Genesis 1:1-3 (exist, Christ, philosophy, religion)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

OH BOY! You do realize that this article is agaisnt the Gap Theory - and so is Dr. Fields who wrote 'Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1,2' - specifically against Custance's book 'Without Form and Void'

I do not agree with all of what this article says but here is a snippet of his conclusion.

'The previous sections of this paper have attempted to demonstrate that the so called “gap theory” is unacceptable from several points of view...As to the theory’s relation to Scriptural content, it has been shown that the claimed “proofs” are superficial and mostly contradictive to the immediate and overall context of the verses applied.'

It is really sad when you have not even read the material you are using as a counter to my arguments but even more so when the material is against your own.

Good post! I must admit, that from merely reading Eusebius' words I received the impression that "Dr. Fields" (it's always funny to see someone put "Dr" at the beginning of a name as an appeal to authority) was representative of the strange Gap Theory. It's a good thing you pointed that out ha ha! Poor Weston Fields was looking pretty silly for a while there.

I Can't Resist - I'm Sorry
In looking up the book you mention, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, I came across some reviews on Amazon.com, and among the negative reviews I found some hilarious Eusebian-like comments here:

This book was written as a rebuke of Arthur Custances 'Without form and Void' which is why you won't find a very convincing argument for his interpretation but rather a rebuke of someone elses position. What I find interesting is all of Custances work can be read for free here [...] but I am unable to find any copy of Fields work to read on the web. HMM?...

And so it seems one of the AUTHORITIES stepped up to the plate and supposedly hit a home run.

(Jason, who decides the merits of a book's content by the book's price! Lovely use of the word "rebuke", by the way!)

and Timothy's dislike of "verbiage":

I want to second what an earlier reviewer said about the two biggest faults of this book. First, he spends so much verbiage tearing down another view he fails to prove his own. Second, he constantly referred to what he claims the Hebrew means. I know these guys think this makes them look smart and use it to put down others and stifle debate. Frankly, one who isn't a Hebrew scholar has absolutely no way of knowing if what he's saying is right. I'm not entirely sure what I believe on this subject and I'm respectful of all views. I wish someone would write on this without an agenda.

(Timothy A. Owen "Ranger 2000" doesn't like them educamated-type folks with their fancy-schmancy ability to read Biblical Hebrew, and he can't figure out who is telling the truth in this agenda-filled controversy! But he's respectful of all views, even those fancy-schmancy Hebrew people who "thinks this makes them look smart and use it to put down others and stifle debate" ha ha!)

Earnest also feels that Hebrew is bad:

This book spends more time trying to disprove another view than supporting his own views. This leaves those who are trying to determine which view is correct without any additional information. In addition the writer gives some detailed principles of the Hebrew Language, which the reader has no way to prove of disprove. I would like a book that gives a detailed view of the creation story with Scripture to prove the contention.

(Earnest, who misunderstands what the Burden of Proof means, and what a refutation is designed to do. Oh, and he doesn't like Hebrew, as well. Oh, that GD Hebrew!)

Karen finds the book boring and likes synonyms - just like God!

This is a very good book for pastors,ministers,or priests. It shows how the Hebrew and Greek can be translated to give the true meaning of what the men of God were inspired to write. As for me it was a little over my head. I got the point he was making in the first two chapters. In my writing education, I was taught to use different words with the same meaning so as not to bore or confuse the reader. Thus it does not surprise me that God would do the same thing, after all He created us.

(Karen L. Heebner makes the astounding claim that God learned to read and write using the same educational system as she did. Amazing! With a pair of scissors, and the excising of anything after Chapter 2, she might actually like this book a little more! Cliff Notes is more her style. Owns 2 poodles. Enjoys long walks on the beach. Frequently forgets to leave the house with her helmet. Rides bikes. Is the life of every party, as long as she is armed with an arsenal of synonyms.)

Oh yes - people like this DO exist, and their comments are just precious (and self-revealing at the same time)!

