Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

[Brian2]

Here's the first sentence of the Bible:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)

(The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition was published in 2019. The organization that holds the copyright on that version is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it represents the orthodox Christian interpretation in the United States.)
The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. There is no major Christian sect today that believes that.

I went back to your post 1 to answer the sentence I have bolded.
I can read your quote of Genesis 1:1-2 above and understand it to be saying that after the first stage of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was chaos and there was darkness over the face of the deep and a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
This in no way tells me that there was pre existing material.
If the translation said "Before God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." then I would understand it to be talking about a pre existing material.
When we read further in Genesis 1 we see an already existing earth being changed, the chaos being formed into something that we might recognise as the earth these days. This means that in that NRSVUE translation in verse 1 the earth and heavens must have been created. IOW it is not speaking of conditions before the creation of the heavens and earth, it is speaking of the condition of the earth when God began to create the heavens and the earth.
It does not say that both the heavens and earth were complete chaos, it says that only of the earth and so the focus has narrowed from the heavens and the earth to just the earth and then Genesis continues on with God doing other things to and on the earth to change it, to continue His creating and making of the earth.
So when you say that The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. , that is just your opinion and not the reality imo.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I went back to your post 1 to answer the sentence I have bolded.
I can read your quote of Genesis 1:1-2 above and understand it to be saying that after the first stage of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was chaos and there was darkness over the face of the deep and a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
This in no way tells me that there was pre existing material.

Hmmmm... If I were to say "When I began to wash my car it was covered in tree pollen," I don't think anyone would interpret that to mean that I first washed my car and then it was covered in tree pollen. Most people would interpret it to mean that my car was covered in tree pollen when I began the act of washing the car. It's the same here. When God began the act of the creation (by saying "Let there be light"), the earth was chaos and there was darkness over the deep. What do you suppose the "deep" is? It's the waters that fill the universe.

You:

When we read further in Genesis 1 we see an already existing earth being changed, the chaos being formed into something that we might recognise as the earth these days.

Yes, the Earth and the waters existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." That's what the author of this story believed, and that's what most people of that time believed. You're injecting your 21st century notions about the structure of the universe into a story that was written probably about 2500 years ago. People of that time didn't have telescopes. They believed that the Earth is a flat disk, that it is fixed and immovable at the center of the universe, and that the universe itself is filled with water. They couldn't even have imagined the concept of an interstellar vacuum.

You:

This means that in that NRSVUE translation in verse 1 the earth and heavens must have been created.

But the Heavens weren't created until Day 2. You've jumbled up the sequence of events.

It might help if you were to review this response I gave earlier to a contributor whose favorite translation is the Douay-Rhiems Bible:

DSM response to Kathryn

 

[Brian2]

Alright, let's start with that. Note that Genesis 1:1 above doesn't mention the waters. In fact the entire story never specifically mentions that God created the waters. And don't forget that according to the events of Day 2 the entire universe is filled with water. So the waters are crucially important to the story.

This is the translation you are replying to:
"1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. "
As you can see verse 1 tells us that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. So they already exist and in verse 2 it tells us some details of what already exists, what God had created already in the beginning. "The earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters."
What are the waters? Plainly they are the ocean.

Here's what the Douay-Rhiems Bible says in Genesis 1:8:

And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
(Genesis 1:8, Douay-Rheims)

So according to your preferred translation, Heaven wasn't created until Day 2. It therefore was not created before God said "Let there be light," despite the wording of Genesis 1:1. What Genesis 1:1 says therefore cannot be describing something God did before he said "Let there be light."

There are different meanings to the word "heaven". There is the heaven where God is with the angels etc. There is the heaven above the earth which contain the stars.
There is the heaven that we see when we look up, atmosphere and various colours, usually blue in the day.
The last one is what God made on day 2, the atmosphere which separated the ocean (waters below the expanse) from the clouds (the waters above the expanse).

In fact, Genesis 1:1 - 2 is best described as an introduction. It's the author telling you, the audience, "I'm going to tell you the story of the creation, and here's the state of the universe at the time the creation began."

There is another reason why the NRSVue version is correct as well. Look at the overall structure of the story. Elsewhere in the story, whenever God begins an action it is prefaced with the words "And God said." There is no such phrase in Genesis 1:1-2. That's because it doesn't describe an action taken by God. It's an introduction.

The NRSVue is simply making it clear that the story of the creation is based on the assumption that the substance of the Earth and the waters both preexisted before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." And that's because the author of the story was simply following a long held tradition in the ancient world that the universe was created from a preexisting chaos.

There are other places in the Bible which tell us that God spoke the heavens and the entire universe into existence. (eg Ps 33:6 and Hebrews 11:3)
So your interpretation of Genesis 1 disagrees with the rest of the bible.

BTW, the fact that there is so much disagreement-- as evidenced by the postings on this thread-- about the proper interpretation of the very first paragraph of the Bible is clear proof that God's plan to communicate his message via human language has been a miserable failure.

God's failure has proven to be very successful. Sure people always want to argue about the precise meaning of this or that passage, but they usually cannot deny the big picture, that God created it all

 

[Brian2]

Hmmmm... If I were to say "When I began to wash my car it was covered in tree pollen," I don't think anyone would interpret that to mean that I first washed my car and then it was covered in tree pollen. Most people would interpret it to mean that my car was covered in tree pollen when I began the act of washing the car. It's the same here. When God began the act of the creation (by saying "Let there be light"), the earth was chaos and there was darkness over the deep. What do you suppose the "deep" is? It's the waters that fill the universe.

Yes we do not clean something unless it is dirty. So before we clean something, it is dirty. That is a bad analogy however and disagrees with what is said in the Bible.
When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
You are saying that this means that the earth existed even before God created the earth. So your interpretation has to be nonsense. It can come back to being sensible if we see the When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, as meaning that when God started His creation of the heavens and the earth, it was not created completely formed and in order.

Yes, the Earth and the waters existed before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light." That's what the author of this story believed, and that's what most people of that time believed. You're injecting your 21st century notions about the structure of the universe into a story that was written probably about 2500 years ago. People of that time didn't have telescopes. They believed that the Earth is a flat disk, that it is fixed and immovable at the center of the universe, and that the universe itself is filled with water. They couldn't even have imagined the concept of an interstellar vacuum.

The act of creation began in Gen 1:1 in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth. (and we find out in other parts of the Bible that the heavens and the earth were created through His word.) Gen 1:1 does not have the command "Let there be heavens and the earth" but that they came about through His word was known even to people back then.
No I'm not really "injecting" anything into the story, but I am noticing that the story does agree (at least in part) with 21st century notions about the structure of the universe. IOWs science should be able to tell us what the true interpretation is if the science is accurate.
Of course this comes from someone who believes the Bible to be the truth. If you think the Bible is not and cannot possibly be true then you will probably never agree.
The whole thing about parts of the Bible such as the creation parts and the structure of the universe parts is that we see they are true when science has found out stuff. A similar thing happens with many prophecies in the Bible also, we see what they mean and that they are true only after the events.

But the Heavens weren't created until Day 2. You've jumbled up the sequence of events.

It might help if you were to review this response I gave earlier to a contributor whose favorite translation is the Douay-Rhiems Bible:

DSM response to Kathryn

As I said in the answer to your post to Kathryn, the atmosphere with the clouds above it was not brought about until day 2. The waters below it, the oceans, were already there, that is the deep and the waters over which the wind from God was moving. (verse 2)

 

[DavidSMoore]

Yes we do not clean something unless it is dirty. So before we clean something, it is dirty. That is a bad analogy however and disagrees with what is said in the Bible.
When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)

The example I gave shows that the word "Before" is not required, as you had insisted, so it is apt.

You:

You are saying that this means that the earth existed even before God created the earth. So your interpretation has to be nonsense. It can come back to being sensible if we see the When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, as meaning that when God started His creation of the heavens and the earth, it was not created completely formed and in order.

My interpretation has to be nonsense? Why? Most people of the time when this story was written actually believed that the universe was created from a pre-existing chaos, or from an ocean of water. We have clear proof of this from the writings of other cultures at the time. It was not nonsense to them. Maybe it seems like nonsense to you-- because of your 21st century notions of the cosmos-- but it would have made perfect sense to most people in Egypt and Mesopotamia at the time.

You:

The whole thing about parts of the Bible such as the creation parts and the structure of the universe parts is that we see they are true when science has found out stuff.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 all say that the Earth cannot move. That was disproved by Johannes Kepler in 1609 with the publication of his laws of planetary motion.

Also see this: Scientific analysis of the creation story

Science has found again and again that the stories of the Bible are just stories, not facts.

 

[Brian2]

The example I gave shows that the word "Before" is not required, as you had insisted, so it is apt.

It sounds like complete chaos to say that the earth existed before God made it.

My interpretation has to be nonsense? Why? Most people of the time when this story was written actually believed that the universe was created from a pre-existing chaos, or from an ocean of water. We have clear proof of this from the writings of other cultures at the time. It was not nonsense to them. Maybe it seems like nonsense to you-- because of your 21st century notions of the cosmos-- but it would have made perfect sense to most people in Egypt and Mesopotamia at the time.

Your interpretation is nonsense because the earth did not exist before God made it and yet you want to say that it did and that this is what the Bible means. It seems to me that you are reading the beliefs of other cultures into what the Bible says.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 all say that the Earth cannot move. That was disproved by Johannes Kepler in 1609 with the publication of his laws of planetary motion.

Yes and this is a good example of what I was saying. There was no reason for people to say that the earth moved until science showed that it did move. Then Bible believers realised that those verses that you cite, do not mean that the earth does not physically move. Those passages are understood differently these days. IOW science has helped us realise how the Bible should be interpreted.

Also see this: Scientific analysis of the creation story

Science has found again and again that the stories of the Bible are just stories, not facts.

It's amazing the strange ideas people come up with when interpreting the creation story and try to insert elements of modern science into it.
Once you start going off track, the whole thing is messed up. Is it any wonder that many Bible believers end up saying that the story is no more than a creation myth.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Your interpretation is nonsense because the earth did not exist before God made it and yet you want to say that it did and that this is what the Bible means. It seems to me that you are reading the beliefs of other cultures into what the Bible says.

Where did the author of the creation story get the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water? I think the most likely source would have been the Babylonian captivity. Psalm 137 says it was written on the banks of the Euphrates river in Babylon by an Israelite captive, so at least some parts of the Old Testament were written at that time. While there the Israelite captives would have heard many of the stories and myths that were popular in that region at that time. One such story would have been the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian myth of creation. That story says that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good (i.e. fresh) water from the bad (i.e. salty) water. So it would have been perfectly natural for the authors of the creation story to borrow ideas about the origin of the universe from other stories that were popular at the time.

You:

Yes and this is a good example of what I was saying. There was no reason for people to say that the earth moved until science showed that it did move. Then Bible believers realised that those verses that you cite, do not mean that the earth does not physically move. Those passages are understood differently these days. IOW science has helped us realise how the Bible should be interpreted.

Oh, I see-- these passages are understood differently. Then please explain what the correct interpretation is. Here's one of the relevant passages:

The LORD is king; he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed; he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
(Psalm 93;1, NRSVue)

Note that the Psalm says that God established the world and made it immovable. That seems pretty important. But of course, from a modern scientific point of view, it's nonsense.

While you're at it, could you also explain why the creation story says that the Earth, a rocky planet, existed before either the sun or the stars? The scientific narrative says that's nonsense.

Oh, and maybe you could tell us how long the creation took. The creation story says that God created the entire universe in 6 days. Here's the history of the universe as established by science:

Time	Event
0	Big Bang
10^(-35) second	Inflationary epoch: The universe grew in size by a factor of 10^28
15 seconds	Electron - positron annihilation
3 minutes	Big Bang nucleosynthesis: Creation of the first atomic nuclei other than 1Hydrogen: 2Hydrogen, 3Helium, 4Helium, 7Lithium
390,000 years	Recombination: Creation of the first neutral atoms, allowing the Cosmic Background Radiation to pass freely through the universe
< 1 billion years	Creation of the first stars
< 1 billion years	First globular clusters
1 - 2 billion years	Creation of the Milky Way galaxy
9.12 billion years	Creation of the Sun
9.18 billion years	Creation of the Earth
9.22 billion years	Creation of the Moon
13.719850 billion years	First appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth
13.72 billion years	Present day

Note that the time periods aren't even remotely close to 24 hours. In fact, they're not even consistent. So the Bible's claim that the creation took exactly 6 days is nonsense.

Note also that the above history says that the Moon was created after the Sun. The Bible says they were both created on the same day (Day #4). So that, too, is nonsense.

 

[Brian2]

Where did the author of the creation story get the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water? I think the most likely source would have been the Babylonian captivity. Psalm 137 says it was written on the banks of the Euphrates river in Babylon by an Israelite captive, so at least some parts of the Old Testament were written at that time. While there the Israelite captives would have heard many of the stories and myths that were popular in that region at that time. One such story would have been the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian myth of creation. That story says that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good (i.e. fresh) water from the bad (i.e. salty) water. So it would have been perfectly natural for the authors of the creation story to borrow ideas about the origin of the universe from other stories that were popular at the time.

Where did you get the idea that the author of the creation story had the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water? That sounds like it is from other cultures and stories of creation, as you say. It is not from the Bible.
As I said, you are reading those other stories into the Bible when they are not there. Anthropologists seem to do that sort of thing, presume that religions are not true and that they originated from other stories of the day. That is also what people like Richard Carrier does when he says that the Old Testament and gospel stories were made up and inspired by other stories of the time from surrounding cultures.

Oh, I see-- these passages are understood differently. Then please explain what the correct interpretation is. Here's one of the relevant passages:

The LORD is king; he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed; he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
(Psalm 93;1, NRSVue)
That means that the earth is established by God and will last forever because God is in control.

While you're at it, could you also explain why the creation story says that the Earth, a rocky planet, existed before either the sun or the stars? The scientific narrative says that's nonsense.

Oh, and maybe you could tell us how long the creation took. The creation story says that God created the entire universe in 6 days. Here's the history of the universe as established by science:

Time	Event
0	Big Bang
10^(-35) second	Inflationary epoch: The universe grew in size by a factor of 10^28
15 seconds	Electron - positron annihilation
3 minutes	Big Bang nucleosynthesis: Creation of the first atomic nuclei other than 1Hydrogen: 2Hydrogen, 3Helium, 4Helium, 7Lithium
390,000 years	Recombination: Creation of the first neutral atoms, allowing the Cosmic Background Radiation to pass freely through the universe
< 1 billion years	Creation of the first stars
< 1 billion years	First globular clusters
1 - 2 billion years	Creation of the Milky Way galaxy
9.12 billion years	Creation of the Sun
9.18 billion years	Creation of the Earth
9.22 billion years	Creation of the Moon
13.719850 billion years	First appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth
13.72 billion years	Present day

Note that the time periods aren't even remotely close to 24 hours. In fact, they're not even consistent. So the Bible's claim that the creation took exactly 6 days is nonsense.

Note also that the above history says that the Moon was created after the Sun. The Bible says they were both created on the same day (Day #4). So that, too, is nonsense.

What science tells us about the age of the universe and what happened and when may even be correct, even though it is an evolving story. That Bible creation story does not contradict that unless you insist on the Young Earth Creationist interpretation of the story, and that is what skeptics who deny the Bible creation account have to do.
As for the sun and moon being created on day 4, that is probably a YEC interpretation. The Bible actually does not say that they were created on day 4, it tells us that God made them on day 4 and that word "made" means "brought about, in the broadest sense".
The way it can be interpreted is that the heavens and earth were created on day one and so the sun and moon existed and no doubt were evolving, and as Genesis 1: 2 tells us and other passages, like Job 38:9, there was darkness on the surface of the earth (waters) because the earth was covered in thick cloud.
By the end of day 1 light was coming through the cloud but it was not until day 4 that the heavenly bodies could be seen in the sky, heavens.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Where did you get the idea that the author of the creation story had the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water? That sounds like it is from other cultures and stories of creation, as you say. It is not from the Bible.

Simple, and I've explained it several times before.

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky.
(Genesis 1:6-8, NRSVue)

You are interpreting the waters above as rain clouds. But the much more natural reading is that the universe began as an ocean of water and that God created the Earth's atmosphere by inserting a dome "in the midst of the waters." The atmosphere (a.k.a. "Sky") includes clouds. So clouds wouldn't be residing in a separate realm above the dome. They would be under the dome, along with the rest of the sky.

Besides, here's what the story says about the Sun, the Moon, and the stars:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth."
(Genesis 1:14-15, NRSVue; my emphasis)

So the Sun and the Moon and the stars are all inside the dome! If the "waters above" are rain clouds that reside above the dome, then those rain clouds would be above the Sun and the Moon and the stars! No, the "waters above" cannot be rain clouds.

The picture that the author imagined was of a flat, disk shaped Earth with a dome shaped sky above it-- meaning that the dome of the sky has the same diameter as a disk shaped Earth, about 16,000 miles. That would make the maximum altitude of the sky about 8,000 miles. (The actual altitude of the Earth's atmosphere is about 6,200 miles.) The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were all points of light on the inside of the dome. And the "waters above" were the primordial waters that filled the universe before God began the act of creation by saying "Let there be light."

The actual distance between Earth and Moon is about 235,000 miles.
The actual distance between Earth and the Sun is about 93,000,000 miles.
The actual distance between the Earth and the nearest star is about 4 light years.

The Biblical cosmology is just plain wrong.

You:

As for the sun and moon being created on day 4, that is probably a YEC interpretation. The Bible actually does not say that they were created on day 4, it tells us that God made them on day 4 and that word "made" means "brought about, in the broadest sense".
The way it can be interpreted is that the heavens and earth were created on day one and so the sun and moon existed and no doubt were evolving, and as Genesis 1: 2 tells us and other passages, like Job 38:9, there was darkness on the surface of the earth (waters) because the earth was covered in thick cloud.
By the end of day 1 light was coming through the cloud but it was not until day 4 that the heavenly bodies could be seen in the sky, heavens.

Wow, that is easily the most tortured reading of the story that I've ever heard. Here's more of the events of Day 4:

God made the two great lights-- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-- and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.
(Genesis 1:16-18, NRSVue)

I think most people would interpret the phrase "God made the two great lights" to mean that God created them at that time, on Day 4, not that he switched them on during Day 4. And the story specifically says that God "set them in the dome of the sky." That happened on Day 4. So where were those lights in the time between Day 1 and Day 4? I think the answer is simple: they didn't exist until Day 4, when God made them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Very true. And that poses an interesting dilemma. Imagine that you are a divine being who has an extremely important message that you wish to disseminate to all the peoples of the world. What would be the best method for doing that? The use of human language would seem to be one of the least reliable. In the first place there is no one language that is spoken universally-- and there never has been such a language. Secondly, human languages evolve. Thirdly, the human languages are replete with cultural nuances that are difficult to render in other languages. All in all it would be better to find another method for conveying divine truths.

I read over this thread and the varying nuances of how to interpret the Genesis. I do not find the varying nuances due to translation is meaningful considering the Genesis account is an evolved ancient cultural view of Creation thousands of years old without specific literary provenance. There is unlikely one correct interpretation dependent on the subjective perspective of many different religious or cultural perspectives.

The only other method for conveying "knowledge" of the nature and history of our physical existence is the evolving knowledge of science. This would be true regardless of whether one believes in a Divine Creation or simple a natural nature of out physical existence.

It is very questionable to find a resolution of ancient Creation accounts "as a way of conveying Divine Truths" from the many varied ancient religions and cultures.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I read over this thread and the varying nuances of how to interpret the Genesis. I do not find this meaningful considering the Genesis account is an evolved ancient cultural view of Creation thousands of years old without specific literary provenance. There is unlikely one correct interpretation dependent on the subjective perspective of many different religious or cultural perspectives.

I think the original frame of mind of the author of the creation story has become more evident with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition in 2019. That version has replaced the use of the obsolete English word "firmament" with the word "dome," which is much closer to the meaning of the underlying Hebrew word. As a result the NRSVue has made the nature of the biblical cosmology far more evident to English reading audiences. The change in the wording of the first paragraph has also helped to make it clear that the author believed that the substances of the Earth and the waters both preexisted, though as the preceding discussions in this thread have shown there are many who strongly disagree with that reading.

I completely agree that the story of the creation has no specific literary provenance. In an earlier post I suggested that the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water may have originated in the Enuma Elish. But that's just an inference, not an established fact. Ancient authors didn't cite their sources.

The case of the story of the flood is, I think, very different. That story has a roughly 2,000 year provenance before its inclusion in the book of Genesis. So I think we're entitled to say that we know where it came from and how it evolved over time.

But overall-- yes, I agree that what we encounter in the creation story is a jumble of notions and ideas from the cultural and literary milieu of the time, and that we'll probably never be able to trace a specific provenance.

You:

The only other method for conveying "knowledge" of the nature and history of our physical existence is the evolving knowledge of science. This would be true regardless of whether one believes in a Divine Creation or simple a natural nature of out physical existence.

I agree with that assessment 100%.

You:

It is very questionable to find a resolution of ancient Creation accounts "as a way of conveying Divine Truths" from the many varied ancient religions and cultures.

Totally agree.

Maybe I'm not understanding the overall thrust of your comment. I think we pretty much agree with one another, but perhaps with differences of emphasis. Or perhaps my original posting wasn't very clear. I'll try again:

If I were a divine being and I wanted all the people of Earth to know and understand my all-important message, would I use human natural language to convey that message? I say no, for all the reasons I cited in my earlier posting:

• There is no one language that is spoken universally-- and there never has been such a language.
• Human languages evolve.
• Human languages are replete with cultural nuances that are difficult to render in other languages.

All of the above mean that the all-important message I want to deliver will have to be mediated by human translators, and all translations involve nuances that can obscure the original intent and meaning. So human language simply isn't an ideal method for conveying divine truths. And the many disagreements expressed in this thread about the meanings of the words in the story itself-- as conveyed in the various English language translations that have been on review-- is proof positive that human language has failed to convey a single, crystal clear message in even the very first paragraph of the Bible. So if I were a divine being (full disclosure: I'm not), I would want to choose a different method other than human language for the dissemination of my all-important message.

Does that help?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the original frame of mind of the author of the creation story has become more evident with the publication of the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition in 2019. That version has replaced the use of the obsolete English word "firmament" with the word "dome," which is much closer to the meaning of the underlying Hebrew word. As a result the NRSVue has made the nature of the biblical cosmology far more evident to English reading audiences. The change in the wording of the first paragraph has also helped to make it clear that the author believed that the substances of the Earth and the waters both preexisted, though as the preceding discussions in this thread have shown there are many who strongly disagree with that reading.

I completely agree that the story of the creation has no specific literary provenance. In an earlier post I suggested that the idea that the universe began as an ocean of water may have originated in the Enuma Elish. But that's just an inference, not an established fact. Ancient authors didn't cite their sources.

The case of the story of the flood is, I think, very different. That story has a roughly 2,000 year provenance before its inclusion in the book of Genesis. So I think we're entitled to say that we know where it came from and how it evolved over time.

But overall-- yes, I agree that what we encounter in the creation story is a jumble of notions and ideas from the cultural and literary milieu of the time, and that we'll probably never be able to trace a specific provenance.

You:



I agree with that assessment 100%.

You:



Totally agree.

Maybe I'm not understanding the overall thrust of your comment. I think we pretty much agree with one another, but perhaps with differences of emphasis. Or perhaps my original posting wasn't very clear. I'll try again:

If I were a divine being and I wanted all the people of Earth to know and understand my all-important message, would I use human natural language to convey that message? I say no, for all the reasons I cited in my earlier posting:

• There is no one language that is spoken universally-- and there never has been such a language.
• Human languages evolve.
• Human languages are replete with cultural nuances that are difficult to render in other languages.

All of the above mean that the all-important message I want to deliver will have to be mediated by human translators, and all translations involve nuances that can obscure the original intent and meaning. So human language simply isn't an ideal method for conveying divine truths. And the many disagreements expressed in this thread about the meanings of the words in the story itself-- as conveyed in the various English language translations that have been on review-- is proof positive that human language has failed to convey a single, crystal clear message in even the very first paragraph of the Bible. So if I were a divine being (full disclosure: I'm not), I would want to choose a different method other than human language for the dissemination of my all-important message.

Does that help?

I consider the evolution of God's Revelation is in some ways indirect and spiritual knowledge is more in between the lines and fallible humans compiled it based on the limits of their knowledge over the millennia., times and culture of all the different religions of the world. through the history of humanity for over 300.000 years.

I have reread your commentary on Genesis and find it interesting, To be more meaningful I believe we have to connect the dots of the evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity over the millennia.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very true. And that poses an interesting dilemma. Imagine that you are a divine being who has an extremely important message that you wish to disseminate to all the peoples of the world. What would be the best method for doing that? The use of human language would seem to be one of the least reliable. In the first place there is no one language that is spoken universally-- and there never has been such a language. Secondly, human languages evolve. Thirdly, the human languages are replete with cultural nuances that are difficult to render in other languages. All in all it would be better to find another method for conveying divine truths.

Interesting question you bring up about a divine being wanting to disseminate a message. Yes, how would such a one do that? In my impression, it would be quite aptly through the Bible. But that's me and obviously not everybody. Nevertheless, it makes sense.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I consider the evolution of God's Revelation is in some ways indirect and spiritual knowledge is more in between the lines and fallible humans compiled it based on the limits of their knowledge over the millennia., times and culture of all the different religions of the world. through the history of humanity for over 300.000 years.

I can accept that. The story of the creation is noble and beautifully told. Same goes for most of the biblical writings. (But Numbers has to be one of the most boring books ever written.) There is much of spiritual value in the Bible, and we should treasure those parts. But there is also much in the Bible that just doesn't make any sense-- and it shouldn't be considered some sort of moral defect, or a sign of evil intent, to call out such passages and to discuss them in the cold light of day.

You:

I have reread your commentary on Genesis and find it interesting, To be more meaningful I believe we have to connect the dots of the evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity over the millennia.

Agree.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting question you bring up about a divine being wanting to disseminate a message. Yes, how would such a one do that? In my impression, it would be quite aptly through the Bible. But that's me and obviously not everybody. Nevertheless, it makes sense.

It only makes sense through circular reasoning that the Bible is the only way God transmites God's message, ignoring the broader more universal evidence of science and the nature of humanity and the 300,000 years of human existence, and the many variations of Christianity, other religions and cultures that do not share your beliefs.

Your view is extremely selective and egocentric as to how a universal, omnipotent, all powerful and all knowing God, beyond your worldview.

There is a severe problem if what you believe is the only true dissemination of knowledge when it is in conflict with very basic consistent fundamental knowledge of science.

 

[Brian2]

Here's the first sentence of the Bible:

(The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition was published in 2019. The organization that holds the copyright on that version is the National Council of Churches of the United States of America. So it represents the orthodox Christian interpretation in the United States.)
The above passage clearly states that God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the earth and the waters. There is no major Christian sect today that believes that. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says:

So the Catholic Church believes the exact opposite of what the very first sentence of the Bible actually says. The same is true of the other major Christian sects.

Here's what the Bible says happened on Day 2:

Note that the above passage says that there are waters above the dome. Why would there be waters above the Earth's sky? Answer: Because the author of this *Staff Edit* believed that the universe is a giant ocean of water. And why would anyone believe such a thing? The fact is that there were many people throughout the ancient world who ardently believed exactly that-- and we have clear evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites were in direct contact with them. For example the Bible says that the Israelites were held captive in Egypt for 430 years. That would have been plenty of time for them to have learned of the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Egypt. One of the several stories of the creation that was popular in ancient Egypt originated in the city of On. That narrative said that the universe began as an ocean of water, that a mound of fertile earth appeared and that the god Atum created himself and then engendered the gods Shu and Tefnut. And between the three of them they created everything else in the universe.
And there was the Babylonian captivity. In 597 BCE the Neo-Babylonian empire conquered the kingdom of Judah and hauled off its elites to the city of Babylon to serve the empire. We know that at least some parts of the Bible were written in Babylon since Psalm 137 specifically states that it was written in the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates river. While there the Israelites would surely have heard the Enuma Elish-- the Babylonian myth of creation. That story said that the universe began as an ocean of water and that the first act of the creation was the separation of the good water (i.e. fresh) from the bad water (i.e. salty).
As far as I am aware there are no modern Christians who actually believe that the universe is an ocean of water. And if there are I would have to ask: How exactly did the Apollo astronauts get to and from the Moon? Did they swim?

Note also that the Day 2 passage cited above says that the sky (i.e. the atmosphere) is dome shaped. Why would God have created a dome shaped atmosphere over a spherical Earth? Answer: He wouldn't have. He would only have created a dome-shaped atmosphere over a flat, disk-shaped Earth. And that's because the author of the *edit* believed that the Earth is a flat disk.
I know there are a few people who still believe that the Earth is flat, and yes I'm familiar with the lunacy advocated by The Flat Earth Society: The Flat Earth Society. But any flat earth model is easily disproved. In the "naive" flat Earth model the sun revolves around the Earth in a plane that is perpendicular to the plane of the Earth. But such a model makes no accounting of time zones, since observers anywhere on the Earth would see the sun rise and set at exactly the same time. As for the Flat Earth Society's model, the sun revolves in an orbit above and parallel to the plane of the Earth. In that model the sun would neither rise nor set.

There is not one substantive fact about the creation-- and evolution-- of the universe that the *edit* the Bible got right. Some Christians may disagree violently with that statement, but I don't think that even the most ardent defenders of the *edit* would agree with what the first sentence of the story actually says. So let's first agree as to the meaning of the very first sentence of the Bible and then we can talk about other aspects of the 13.7 billion year evolution of the universe. If we can't even agree on that then there's no point in trying to argue about the rest of the *edit*.

