Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT

[Deut 13:1]

The "majority"? Well, shucks! I'm gonna sit right down and email some of the foremost experts on Biblical Hebrew and tell them about Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing ... :clap

Personally, I would translate it as: First, G-d created the heavens and the earth.

In First doesn't make a lot of sense, I might say: At first, G-d created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning is close, but not as close as the Hebrew, but close enough.

Did you put Tefillin on?

 

[jonny]

I understand the significance of what you are suggesting Deut, but lets also keep in mind there is no suggestion in any translation that anything pre-dated God's existence. God is always assumed to be eternal and the root cause of everything.

No one is claiming that anything pre-dated God's existence. The creation story attempts to tell us about the creation of our world. It doesn't say anything about the creation of God or matter.

 

[jewscout]

thanks for the post Deut. i always found it interesting that the Stone Edition translated it that way and to find other translations similar to it just adds more food for thought:bounce

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Personally, I would translate it as: First, G-d created the heavens and the earth.

Of course you would. Nevertheless, an array of scholars disagree with you. Furthermore, the sages appear to have been fully aware of the legitimacy of the current rendering. So, for example, the Etz Hayim commentary notes:

The first letter of the first word in the Torah, "b'rei****" is the Hebrew letter 'bet'. This prompted the Midrash to suggest that, just as the letter 'bet' in enclosed on three sides but open to the front, we ae not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation [Gen. R. 1:10]. The purpose of such a comment is not to limit scientific enquiry into the origins of the universe but to discourage efforts to prove the unprovable. ... The Torah begins with 'bet', second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to summon us to begin even if we cannot begin at the very beginning.

There would be little need to caution against speculating on what existed before if the sages took Genesis 1:1-3 to mean creation ex nihilo. I am also reminded of my earlier reference to Isaiah 43:10 ...

Ye are My witnesses, saith HaShem, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be after Me.​

Note the word "formed", as well as the implicit acknowledgement of a before and after.

Did you put Tefillin on?

Apparently you have some difficulty taking Torah study seriously. That is unfortunate.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

But it's not a democracy, Andy. It doesn't matter what the majority of translations say; it only matters which translations can be backed up scholarship-wise.

True. I believe an important consideration is the use of other scriptures as a means of validating an interpretation. I fully admit that I am by no means in expert in Jewish tradition, but there are many Christian scriptures that also indicate God created everything else in existance (ex nihlo).

Very interesting! So may I ask this: is there any reason why "beginning" must refer to time? I mean, we traditionally take this to be refering to the beginning of the universe, time-wise. But couldn't it be refering to the "beginning" cause-wise? As a panentheist, I don't believe that God created creation and then was done, rested, whatever. I believe that God continually underlies creation at every given moment. That God and creation are interlinked.

That makes sense to me (in my extensive background in ancient Hebrew translation ), as long as it is compatible with your other beliefs and translations.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The "majority"? Well, shucks! I'm gonna sit right down and email some of the foremost experts on Biblical Hebrew and tell them about Wikipedia.

I appreciate the humor in your sarcasm, however, I am sure you realize that it was not my intention to argue directly with these scholars. I agree there is a translation controversy, and felt it was important to provide a reference to the other side of the argument.

Thanks for sharing ... :clap

You're welcome.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

There would be little need to caution against speculating on what existed before if the sages took Genesis 1:1-3 to mean creation ex nihilo. I am also reminded of my earlier reference to Isaiah 43:10 ...

Ye are My witnesses, saith HaShem, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be after Me.​

Note the word "formed", as well as the implicit acknowledgement of a before and after.

I find this verse very interesting. You have given me something to look into ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I appreciate the humor in your sarcasm, however, I am sure you realize that it was not my intention to argue directly with these scholars. I agree there is a translation controversy, and felt it was important to provide a reference to the other side of the argument.


You're welcome.

Then you've failed to accomplish your task. The 'argument' offered was ...

The word b'rei**** lacks the definite article ("the"). Various English translations put it as "in the beginning," "in the beginning when," "at the beginning," "during the beginning," or "when [God] began." But all of these miss the mark, because the root of the first word Berei**** בראשית is ראש "head" -- being the central core word (ראש can be pronounced as rosh which is the Hebrew for "head"). Furthermore, the first letter ב means "in" or "at", and the last letters ית imply "of". The use of the word "head" implies something "at the top", as in "head" of something. In this case it is the "head" or "start" of Creation, which is where the ideas to translate it as "in the beginning" originates.

But the 'argument' here is entirely circular. One might just as well speak of being at the "head" of (i.e., at the begining of) the process of forming cosmos out of chaos.

I do, however, owe you a word of gratitude. Thank you for a reference to a source which, in turn, referenced Rashi's commentary ...

But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness…and God said, ‘Let there be light.’” But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, ... [Rashi]

This is clearly a far cry from creation ex nihilo. But, of course, it's only Rashi ...

