One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway?
As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding.
One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others!
Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)
The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." )
According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...")
So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least.
Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines.
Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.)
Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds.
Finally, man appears in the account.
Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.)
To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding.
So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.
That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false."
Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise.
I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.
There are cave paintings that are radio-carbon dated to over 40,000 years ago. The fact that there are paintings at all - and of recognisable creatures and vegetation at that - points to much earlier human(like) creatures that had the skill to do the painting, knowledge of materials, etc etc. There are other cave paintings in other parts of the world that are also very, very old, in five figures. Any theory needs to take account of these - unless there's the allegation that these are all total fakes. Unlikely, methinks.
I know of one man, highly intelligent, who thinks that the earth was made in 6 days, exactly as the Bible states. It's 4,000-something years old. Gen 1 :1 was it initially - then the Earth became void, then in 4000 years it was completely re-established. He was deadly serious in this belief.
He urged me to go to a lecture by some visiting ?whatever? who knew about things like this. To expand my viewpoint (it wasn't long after TWI-escape), I did go along to the lecture. The person was so wacky that I think I walked out at half-time.
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
I think there are a lot of time lags in the Bible and even more time lags between events and when their history is written.
Given all these time lags and additional ones I can come up with personally like the time lag warp I entered into last Tuesday lol I would say that whatever the time lag was between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 it was real as well as perceived.
theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil.
God did not create this spiritual being as the devil. God instead created this being as one of God's angles. God gives humanity and the angels, the free will to what ever they want to do. We are not puppets on a string. This angel was greedy and instead of being service oriented like God wants us to be, this angel turned to bad, while wanting to have the same authority as God or maybe more. Then when God saw that, God removed this spiritual being from heaven to earth. God in this age or period of time, uses this angel or devil to test humanity. At the start of the new heaven and new earth as read in Revelation 21. God will place the devil and the demons who followed the devil in prison to at least limit the devil from the deception of humanity.
God did not create this spiritual being as the devil. God instead created this being as one of God's angles. God gives humanity and the angels, the free will to what ever they want to do. We are not puppets on a string. This angel was greedy and instead of being service oriented like God wants us to be, this angel turned to bad, while wanting to have the same authority as God or maybe more. Then when God saw that, God removed this spiritual being from heaven to earth. God in this age or period of time, uses this angel or devil to test humanity. At the start of the new heaven and new earth as read in Revelation 21. God will place the devil and the demons who followed the devil in prison to at least limit the devil from the deception of humanity.
You either missed or hi-jacked the entire point of the post, Mark.
What does or doesn’t someone that says they believe in the “young earth” theory think about the devil (if they even think there is one)? Where do they think or say the devil came from?
I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.
WordWolf started this discussion regarding God creating physical earth and life and NOT spiritual life or existence. I am very busy now with business. Any post I make here will be on topic with WordWolf's 3 starting posts regarding the creation of earth. I hope TLC at least understands that the devil is spiritual and NOT physical.
Interesting topic, my response is to what the meaning of Genesis 1:1 and 2 is and considering the Way's teaching on it, going back to VPW and PFAL.
VPW seemed to have accepted the interpretation of Genesis 1: 1 and 2 from Bullinger's work, who held that the Hebrew word "hayeha" translated and meant became, rather than was (the root is "to be"). So with the words tohu va boho he read it "became without form, and void"....as if to say - the earth was created one way in verse 1 - and then it became without form and was void".
“form and void” - I seem to recall that phrase isn't actually 2 things but was a kind of hebrew homophone....I may not have that exactly right, but the best I understand it's meaning is that it isn't two different things - not form, and void as the english reads in KJV - but it describes a formless state and basically means no form, formless or empty - which adds a very interesting context to the record then, not that it's literal but rather simply the idea of an emptiness, formless(ness), a state of not being filled or put into order....and so on. So verses 1 and 2 could read something like "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form".
Two things are covered - the heavens (whatever that is) and the earth (whatever this is) and the earth is, at that time, without form.
The bibles books cover a history of the earth and mankind and their creator, God. That's the perspective of the narrative, God and His creation, specifically the earth and mankind. A lot of other things are covered too but it would seem clear the vast detail, such as there is, deals with those things, not the whole of everything else that was or is.
VPW seemed to take the Bullinger translation as a way to explain how the earth could have millions of years of history - a first heaven and earth in which God created…whatever it was He created and then between verses 1 and 2, the earth became messed up, formless, in a degraded, destroyed state.
Or - 1 and 2 are a continuous thought - in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Some research notes a use of the figure of speech polysyndeton in the greek text and used throughout Genesis 1. Forms of anaphora are commonly used in any language to add impact, as a rhetorical tool. It’s still used today, a lot. So again, to me Genesis reads as more or a continuous set of statements that go through the creation record, rather than what amounts to a Grand Canyon size hole between verse 1 and 2.
And of course, there’s no real detail of any kind about what that verse 1 earth would have been like, other than to offer a biblical explanation for fossils we find today from millions of years ago that seemingly contradict the record in Genesis. So it is a huge assumption that aside from a few verses that refer to what are interpreted as related events (Lucifer’s fall from “heaven”, etc) there is never any reference in the Bible at all to what that first creation would have been like. Even the idea that Adam and Eve were told to “replenish” the earth I understand to mean it to “fill” the earth, not re fill it, again.
Granted, the biblical authors weren’t scientists or archaeologists but from their perspective in the human history it could seem to make more sense that there’d be reference to what would have been if there was ANY knowledge of it, passed down over time. But there isn’t, really. So while Adam and Eve wouldn’t have necessarily known what had come before, the author would have had to, to some extent if the “became void” was the correct translation…..sot to me anyway, there’s mostly a void of that making any sense after I read the rest of the bible.
As a researcher VPW struggled with his linear literalist thinking. On the one hand he wanted the Bible to be taken literally where it could be, while at the same time informing any textual translation with huge amounts of figurative and historical information (“orientalisms”, figures of speech andcontext considerations that spanned generations, etc etc) Die hard Weirwille-ites want to make that out to be a strength but over the years it seems obvious he used it all to support his earliest convictions, not add to them or certainly not to change them.
But to be perfectly honest, I don’t know for sure about Genesis 1:1 and 2 - there’s a lot of translation work that supports a bunch of conclusions. I know all of the other references that try to fit some history into the space between verses 1 and 2 aaaaaaand, I'm not so sure. Today I will say I tend towards it being a continuous creation record and 1 and 2 that moves right into 3 and forward. "YMMV". Hope this adds to the discussion.
Edited by socks For years I sensed it but it wasn't until I found this one all important thing that I finally started to see that serendipity, in all it's glory and wonder, was observable and therefore could - just could be - predictable under certain circumstances, s-
nice write-up socks, on those 2 verses with considerations of other perspectives
I don't think some literal interpretation can satisfy the very human need to know, or even a curiosity to see things more clearly. Time to God is not a thing to put into the text I would think, so to us it's a tough concept to see it without a framework of assumed reality.
socks I really enjoyed reading your post and logic and reasoning. I love the conclusion arriving at serendipity as a common goal. Polar opposites to force feeding a new Plaffy down the worlds throat with a trademark.
Thanks cman and chockfull, WW for the topic thread and opening up so many aspects to it all.
PFAL's teaching on this attempts to off an answer to the question of how we came to be, how the earth and the universe we see around us came to be to the end it produced us today, and account for all the fossil records and prehistoric evidence of the past.
But what if I take that question away, what if I'm not trying to have a Bible, "faith based" response to evolution or the age of the earth or prehistoric fossils or where this all came from that fits with anything else....? What if I'm just reading the Bible and taking what it says at face value? I have a record that isn't all that hard to understand, with a little study, and on face value. I don't know what it all means, by any means, but I know what I'm reading to a great extent.
One thing PFAL did point out of course is that the English translations of all those ancient Hebrew and Greek scrolls and scriptures are subject to interpretation - which is what VPW did with PFAL. There is no effort to translate one language into another that doesn't require interpretation - of words, grammar, history, culture, usage and on and on. VPW posited a process that's fairly conservative, in my opinion but then I wasn't and still aren't trying to attack or defend anything. If it was recipes for Chili it might not be a big deal but sure, anything of such importance is going to be a challenging effort, to say the least. So here we are. I can read and learn today, without the artificial impetus of supporting anything other than a God who creates with purpose, loves like a Father and Who has shared Jesus Christ with me to bring me to the place I need to be in this life to live it as He would have it and I am privileged to work out.
But I don't need an answer to evolution - if the Bible is to be taken at "it's Word", at face value, then I believe the best approach is to just read it, study it, do my best to learn it and from it, and let it speak for itself. It doesn't need to "fit like a hand in a glove", it doesn't need to harmonize or organize by my standards or any I put on it. It will, it does, but that was NEVER the intention of the Bible, the "Word of God". Men organize, God creates. Men wear gloves that fit, God doesn't, He is the fit. Men lie, God doesn't.
The written Word is a human effort. I do believe I benefit from the efforts of men and women in the past to write and pass on what they lived and learned. I expect a level of integrity to it. I also understand that doing something by "inspiration" of God doesn't guarantee literary perfection, using an imperfect tool to build a perfect outcome. This is "Treasure in earthen vessels" at best, indeed. Any perfection or higher standards of accomplishment I see in the Bible and learn from it have to be the product of God's divine interaction over thousands of years. To be celebrated yes, taught yes. So I have no problem with people putting forth teaching and guidance with intention and passion, myself included.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway?
