Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As to Eusebius he does not seem to understand that it does not matter whether 'hayah/hawyaw' can mean 'became.' I never said it could not mean such a thing nor did I ever say it could - that was not my argument. Ergo Strawman!
As such I pointed out that such a thing did not matter by quoting Heiser - yet I doubt he even takes the time to chew on it.
Yes, he will not understand that form of the argument, that's for sure. He will probably google something and get what a Fundamentalist website tries to say on the topic - but quite frankly, they aren't the best at Semitic languages, either heh heh! He seems to have on overall comphrehension problem to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
'This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view. It matters not that one can find ONE (count it) other example of the verb hayah (“to be”) in an identical grammatical construction that could be translated “became” (a key idea in the gap theory) precisely because the waw disjunctive that begins 1:2 forbids a linear sequence of events. (And the fact that a search for the identical construction with hayah in Gen 1:2 where the meaning can be “became” only yields one result should also tell us something about the grammatical merits of the gap theory).'
What I did argue is that in Gen.1:2 it CANNOT be translated 'became', the reasons for which he seems to be willfully ignorant and/or incapable of grasping. The fact that Isaiah says that God did not create the earth to be 'chaos' is also irrelevant since it is clear that Is. says he 'created', 'formed', 'made', and 'established it'to be inhabited - and when was it established that it might be inhabited? After SIX DAYS.
Bill T. Arnold, in his commentary, sums it up nicely:
The Bible's first paragraph - simple enough in English translation - is actually quite problematic in the Hebrew syntax. The first sentence of the Bible, indeed the first word, presents interpreters with some of the most complex and difficult questions of the Bible. Without getting into details here, the basic question is the syntactical relationship of v. 1 to v. 2, and the relationship of both of these together to v. 3.
To complicate matters further, debates about these verses are rarely conducted in a detached non-emotional manner based solely on the particulars of Hebrew syntax. Longstanding theological convictions about the subject matter often impinge upon the way interpreters read this text.
(The New Cambridge Bible Commentary: Genesis, pp. 34-35, 2009)
With certain theological biases in place, and armed with a lack of knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (and other related cognate languages), one can get into useless discussios with people who have only one goal in view: uphold their previously taught faith or tradition-based-view. Such attempts, thankully, are limited to Fundamentalists - as the rest of Christianity has long moved past clinging to older, out-dated views on the text. As Claus Westermann puts it, "the debate about the beginnings of the world and of humankind has long since passed from the field of religion to the field of science, and the Christian Churches of the last generations have renounced their claims to enter the lists in the scientific controversies" (Introduction to Genesis, p. 1, 19794, Trans. 1992). He does admit the power the story still has for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
I am not sure why he keeps stating that 'God did not create the earth out of nothing', as if that is what I am arguing, when I have clearly and numerously said otherwise.
Again - that reading comprehension thing. Perhaps he "read" what he wanted to "see", or entered the thread with assumptions as to what you were trying to state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
He acts as if there is only two positions: 1) Gen.1:2 being translated with 'became' and 2) creatio ex nihilo. FALSE DICHOTOMY.
The 3rd option, and the overwhemingly correct one, is that God created, formed and made from preexistingmaterial.There is no indication of a preexisting inhabited world that 'became' formless and void.
Correct.
Even the interpretation of Creatio Ex Nihilo took time to develop and manifested itself in later biblical works (most notably Isaiah), and was finally cemented into the mind by the Septuagint's rendering of the passage. Philo would later take the issue up (though scholars still debate much of what he was trying to say), and wrote:
By his account of the creation of he world of which we have spoken, Moses teaches us that the world came into being. [He specifically says] this because of those who think the world is without beginning and eternal, and who thus grant to God no superiority whatsoever.
(On the Creation 170-171)
Philo, being interested in a Greek philosphical approach, was interested in ideas about the existence of things from eternity, and this shows in his writings.
Other writings, from the Deutero-Canonical books and "intertestamental period" would hold both opinions - with Jubilees being especially interesting as saying "On the first day God created the upper heavens and the earth", which is surprisingly not entirely in line with Creatio Ex Nihilo (given the author and his usual apologetic stance - I think it shows most clearly that Creatio Ex Nihilo had not yet become cemented in tradition yet).