Creatio Ex Nihilo through the ages
But back on the actual subject (as opposed to what certain Amazon.com reviewers and Gap-Theory people believe) and how we eventually got the concept, David Winston writes that

the concept of creation ex nihilo formed no part of Greek philosophical thought or of Jewish Hellenistic or rabbinic thought, and its first explicit formulation appeared in second-century Christian literature, (where, undoubtedly under the impetus of the Gnostic challenge) the argument for a double creation is made on the grounds that creation out of an eternal primordial element would compromise the soverignity of God (Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 5; Theophilus Ad Autolycum 2.4,10, ad fin.).
(Anchor Bible Series: The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, pp. 39-40, Doubleday, 1979)

A verse from The Wisdom of Solomon reflects this view while speaking of God's might and the Egyptians:

For your all-powerful hand
which created the world out of formless matter
did not lack the means to send upon them an army of bears or brazen lions...
(Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, AB)

Winston is a good writer to be weighing in on the subject, and was involved in a fairly famous (well, among certain circles heh heh!) debate which consisted of Winston's "The Book of Wisdom's Theory of Cosmogony" (History of Religions, pp. 185-202, 1971), followed by Jonathan Goldstein's attempt to rebut in "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo" (Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 127-35, 1984), and then in Winston's "Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein" (Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 88-92, 1986), and Golstein's admittedly backpedaling in "Creation ex nihilo: Recantations and Restatements" (Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 38, 1987). Oh it's too much fun!

For a quick rundown on the evolution of the concept, see Kugel's Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Harvard, 1988) - his section on "The Creation of the World". One can see how interpreters moved towards a Creation Ex Nihilo view to reach that 2nd Century Christian landing point that Winston mentioned above.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

OH BOY! You do realize that this article is agaisnt the Gap Theory - and so is Dr. Fields who wrote 'Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1,2' - specifically against Custance's book 'Without Form and Void'

I thought it would be good to reference what the gap theory was from the perspective of someone who didn't believe it but one who nonetheless explained exactly what it was in an unbiased manner. Though I don't agree with the person who wrote against it I still believe he got it pretty much right about what the gap theory represented.

An interesting fact is that he mentions two verses with the same grammatical construction - Jonah 3:3 and Gen.1:2. Here they are:

Jonah

וְנִֽינְוֵ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה

'Now Nineveh was an exceedngly great city of three days journey.'

Nineveh did not become a city of three days journey.

Notice the first part of the verse: 'So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the YHWH.'

Then the parenthesis...

Then 'And Jonah began to enter into the city...'

Actually you are incorrect in your idea. Here is the verse in a properly translated literal Bible:


וְנִֽינְוֵ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה
Jon 3:3 And Jonah is rising and going to Nineveh, according to the word of Yahweh. Now Nineveh had become a great city to Elohim, of three days walking."
This could also be translated: ". . . Now Nineveh came to be a great city to Elohim . . . ."

This is like Gen.1:1-3 - Note both the waw-cojunctives and the verbal form qal/pefective in verse 2.

Genesis

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה

Now the earth was...

Note both the waw-cojunctives and the verbal form qal/perfective in verse 2


וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה

2
As for the earth, it came to be a chaos and vacant,

[Eusebius]

And yet for all whoppers verbosity neither he nor you can prove that there were not eons prior to the one in which we are living.

Remember, every eon in the Bible ENDS with a cataclysmic event.

1st cataclysmic event:
Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 = 1st eon. That eon ended by this: Genesis 1:2 the earth became chaos and vacant

Genesis 2:3 to the flood was the 2nd eon. That eon ended by this:
2nd cataclysmic event:
the earth destroyed by flood.

3rd cataclysmic event which ends the eon we are in:
A great earthquake such has never occured since man was on the earth in which all the cities of the nations fall. (Rev.16:18,19).

4th cataclysmic event which ends the millennial eon:
And the earth is destroyed by fire and a new earth comes out of that thus kicking off the new earth eon. (2 Pet.3:12)

Therefore, if the only cataclysmic event prior to the eon in which we are now living in was the world-wide flood then there could not have been eons (plural) before. There has to be at least one more cataclysmic event and the only one listed in the OT is Genesis 1:2 where the earth became chaos and vacant.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I thought it would be good to reference what the gap theory was from the perspective of someone who didn't believe it but one who nonetheless explained exactly what it was in an unbiased manner. Though I don't agree with the person who wrote against it I still believe he got it pretty much right about what the gap theory represented.

Oh! Stop it! Here is what you said:

'Here is more on why Genesis 1:2 should have "and the earth became . . . ." by Dr. Fields.
The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site'

Clearly the opposite of what you just wrote - you were saying that the article was going to show 'why' Genesis 1:2 should have 'and the earth became...' You did not even get the author right.

Actually you are incorrect in your idea. Here is the verse in a properly translated literal Bible:

The two main points of of bringing-up Nineveh, ironically found in the article you were trying to use in favor of the Gap Theory, was:

1) It had the same structure with parenthesis between clauses.

'So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the YHWH.'

Parenthesis...'Now Nineveh was...'

'And Jonah began to enter into the city...'

This is like Genesis:

'In the begining when God created the heavens and the earth,'

Parenthesis...'and the earth was...'

