Creationists, what's up with two creation stories?

[Scotishfury09]

Hi and thanks for the reply.
The problem is, there is no "and" in the Hebrew which, as we know, is formed unto the word it is associated with, just like the article. In the greek of course they are seperate words. Will look at it again and have you looked at the Hebrew with this interlinear? Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

My point was not the "and". My point was that the phrase you chopped in half occurs a lot in Genesis. Therefore, it should be left alone.

 

[busterdog]

Is that not also a legitimate way to understand the 6 days of Genesis 1? As a sequence of presentation only?

I was worried about that argument as well.

If you look at the language, it enumerates the days quite clearly. There is an order of presentation, but also an enumeration of events and direct language to describe a historical sequence, not just an order of presentation. That is the difference between implicit and explicit arguments. They are both valid, but you don't argue your conclusions the same way.

 

[busterdog]

You are the one using Jerome, not me.

KJV used the masoretic and septuagint as well.

But, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were arguing from the Latin translation.

Once again, I still think there are a plethora of other problems with the two accounts, but I now realize that this one probably isn't the best to use. And yes, shernren, I realize this is essentially what you were already saying. I apologize for any previous bashing to either side.

Shernren -- creationist apologist!

There is still ample liberal scholarship to make the argument. But, there just is never a logically required contradiction in the text itself, only arguable contradictions.

 

[Assyrian]

I was worried about that argument as well.

If you look at the language, it enumerates the days quite clearly. There is an order of presentation, but also an enumeration of events and direct language to describe a historical sequence, not just an order of presentation. That is the difference between implicit and explicit arguments. They are both valid, but you don't argue your conclusions the same way.

Genesis 2 is not just an order of presentation, it is a narrative with a storyline and uses a grammatical structure indicating consecutive events in narratives throughout the OT.

On the other hand there are problems with the enumeration in Gen 1. There are many sequences of enumerated days in the bible. Genesis 1 does not match any of them. None of them start off 'one day' or continue, 'a second day... a third day'. If the first day is mentioned it is called 'the first day' not 'one day'. Subsequent days are called 'the second day... the third day', not 'a second day... a third day' or 'second day... third day'.

 

[busterdog]

Genesis 2 is not just an order of presentation, it is a narrative with a storyline and uses a grammatical structure indicating consecutive events in narratives throughout the OT.

On the other hand there are problems with the enumeration in Gen 1. There are many sequences of enumerated days in the bible. Genesis 1 does not match any of them. None of them start off 'one day' or continue, 'a second day... a third day'. If the first day is mentioned it is called 'the first day' not 'one day'. Subsequent days are called 'the second day... the third day', not 'a second day... a third day' or 'second day... third day'.

Yes. It is wierd.

 

[gluadys]

I was worried about that argument as well.

If you look at the language, it enumerates the days quite clearly. There is an order of presentation, but also an enumeration of events and direct language to describe a historical sequence, not just an order of presentation.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. To Philo, it was not an enumeration of historical sequence, but an expression of the mystical meaning of the number 6.

 

[shernren]

Shernren -- creationist apologist!

There is still ample liberal scholarship to make the argument. But, there just is never a logically required contradiction in the text itself, only arguable contradictions.

Well, I just call them as I see them in the text. There are so many real problems with creationism that I can afford to call a slightly more spurious one when I see it.

On an aside, I was wondering about the translation of Genesis 1:1. I have recently heard that the first words should be translated as "When God began to create ... " instead of "In the beginning, God created ... " and I honestly do not know enough Hebrew to distinguish rightly between those two possibilities. Any thoughts?

 

[busterdog]

Well, I just call them as I see them in the text. There are so many real problems with creationism that I can afford to call a slightly more spurious one when I see it.

On an aside, I was wondering about the translation of Genesis 1:1. I have recently heard that the first words should be translated as "When God began to create ... " instead of "In the beginning, God created ... " and I honestly do not know enough Hebrew to distinguish rightly between those two possibilities. Any thoughts?