As to the idea that there was a Pre-Creation, that is another ancient interpretation that was trying to take care of contradictions and problems in the biblical text, and what had become normative interpretation of it. There's another thread floating around somewhere (cannot remember where) in which I gave a little history of that interpretation, and why it seems so secondary and questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
He should also take note of the NET Bible comment on verse 2, technical note #5 NET Bible® - Genesis 1 something I have more than once stated. The waw-disjunctive forbids it to be translated with 'became.' It is also prefixed to the noun not the verb. This coupled with the fact that we are dealing with a dependent clause and similar ANE cosmology absolutely mitigates against his interpretation PERIOD! END OF STORY!
The demons have been exercised! Always enjoy your thoughts woppers - and yes Fox's translation is much better in light of you points.
Ha ha - thanks! I enjoy yours, as well!
Hopefully we can move on and not get bogged down in Fundamentalist protestations anymore. They add nothing save for an air of quaintness to the environment.
By the way, if you are interested in a more detailed look at the grammar issues of Genesis 1, check out William P. Brown's Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Text of Genesis 1:1-2:3 (1993).
Shiloh1, that Isaiah in 45:18 is stating God did not create the earth a chaos but created it to be inhabited is related to Genesis 1:2 is what YOU think it means. I happen to think that Genesis 1:1 was that the earth was created to be inhabited but it BECAME chaos and vacant. You and I will never agree on this.
If the earth was not created chaos and vacant how do you figure that in Genesis 1:2 it IS chaos and vacant.
The earth did not become chaos and vacant after Genesis chapter 2.
For Genesis 1:2 to be translated "was" we then have God creating the earth chaos and vacant but Isaiah specifically tells is He did not create it that way. You are only giving fuel to the idea that there are terrible contradictions in the Bible.
Isa_45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else."
Therefore Genesis 1:1 is that God created the earth NOT a chaos. Genesis 1:2 shows it became a chaos.
Look at it this way. The Bible describes ages/eons. Each age/eon ends with a great earth shattering cataclysm.
There were two ages/eon before the one we are now living in.
The first eon was pristine with an earth created to be inhabited. That eon ended with the cataclysm of Genesis 1:2.
From 1:2 to the Flood of Noah is another eon. That eon ended with the world-wide flood.
We are in the present wicked eon (Gal.1:4).
If there were eons before this one that means there had to be a minimum of two.
This eon we are in now will end with an earth shattering earthquake in which all the cities of the nations will fall. This will usher in the millennium eon.
The millennium will end by a world-wide conflagration ushering in the final eon (the new heavens and new earth).
I bring this up to show you that there had to be two eons prior to the one we are in now: Genesis 1:1 to the catabole/cataclysm = an eon and Genesis 1:2 to the flood = an eon.
And just to reiterate, God did not create the universe out of nothing. It all came out of God.
From The Hermeneutical Spiral, discussing the different methodologies employed in Hermeneutics and Exegesis, Grant Osborne comments on the Synthetic Method being employed (the above post fits into the New Testamental model described below, in part):
In this method theological themes are traced through the biblical strata in relation to the various historical periods. Two different approaches are taken: some follow a history of religions approach that studies the sources and the changing theological situations (many Old Testament theologians), while others simply describe the differing theologies with little attempt to trace lines of continuity or devlopment (many New Testament theologians)....
The synthetic method can be artifical and subjective, since the categories can be easily imposed from outside (from theology) rather than arising naturally from within (from the text). Even when major concepts like covenant or kingdom are applied indiscriminately, the data itself can be ignored or twisted to fit the preconceived pattern.
(p. 278)
Obvious dangers arise from such a method, and the "unity of scripture" idea can easily silence the individual voice of the biblical authors, in favor of a "synthesis" of voices that is assumed to be one voice, and thus inter-interpretational.
And hawyaw is always translated as "became" or "came to be" in Genesis so it should be translated that way in 1:2 as well in spite of one's theological ideas one holds.
And yet there were eons before, we are in the current eon, and there are eons to come, no matter what methodology one uses to arrive at that conclusion.
By the way, I have started a new thread "Did the Earth Become Chaos and Vacant" so I am not accused of derailing this thread.
Last edited by Eusebius; 05-03-2012 at 09:23 AM..
05-03-2012, 10:55 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
From The Hermeneutical Spiral, discussing the different methodologies employed in Hermeneutics and Exegesis, Grant Osborne comments on the Synthetic Method being employed (the above post fits into the New Testamental model described below, in part):
In this method theological themes are traced through the biblical strata in relation to the various historical periods. Two different approaches are taken: some follow a history of religions approach that studies the sources and the changing theological situations (many Old Testament theologians), while others simply describe the differing theologies with little attempt to trace lines of continuity or devlopment (many New Testament theologians)....
The synthetic method can be artifical and subjective, since the categories can be easily imposed from outside (from theology) rather than arising naturally from within (from the text). Even when major concepts like covenant or kingdom are applied indiscriminately, the data itself can be ignored or twisted to fit the preconceived pattern.
(p. 278)
Obvious dangers arise from such a method, and the "unity of scripture" idea can easily silence the individual voice of the biblical authors, in favor of a "synthesis" of voices that is assumed to be one voice, and thus inter-interpretational.
Yeap! The theological bias and assumptive nature of those who believe that Genesis 1:2 must be translated with 'became' is fallacious on a few logical fronts beside the grammatical ones:
1) It is Circular Reasoning - They interpret Gen.1:1-3 in a certain way and as such interpret Isaiah 45:18 accordingly and vise-versa. They assume and then link and sync the two.
2) It is a non-sequitur - It does not necessarily follow that because Isaiah 45:18 was thinking in a certain way that the writer of Genesis 1:1-3 was thinking the same thing. This is based on an assumption of divine continuity.
3) It is a False Dichotomy - Either Gen.1:2 is translated with 'became' or the earth was created 'chaos.' Failure to see the 3rd option.
The Isaiah passage is tangential to and beside the main point - what does Genesis 1:1-3 say according to the grammar and not my biases. Isaiah and the writer of Gen.1:1-3 could contradict each other (although as I stated before this is not necessarily the case). But in order to avoid that conclusion based on theological biases and a false dichotomy they force Genesis and Isaiah to agree that there must have been a restituion of a previous earth - a gap between verses 1 and 2.
The fact is that Genesis 1:2 has been shown that it cannot be translated with 'became' - as such you either have to accept that Isaiah was in contradiction or accept that Isaiah was speaking of the SIX DAYS of creation and not an implicit one prior to verse 2 - but as noted that is besides the main point - what does Gen.1:1-3 say. It amazes me that this is not grasped.
It is simple really:
1) There was pre-existing material.
2) This material was described as 'darkness upon the face of Deep/Ocean.'
3) The earth was at this time unformed and unfilled.
4) Then God said 'Let there be light...' -the first day. The first creative act.
5) After six days of creating - the earth was created, formed, made, and inhabited.
As such there is no need for a contradiction with Isaiah and there is no need for any restitution hypothesis.
I know there is a Midrash that says Hashem created and destroyed the world several times (before what we count as day 1 in the Torah) before "landing" on the model we have now. How would that idea (indulge me and assume for the sake of the discussion that the Midrashim are correct) play into these concepts you've been discussing?
Whoppers wrote this as if I wrote it. IT IS NOT TRUE. I NEVER WROTE THOSE WORDS.:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius I like to wear pink dresses and curl my hair while listening to the Cure and cutting myself with razors. Besides that, you're a real inspiration to me, Whoppers! Would you permit me to become your loyal minion and do common household tasks for you? I promise I won't smell your hair while your sleeping after I sneak in to stare at you.
whoppers I am sure you are breaking the rules for posting that trash as if I wrote that!
Last edited by june 7th; 05-03-2012 at 05:20 PM..
Reason: Red is only to be used by mods for moderator actions in posts.
Yes, Eusebius - we all know that. I did it because you changed my quote to "blah blah blah blah", as you have done previously. The same thing happened to your own post as last time - I returned the favor, but with much more ZING!.
I hope you learned a valuable lesson in changing other people's quoted posts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Always enjoy your thoughts woppers - and yes Fox's translation is much better in light of you points. 