As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding.
One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others!
Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." )
According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...")
So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least.
Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines.
Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.)
Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds.
Finally, man appears in the account.
Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.)
To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding.
So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise.
I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.
I'll leave it at that...
TC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
There are cave paintings that are radio-carbon dated to over 40,000 years ago. The fact that there are paintings at all - and of recognisable creatures and vegetation at that - points to much earlier human(like) creatures that had the skill to do the painting, knowledge of materials, etc etc. There are other cave paintings in other parts of the world that are also very, very old, in five figures. Any theory needs to take account of these - unless there's the allegation that these are all total fakes. Unlikely, methinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I know of one man, highly intelligent, who thinks that the earth was made in 6 days, exactly as the Bible states. It's 4,000-something years old. Gen 1 :1 was it initially - then the Earth became void, then in 4000 years it was completely re-established. He was deadly serious in this belief.
He urged me to go to a lecture by some visiting ?whatever? who knew about things like this. To expand my viewpoint (it wasn't long after TWI-escape), I did go along to the lecture. The person was so wacky that I think I walked out at half-time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Exodus 20 - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. | ESV.org
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think there are a lot of time lags in the Bible and even more time lags between events and when their history is written.
Given all these time lags and additional ones I can come up with personally like the time lag warp I entered into last Tuesday lol I would say that whatever the time lag was between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 it was real as well as perceived.
Captain Obvious out lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
genesis, like every book gives the readers certain info to process, to each their own you know
like 2 things can be true at the same time even if it contradicts each other
so a story with a lot in it reveals more as we grow
there is no 1 interpretation of events
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
God did not create this spiritual being as the devil. God instead created this being as one of God's angles. God gives humanity and the angels, the free will to what ever they want to do. We are not puppets on a string. This angel was greedy and instead of being service oriented like God wants us to be, this angel turned to bad, while wanting to have the same authority as God or maybe more. Then when God saw that, God removed this spiritual being from heaven to earth. God in this age or period of time, uses this angel or devil to test humanity. At the start of the new heaven and new earth as read in Revelation 21. God will place the devil and the demons who followed the devil in prison to at least limit the devil from the deception of humanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Sounds like creating, sort of....and so the rest of the story...
....o yeah.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You either missed or hi-jacked the entire point of the post, Mark.
What does or doesn’t someone that says they believe in the “young earth” theory think about the devil (if they even think there is one)? Where do they think or say the devil came from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
WordWolf started this discussion regarding God creating physical earth and life and NOT spiritual life or existence. I am very busy now with business. Any post I make here will be on topic with WordWolf's 3 starting posts regarding the creation of earth. I hope TLC at least understands that the devil is spiritual and NOT physical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Interesting topic, my response is to what the meaning of Genesis 1:1 and 2 is and considering the Way's teaching on it, going back to VPW and PFAL.
VPW seemed to have accepted the interpretation of Genesis 1: 1 and 2 from Bullinger's work, who held that the Hebrew word "hayeha" translated and meant became, rather than was (the root is "to be"). So with the words tohu va boho he read it "became without form, and void"....as if to say - the earth was created one way in verse 1 - and then it became without form and was void".
“form and void” - I seem to recall that phrase isn't actually 2 things but was a kind of hebrew homophone....I may not have that exactly right, but the best I understand it's meaning is that it isn't two different things - not form, and void as the english reads in KJV - but it describes a formless state and basically means no form, formless or empty - which adds a very interesting context to the record then, not that it's literal but rather simply the idea of an emptiness, formless(ness), a state of not being filled or put into order....and so on. So verses 1 and 2 could read something like "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form".
Two things are covered - the heavens (whatever that is) and the earth (whatever this is) and the earth is, at that time, without form.
The bibles books cover a history of the earth and mankind and their creator, God. That's the perspective of the narrative, God and His creation, specifically the earth and mankind. A lot of other things are covered too but it would seem clear the vast detail, such as there is, deals with those things, not the whole of everything else that was or is.
VPW seemed to take the Bullinger translation as a way to explain how the earth could have millions of years of history - a first heaven and earth in which God created…whatever it was He created and then between verses 1 and 2, the earth became messed up, formless, in a degraded, destroyed state.
Or - 1 and 2 are a continuous thought - in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Some research notes a use of the figure of speech polysyndeton in the greek text and used throughout Genesis 1. Forms of anaphora are commonly used in any language to add impact, as a rhetorical tool. It’s still used today, a lot. So again, to me Genesis reads as more or a continuous set of statements that go through the creation record, rather than what amounts to a Grand Canyon size hole between verse 1 and 2.