'Now God said 'Let there be light''

The parenthesis could be removed and still make sense -Gen.1:1 and 1:3 go together. Ergo, Genesis 1:1 is not a seperate creation from that which is laid out in vv.3-31. Ergo, it could not 'become' anything.

2) The verbal form is the same and 'was' is a perfectly legit translation according to the grammar and context.

Another little side note: Hebrew does not have a pluperfect form so it cannot be a 'literal' translation' - only context and other aspects can give you meaning.

The verbal phrase 'had become' is pluperfect and is what Custance translated Gen.1:2. Note the Jonah passage where if a pluperfect is used then the action took place prior to when Jonah went unto Nineveh.

Likewise, if taken as pluperfect in Gen.1:2 then the action took place prior to verse 1. I pointed this out earlier in the thread but it is relevent to these recent posts. That coupled with the fact that verse 1 is linked to verse 3 and verse 2 begins with a waw-disjunctive means that 'had become' or 'became' is not an option.

[Eusebius]

Shilo, no matter how crafty you do it you still have to deal with the eons and their respective cataclysms.

The fact is that you were trying to prove by using Jonah that the Hebrew word should be translated "was." . . . You wrote:

Jonah

וְנִֽינְוֵ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה

'Now Nineveh was an exceedngly great city of three days journey.'
Nineveh did not become a city of three days journey.

No matter how much grammatical gymnastics you perform on Genesis 1:2 you still have to prove there were not eons (plural) before the one in which we are now living. If there were two eons, and there were, then there had to be two cataclysmic events for the earth, and there were. If the earth just WAS chaos and vacant in 1:2 then it did not end an eon in 1:1.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Shilo, no matter how crafty you do it you still have to deal with the eons and their respective cataclysms.

The fact is that you were trying to prove by using Jonah that the Hebrew word should be translated "was." . . . You wrote:

No, only in certain contexts according to certain linguistics aspects - like Jonah 3:3 and Genesis 1:2. It is perfectly legit.

No matter how much grammatical gymnastics you perform on Genesis 1:2 you still have to prove there were not eons (plural) before the one in which we are now living. If there were two eons, and there were, then there had to be two cataclysmic events for the earth, and there were. If the earth just WAS chaos and vacant in 1:2 then it did not end an eon in 1:1.

Yeah! that ole crafty grammar, syntax, and context really screws-up your theological biases. You do not, still, deal with the grammar of Genesis 1:1-3. No matter how much info from outside this text you find on 'eons' does nothing to grant you the right to mutilate the the grammar of Gen.1:1-3. You forcing eons between verses 1 and 2 is the ultimate eisegesis - ironic in that you accuse me of grammatical gymnastics.

I understand your willingness to drag this thread off topic even more than it has been by getting people to argue over whether the Bible talks of eons - who cares - it is irrelevent and frankly shows that you can not deal with the grammar of Gen.1:1-3. I do not have to prove anything about eons - the burden of proof regarding Gen.1:1-3 is on you and your take not on me to disprove eons. There's that TOP-DOWN approach again.

[Eusebius]

But you and the others keep talking about "was" rather than "became." I am only obliging your conversation. If you don't want to talk about "was" rather than "became" then I suggest you and your friends desist from further comment. Until you do, the plurality of eons is very germain to the subject. It completely destroys your theory that the earth just "was" formless and void.

Yeah! that ole crafty grammar, syntax, and context really screws-up your theological biases.

Not really. That the bible says there were eons before is quite clear. Nothing wrong with a theological bias as long as it is correct. That each eon ends with a cataclysm and that the earth BECAME chaos and vacant does not screw up my theological biases. If it reallly should be "the earth was chaos" then the translation must be wrong because we know for a fact there were eons before.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But you and the others keep talking about "was" rather than "became." I am only obliging your conversation. If you don't want to talk about "was" rather than "became" then I suggest you and your friends desist from further comment. Until you do, the plurality of eons is very germain to the subject. It completely destroys your theory that the earth just "was" formless and void.

Sorry! you were the one who came blazing in here with bolded type mentioning 'became' - refer to post #21. It was not our conversation.

[ovcatto]

Just for S&G's I took the liberty to edit Genesis 1 for clarity and to help those who believe in such a narrative a chronological order that is really all that bad considering the knowledge of ancient inhabitants of the Levant.


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

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. [earth rotation?]

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day( now if you want these days to in the billions of years, I'm ok with that).

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” [water and water vapor I assume]

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning .

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning. [redundant]

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. [redundant]

17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, [redundant]

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. [redundant]

19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.[redundant]

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning.