This article at Telegraph has me thinking...
"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."
If we are STILL not sure what the words in the bible actually mean, how is it so many people treat it as a book of facts?
Certainly this will spark "robust debate" as the article claims. What I want to know is, if scholars still are not universally convinced of what the bible says in the very first verse, what else have they interpreted incorrectly?"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."There was already water," she said."
15 comments:
The easiest option, of course, is not to take the Genesis creation story as literally true. Even if one does accept its factuality, however, Ellen van Wolde is in the minority. The word "bara" is generally accepted as meaning "he created". Even if one accepts her interpretation, it could just mean that the events of Genesis occurred after God had already created the rest of the universe.
Personally I think the whole purpose of the Genesis creation myth is as a polemic against the other creation myths current in the Ancient Near East; basically something along the lines of "We accept your basic story, but our God did it, not your gods." It's less concerned with historical/factual accuracy than with giving credit where credit's due, so to speak.
I agree with you Barry.
I'm just stirring the pot here...but it DOES interest me that after hundreds of years people are still investigating differing interpretations...because this would indicate to me that there is no real consensus on much of the bible.
I like to think it's conceivable that we have many things wrong due primarily to errors in interpretations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very first manuscripts of the scriptures recorded a story that was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years before ever being written down.
Quite true.
Differences in interpretation have been responsible for every major schism (even as far back as the split between Christianity and Judaism). The amazing thing is that every little sect is convinced that it has the definitive, God-sanctioned, true interpretation. Is it really so hard to admit that we may be wrong - indeed, that on some things we may all be wrong?
I think the world would be a happier place if we did.
I have always been a heretic for one fact...I have never been able to accept that English versions of the bible can have absolutely everything right...because I have learned another language (one so closely related to English as French and Spanish) I KNOW how much can be lost in interpretation. Now take an ancient and unrelated language and what happens?
And I have never been able to accept that somehow God miraculously "led" the translators of the bible into English and other languages, so that they are "perfect". For that, there are vast differences just between the ENGLISH translations alone.
Again, quite true. It's an odd historical trend that the older a translation is, the more authoritative it is believed to be. Thus the Vulgate and the King James version both, in their turn, came to be seen as equal in authority with the original texts by sizeable portions of the Church.
In fact, the same thing seems to happen with many facets of Christian thought: the older an idea is, the more we treat it as unassailable. We forget that the person who came up with that idea was as fallible as you or me. (Excepting, of course, my left foot, which as we both know is an infallible yellow submarine. But the rest of me is fallible.)
Well for our current stream of history, I do not believe that God created the earth for it. He had already used it to play with his dinosaurs. Then just retrofitted it for humans.
OH, I just read the comments. No, I am not right. The more I learned, the more my beliefs change, so how can I ever be right?
Erin,
These kinds of things are what have thrown me into a frenzy over the past two years of my deconstruction. For some irritating reason, I have a need to KNOW. It's probably the "J" in my personality. I want to cut to the chase, give me the facts, and now let's move on. Christian doctrine leaves me constantly wanting to fling the bible against the wall and say "nobody knows so shut up!" I realize that's aggressive...sorry... it just frustrates me. Not your post, mind you.
Rant over --
What I mean to say is this:
I agree that we are being asked to believe in a system that is just unbelievable. Your point is exactly right - if no one can agree on what the first sentence of the cannon even means, I find it a total waste of effort to struggle to fit my life within the confounds of it all.
Peace and love baby.. ;-)
Barry - it's an interesting phenomenon...especially considering how language changes over centuries.
Nate - So true. I think I'm generally afraid of someone whose beliefs don't change.
Totally, Michelle. I truly do not think God ever intended for us to take the bible as literal fact, but rather as his heart towards us in the big picture.
I have been thinking about this post for several days. I agree - if there is a difference in opinion in the very first verse, then there is breathing space for everyone, hah :)
I was listening to a fascinating account a few weeks ago on my local radio station by an Oxford evolutionary scientist, Andrew Parker, who claims that Genesis backs up evolutionary theory. It fascinating, not least because the show host, Phillip Adams, who I love love and love, is quite the atheist and was quite curmudgeonly about the whole thing, haha. But yeah, here's the link if you're at all interested:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2682894.htm
I can't tell you how glad I am there is not a lot of consensus on the Bible. I hope there is less consensus!! Less!!! It's better for us, it is. Topple the Bible off its pedestal where we put it as king so we didn't have to think for ourselves on anything. Always been the way. The people always ask for a king, they don't want look in and find out for themselves.
(Geez Louise I don't sound like a Christian do I? And I am - more than ever! Strange :)
Good ranting, Michelle :)
Hey Erin!
You would enjoy the OT class I'm taking this term...I know I am enjoying it!
The professor keeps bringing us back to 2 questions to ask as we read...what point was the author trying to make and what would the original listeners have heard?
The "literalist" in class are sure squirming with this approach!!!
I miss you!!!
Sue - I'm glad too. One thing that changed my view of the bible was Brian McLaren saying that Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel represented different stages of humanity. Hunters/gatherers, herders, farmers. Oooeee...and it makes perfect sense.
Sounds amazing, Donna. So many people want to avoid contextualizing the bible, saying what was true then is still true today...but there is so much to be learned by thinking about it in context.
Post a Comment