I sort of disappeared but will get back to trying to answer your last post to me.
In the meantime, have you seen the following video which also does not see anything pre existing that God made stuff from. It explains Genesis 1:1-3 almost as I have seen it, even with the alternative translation.

If anything that alternative translation helps us to understand what Genesis 1:1-3 is about from my pov and does not alter the meaning.

 

[shunyadragon]

I sort of disappeared but will get back to trying to answer your last post to me.
In the meantime, have you seen the following video which also does not see anything pre existing that God made stuff from. It explains Genesis 1:1-3 almost as I have seen it, even with the alternative translation.

If anything that alternative translation helps us to understand what Genesis 1:1-3 is about from my pov and does not alter the meaning.

I would like to hear your response, because the video you presented is nothing more than a nostalgic flag waving very extreme justification for an extreme Christian agenda.

 

[Brian2]

I would like to hear your response, because the video you presented is nothing more than a nostalgic flag waving very extreme justification for an extreme Christian agenda.

Response to what?

 

[Brian2]

I would like to hear your response, because the video you presented is nothing more than a nostalgic flag waving very extreme justification for an extreme Christian agenda.

The 1985 Jewish Publication Society translation of Genesis 1:1-3
1
Bere****
When God began to create heaven and earth—
the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—
God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

I presume you want me to respond to this translation. I have done that already, but will do it again.
To me it shows that God did not just create the heavens and the earth fully formed and ready to be lived. The creation was on going, and when God began to create the heaven and earth the earth was unformed and void, meaning that it did not have the features it has now, and there was darkness over the surface of an ocean on the earth. (Job 38:9 tells us that the darkness was caused by the earth being surrounded in cloud). Then God said "Let there be light........." and since we have a geocentric vantage point, about the earth and what was happening there, that means that light reached the earth surface (ocean) through the clouds,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that would have been light from the sun, moon and stars which God had begun to create also in verse 1.
This is how I understand the usual English translations that I read, so the JPS translation shows nothing different for me, however I know that there are a number of ways to read and understand the usual English Translations around (eg the KJV) and think that the JPS translation might help some people understand the passage more easily.

 

[DavidSMoore]

To me it shows that God did not just create the heavens and the earth fully formed and ready to be lived. The creation was on going, and when God began to create the heaven and earth the earth was unformed and void, meaning that it did not have the features it has now, and there was darkness over the surface of an ocean on the earth.

There’s nothing in the story that says that God created either the substance of the Earth or the waters. You are assuming he did so.

My interpretation is based on the fact that the belief that the universe began as an ocean of water was widespread at the time that this story was written-- and we have evidence from the Bible itself that the Israelites came into direct contact with people who held that belief. So it would have been perfectly natural for the authors of the Bible to have written a story that was based on the idea of a universe filled with water.

As for the idea that the darkness was over an ocean on the Earth, that neglects the fact that the events of Day 2 specifically say that there are waters above the sky. You earlier claimed that those waters were contained in rain clouds. But the story also says that on Day 4 God set the sun, the moon, and the stars inside the dome of the sky. So the waters that are above the dome of the sky must be above the sun, the moon, and the stars. That’s not a description of an ocean on the earth. That’s a description of a universe filled with water. Your picture of the biblical cosmology is upside down.

(Job 38:9 tells us that the darkness was caused by the earth being surrounded in cloud). Then God said "Let there be light........." and since we have a geocentric vantage point, about the earth and what was happening there, that means that light reached the earth surface (ocean) through the clouds,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and that would have been light from the sun, moon and stars which God had begun to create also in verse 1.
This is how I understand the usual English translations that I read, so the JPS translation shows nothing different for me, however I know that there are a number of ways to read and understand the usual English Translations around (eg the KJV) and think that the JPS translation might help some people understand the passage more easily.

The story says that God created light on Day 1. It doesn’t say anything about creating the sun, the moon, or the stars at that time. Again, you are assuming that’s what was meant. I see no reason to make that assumption. It’s far more natural to assume that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars when the story says God made them-- on Day 4, not Day 1.

You seem to think that this story is compatible with modern concepts of cosmology-- and again I see no reason to make that assumption. There is nothing else the story of the creation got right. Why would anyone believe that its cosmology is right?