 

[Katzpur]

...there are many Christian scriptures that also indicate God created everything else in existance (ex nihlo).

There are? Where might I find them?

 

[Deut 13:1]

So far so good - especially when you realize that virtually every translation follows suit ... well, almost every translation.


It turns out that the highly respected Stone Edition Tanach renders Genesis 1:1 as ...

1:1 In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth​

and treats verse two as a parenthetical.

Question: Before I comment on the translation itself, the sentence doesn't seem to be grammatically correct in English. You say "God's creating" - that is, you refer to a verb as a noun (clearly seen by the possessive "'s" before it). In that case, you're supposed to use the verbal noun - "creation", not "creating"; the sentence should be "in the beginning of God's creation of the...". But my knowledge of English is extremely limited, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Good Shabbas.

 

[jewscout]

Question: Before I comment on the translation itself, the sentence doesn't seem to be grammatically correct in English. You say "God's creating" - that is, you refer to a verb as a noun (clearly seen by the possessive "'s" before it). In that case, you're supposed to use the verbal noun - "creation", not "creating"; the sentence should be "in the beginning of God's creation of the...". But my knowledge of English is extremely limited, correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Good Shabbas.

i don't think that there is anything grammatically wrong w/ it. It doesn't flow as well as "In the beginning G-d created...blah blah blah" but i think they were going w/ trying to be true to the interpretation of the creation story and what the commentary say rather than making it sound pretty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Question: Before I comment on the translation itself, the sentence doesn't seem to be grammatically correct in English.

See Rashi above.

Parenthetically, while the JPS (1917) uses the 'older' form, the New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text renders the opening line of Genesis as ...

When God began to create heaven and earth-the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and wind from God sweeping over the water-God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.​

Perhaps before you "comment on the translation itself" you could indicate your credentials in the field of Biblical Hebrew so that we might more objectively evaluate the credibility of your critique of the translation efforts of Stone, the JPS, Etz Hayim, Alter, and Friedman.

Shabbat Shalom.

 

[Deut 13:1]

See Rashi above.





Parenthetically, while the JPS (1917) uses the 'older' form, the New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text renders the opening line of Genesis as ...

When God began to create heaven and earth-the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and wind from God sweeping over the water-God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.​

Perhaps before you "comment on the translation itself" you could indicate your credentials in the field of Biblical Hebrew so that we might more objectively evaluate the credibility of your critique of the translation efforts of Stone, the JPS, Etz Hayim, Alter, and Friedman.

Let me know when you choose to respond.

the sentence doesn't seem to be grammatically correct in English. You say "God's creating" - that is, you refer to a verb as a noun (clearly seen by the possessive "'s" before it). In that case, you're supposed to use the verbal noun - "creation", not "creating"; the sentence should be "in the beginning of God's creation of the...". But my knowledge of English is extremely limited, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Deut 13:1]

i don't think that there is anything grammatically wrong w/ it. It doesn't flow as well as "In the beginning G-d created...blah blah blah" but i think they were going w/ trying to be true to the interpretation of the creation story and what the commentary say rather than making it sound pretty.

Is it grammatically correct though? I know it doesn't flow well, but to me, it makes no sense in English.

 

[may]

1​

​

​

In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


​

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters

 

[Nick Soapdish]

There are? Where might I find them?[/color]

Sorry for the delay in my response. I have been scrambling to meet a deadline at work. These are all from the NASB translation.

John 1:3

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Colossians 1:16

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Psalms 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Romans 4:17

as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU" in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

Hebrew 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Then you've failed to accomplish your task. The 'argument' offered was ...

But the 'argument' here is entirely circular. One might just as well speak of being at the "head" of (i.e., at the begining of) the process of forming cosmos out of chaos.

I do, however, owe you a word of gratitude. Thank you for a reference to a source which, in turn, referenced Rashi's commentary ...

This is clearly a far cry from creation ex nihilo. But, of course, it's only Rashi ...

You are correct. In fact, I am having difficulty finding a strong argument to back up the notion that Genesis 1 can only imply creation ex nihilo. Well done.

I agree that there is an important metaphysical topic at hand, and that is whether or not God created space-time-matter. It seems to me that when considering the translation studies, Genesis 1 does not offer a conclusion to this question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters

I guess that some people just have trouble keeping up ...

 

[jewscout]

Is it grammatically correct though? I know it doesn't flow well, but to me, it makes no sense in English.

yes it seems grammatically correct. Something can be grammatically correct and still not flow well when you read it.

 

[Tiberius]

My Rabbi brought the following to my attention recently, and I thought it worth sharing ...

There is, therefore, an impressive body of highly authoritative translation that sees Genesis 1:1 as the creation of order our of chaos, and not creation ex nihilo. The distinction is not unimportant.

So how are we to determine which is true?