be so. Blind and uninformed Faith(tm) don't work for me anymore, and any God worth his salt would appreciate this and do better than Bible-God(tm) has done so far.

  Farkel