And of course, there’s no real detail of any kind about what that verse 1 earth would have been like, other than to offer a biblical explanation for fossils we find today from millions of years ago that seemingly contradict the record in Genesis. So it is a huge assumption that aside from a few verses that refer to what are interpreted as related events (Lucifer’s fall from “heaven”, etc) there is never any reference in the Bible at all to what that first creation would have been like. Even the idea that Adam and Eve were told to “replenish” the earth I understand to mean it to “fill” the earth, not re fill it, again.
Granted, the biblical authors weren’t scientists or archaeologists but from their perspective in the human history it could seem to make more sense that there’d be reference to what would have been if there was ANY knowledge of it, passed down over time. But there isn’t, really. So while Adam and Eve wouldn’t have necessarily known what had come before, the author would have had to, to some extent if the “became void” was the correct translation…..sot to me anyway, there’s mostly a void of that making any sense after I read the rest of the bible.
As a researcher VPW struggled with his linear literalist thinking. On the one hand he wanted the Bible to be taken literally where it could be, while at the same time informing any textual translation with huge amounts of figurative and historical information (“orientalisms”, figures of speech and context considerations that spanned generations, etc etc) Die hard Weirwille-ites want to make that out to be a strength but over the years it seems obvious he used it all to support his earliest convictions, not add to them or certainly not to change them.
But to be perfectly honest, I don’t know for sure about Genesis 1:1 and 2 - there’s a lot of translation work that supports a bunch of conclusions. I know all of the other references that try to fit some history into the space between verses 1 and 2 aaaaaaand, I'm not so sure. Today I will say I tend towards it being a continuous creation record and 1 and 2 that moves right into 3 and forward. "YMMV". Hope this adds to the discussion.
Edited by socksFor years I sensed it but it wasn't until I found this one all important thing that I finally started to see that serendipity, in all it's glory and wonder, was observable and therefore could - just could be - predictable under certain circumstances, s-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
nice write-up socks, on those 2 verses with considerations of other perspectives
I don't think some literal interpretation can satisfy the very human need to know, or even a curiosity to see things more clearly. Time to God is not a thing to put into the text I would think, so to us it's a tough concept to see it without a framework of assumed reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
socks I really enjoyed reading your post and logic and reasoning. I love the conclusion arriving at serendipity as a common goal. Polar opposites to force feeding a new Plaffy down the worlds throat with a trademark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks cman and chockfull, WW for the topic thread and opening up so many aspects to it all.
PFAL's teaching on this attempts to off an answer to the question of how we came to be, how the earth and the universe we see around us came to be to the end it produced us today, and account for all the fossil records and prehistoric evidence of the past.
But what if I take that question away, what if I'm not trying to have a Bible, "faith based" response to evolution or the age of the earth or prehistoric fossils or where this all came from that fits with anything else....? What if I'm just reading the Bible and taking what it says at face value? I have a record that isn't all that hard to understand, with a little study, and on face value. I don't know what it all means, by any means, but I know what I'm reading to a great extent.
One thing PFAL did point out of course is that the English translations of all those ancient Hebrew and Greek scrolls and scriptures are subject to interpretation - which is what VPW did with PFAL. There is no effort to translate one language into another that doesn't require interpretation - of words, grammar, history, culture, usage and on and on. VPW posited a process that's fairly conservative, in my opinion but then I wasn't and still aren't trying to attack or defend anything. If it was recipes for Chili it might not be a big deal but sure, anything of such importance is going to be a challenging effort, to say the least. So here we are. I can read and learn today, without the artificial impetus of supporting anything other than a God who creates with purpose, loves like a Father and Who has shared Jesus Christ with me to bring me to the place I need to be in this life to live it as He would have it and I am privileged to work out.
But I don't need an answer to evolution - if the Bible is to be taken at "it's Word", at face value, then I believe the best approach is to just read it, study it, do my best to learn it and from it, and let it speak for itself. It doesn't need to "fit like a hand in a glove", it doesn't need to harmonize or organize by my standards or any I put on it. It will, it does, but that was NEVER the intention of the Bible, the "Word of God". Men organize, God creates. Men wear gloves that fit, God doesn't, He is the fit. Men lie, God doesn't.
The written Word is a human effort. I do believe I benefit from the efforts of men and women in the past to write and pass on what they lived and learned. I expect a level of integrity to it. I also understand that doing something by "inspiration" of God doesn't guarantee literary perfection, using an imperfect tool to build a perfect outcome. This is "Treasure in earthen vessels" at best, indeed. Any perfection or higher standards of accomplishment I see in the Bible and learn from it have to be the product of God's divine interaction over thousands of years. To be celebrated yes, taught yes. So I have no problem with people putting forth teaching and guidance with intention and passion, myself included.
Peace and love and music and stuff!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.