Biblewriter opened a thread on this regarding the gap theory, which seems related. I don't recall exactly all that was discussed here. I think it is in creationism.

Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder (not young earth) compares it to the Big Bang itself.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

I thought he had some comments on the Hebrew (which he speaks) and will try to find it.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well, I just call them as I see them in the text. There are so many real problems with creationism that I can afford to call a slightly more spurious one when I see it.

On an aside, I was wondering about the translation of Genesis 1:1. I have recently heard that the first words should be translated as "When God began to create ... " instead of "In the beginning, God created ... " and I honestly do not know enough Hebrew to distinguish rightly between those two possibilities. Any thoughts?

If that were the case it would make yet another reference to Enuma Elish which literally means "when on high".

 

[gluadys]

On an aside, I was wondering about the translation of Genesis 1:1. I have recently heard that the first words should be translated as "When God began to create ... " instead of "In the beginning, God created ... " and I honestly do not know enough Hebrew to distinguish rightly between those two possibilities. Any thoughts?

I think that as in many translation issues, it is not an "either-or". The Hebrew probably supports both translations. But we'll let the Hebrew scholars tell us for sure.

 

[Assyrian]

[SIZE=-1]Hebrew does not have a specific way of communicating a pluperfect ..." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pluperfect+hebrew&btnG=Google+Search[/SIZE]

Actually Hebrew has some pretty good ways of expressing a pluperfect.

Genesius Hebrew Grammar

§ [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]111. [/FONT]The Imperfect with Waw Consecutive.
Rem. 1. This loose connexion by means of ויהי1is especially common, when the narrative or a new section of it begins with any expression of time, see above, b; cf., in addition to the above-mentioned examples (e. g. Gn 22:1 [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]and it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham), the similar cases in Gn 19:34, 21:22, 1 S 11:11, Ru 1:1. Elsewhere the statement of time is expressed by כְּ or כְ with an infinitive (Gn 12:14, 19:17, 29 39:13, 15:18f., Ju 16:25) or by an independent sentence with the perfect (equivalent to a pluperfect, cf. § 106 f), e. g. Gn 15:17, 24:15, 27:30, or by a temporal clause introduced by כי when, Gn 26:8, 27:1, Ju 16:16 כאשׁר when, Gn 12:11, 20:13, מאז from the time that, Gn 39:5; or, finally, by a noun-clause (cf. § 116 u), e. g. 2 K 13:21 ויהי הם קברים אישׁ [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]and it came to pass, as they were [/FONT](just) [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]burying a man [/FONT](prop. they burying), [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]that [/FONT]…; Gn 42:35, 2 K 2:11 (the apodosis in both these cases being introduced by הֵ.ִהְו); 1 S 7:10, 2 S 13:30, 2 K 6:5, 26, 19:37 (=Is 37:38).—In 1 S 10:11, 11:11, 2 S 2:23, 15:2 a noun standing absolutely follows ויהי (as the equivalent of a complete sentence; see below, h), and then an [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]imperfect consecutive [/FONT]follows.[/FONT]
...

Thus the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]imperfect consecutive serves—
(1) To represent actions, events, or states, which are [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]past [/FONT](or were repeated in past time), when it is united with tenses, or their equivalents, which refer to an actual past.
Cf. the examples given above, under [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]a [/FONT]and [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]f[/FONT], of the imperfect consecutive as an historic tense. The imperfect consecutive also frequently occurs as the continuation of a perfect ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]preterite[/FONT]) in a subordinate clause; e. g. Gn 27:1, Nu 11:20, Dt 4:37, 1 S 8:8, 1 K 2:5, 11:33, 18:13, &c.; also in Is 49:7 וַיִּבְחָרֶֽךָּis the continuation of a preterite, contained, according to the sense, in the precedingאֲשֶׁ֣ר נֶאֱמָ֔ן.—In Jb 31:26, 34 the imperfect consecutive is joined to an imperfect denoting the past in a conditional sentence. An imperfect consecutive occurs in dependence on a perfect which has the sense of a pluperfect (§ 106 f), e. g. in Gn 26:18, 28:6f., 31:19, 34 ([FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]now Rachel had taken the teraphim[/FONT], וַתְּשִׂמֵ֛םand had put them, &c.); Nu 14:36, 1 S 28:3, 2 S 2:23, Is 39:1. Finally there are the cases in which an infinitival or participial construction representing past time, according to §113 r, §116 x, is taken up and continued by an imperfect consecutive.

[/FONT]

A series of waw consecutives begins off with a perfect tense. If the writer wants to break the sequence and refer to something already completed, one of the ways is to throw in another perfect.

We can see this in the second Genesis account itself.

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed [waw consecutive qal imperfect]the man of dust from the ground
and breathed [waw consecutive qal imperfect]into his nostrils the breath of life,
and the man became [waw consecutive qal imperfect]a living creature.
8 And the LORD God planted [waw consecutive qal imperfect]a garden in Eden, in the east,
and there he put [waw consecutive qal imperfect]
the man whom he had formed [qal perfect].

The man had already been formed when God put him in the garden.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall [waw consecutive hiphil imperfect]upon the man,
and while he slept took [waw consecutive qal imperfect]one of his ribs
and closed [waw consecutive qal imperfect]up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken [qal perfect] from the man
he made [waw consecutive qal imperfect]into a woman
and brought [waw consecutive hiphil imperfect]her to the man.

In both cases the narrative breaks the sequence of past tense waw consecutives to refer to an event that had happened earlier, effectively our pluperfect. He does it by switching from waw consecutive imperfects to a perfect.

The writer could have referred to the creation of the animals and birds this way, or could have used a temporal clause to express the idea that this had been done earlier, but instead put their creation in the narrative sequence as another waw consecutive.

 

[Nooj]

On an aside, I was wondering about the translation of Genesis 1:1. I have recently heard that the first words should be translated as "When God began to create ... " instead of "In the beginning, God created ... " and I honestly do not know enough Hebrew to distinguish rightly between those two possibilities. Any thoughts?

Yes:

Chapter 1
1-3: When God began to create. For some 2,200 years — since the Septuagint version of the Torah was made by Jewish translators for the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt — all official translations of the Bible have rendered Hebrew bereshith bara elokim mechanically, “In the beginning God created.” There are several cogent reasons, each independent of the others, for rejecting the traditional rendering as incorrect, and for accepting the temporal (“When . . .”) construction.
(a) The first vowel in the first word, be(reshith), as distinct from a form ba(reshith), indicates that the word is in the construct (rather than in the absolute) state, and has the meaning “In the beginning of (God’s creating . . .)” rather than “In the beginning (God created . . .).” Indeed, it is not even bareshith (the form doesn’t happen to occur in the Bible) but barishona that one would have expected here for “In the beginning (God created . . .).”
This had already been noted by Rashi, who wrote: “But if you are going to interpret [this passage] in its plain sense, interpret it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was (or the earth being) unformed and void . . . God said, ‘Let there be light.’ For the passage does not intend to teach the order of creation, to say that these [namely, heaven and earth] came first; because if it had intended to teach this, it would have been necessary to use the form barishona (‘In the beginning’ or ‘At first) He created the heavens,’ etc., since you have no instance of the form reshith in Scripture which is not in construct to the word following it, as for example ‘In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim’ (bereshith mamlekheth yehoyaqim, Jer. 27.1). . . . So here, too, you must say [that the phrase] bereshith bara elokim, etc., is equivalent to ‘In the beginning of (God’s) creating’ (bereshith bero). Similar to this is the phrase tehillath dibber HASHEM behoshe’a (Hos. 1.2), that is to say, ‘At the beginning of the Holy One Blessed be He’s speaking (or ‘When the Holy One Blessed be He began to speak) to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea,’ etc. And if you should say that the purpose of the text is to teach that these [namely, heaven and earth] were created first and that its meaning is ‘In the beginning of everything (or ‘First of all—bereshith ha-kol) He created these ...,’ in fact the waters came first, since it is written ‘And the ruach of God was hovering over the waters,’ yet Scripture had not yet revealed when the creation of the waters preceded the earth. . . .” (The reader should note here the reverse order. “When the LORD God made earth and heaven,” in 2.4.)
So that Rashi was right when he noted that the whole of verse 1 (N.B.: Rashi did not emend bara to bero!) was in construct to verse 3: “In the beginning of God’s creating (or “When God began to create) the heaven and the earth . . . God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” — with verse 2 constituting a circumstantial clause, i.e., a clause which describes the circumstances under which the action in verses 1 and 3 took place: 2“.. . the earth being unformed and void,” etc.
(b) When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4, it is, again, the temporal (“When”) construction that is employed: “When the LORD God made earth and heaven” (beyom asoth HASHEM elokim eretz we-shamayim); and note how there also, as in 1.2, verses 5 and 6 constitute a circumstantial clause, with verse 7 being the fulfillment of verse 4 (“When the LORD God made heaven and earth . . . the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth . . .”).
(c) The numerous ancient Near Eastern stories of creation nearly all begin with the “When” sentence structure, e.g., the Babylonian Enuma Elish:

When above, the heavens had not been named,
(And) below, the earth had not been called by name.
​

For further reading, see, e.g., A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2nd edition (1951); N. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (1966), Chapter I, “Creation.”

The most accurate phrase is 'In the beginning of God’s creating'.

 

[busterdog]

Yes: The most accurate phrase is 'In the beginning of God’s creating'.

I am not sure about the Hebrew either.

But, let me ask whether there is much of a difference between the translations. I am trying to think it through, and it just isn't working for me. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I don't follow the reasoning of the passage you quoted. I am frankly prejudiced against the conclusion that the absence of a "better" word means something else was implied. This sort of sounds like a gap theory, but the logic is just very indirect. But, in creating the "heavens and the earth", how does that mean something less than everything? If that is everything, how does a choice of verbs make much difference?

So lets say that we have everything there is in earth and heaven, how exactly is "forming" it any kind of creation at all? If we take the current ideas of cosmology and evolution, where exactly is this forming happening? Is it just the slightest nudge toward abiogensis or God knows what in the "formation" of stars?

Whatever nuances there may be in the verb, the notion that we are dealing with everything and a beginning for "forming" already invokes some rather powerful absolutes that would seem to be incompatible with mere "forming" of things that already existed. And the notion of "forming" itself seems to make less sense that creation ex nihilo, which for all practical purposes is the theory of the Big Bang.

 

[shernren]

I don't follow the reasoning of the passage you quoted. I am frankly prejudiced against the conclusion that the absence of a "better" word means something else was implied. This sort of sounds like a gap theory, but the logic is just very indirect. But, in creating the "heavens and the earth", how does that mean something less than everything? If that is everything, how does a choice of verbs make much difference?

So lets say that we have everything there is in earth and heaven, how exactly is "forming" it any kind of creation at all? If we take the current ideas of cosmology and evolution, where exactly is this forming happening? Is it just the slightest nudge toward abiogensis or God knows what in the "formation" of stars?

Whatever nuances there may be in the verb, the notion that we are dealing with everything and a beginning for "forming" already invokes some rather powerful absolutes that would seem to be incompatible with mere "forming" of things that already existed. And the notion of "forming" itself seems to make less sense that creation ex nihilo, which for all practical purposes is the theory of the Big Bang.

If we translate Genesis 1:1-3a as recommended (mind you, I haven't quite made up my mind about that) we get:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth -
the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters -
God said, "Let there be light."

In other words, when God began, the Earth was already there albeit barren - and who'd left the tap running?

 

[busterdog]

If we translate Genesis 1:1-3a as recommended (mind you, I haven't quite made up my mind about that) we get:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth -
the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters -
God said, "Let there be light."

In other words, when God began, the Earth was already there albeit barren - and who'd left the tap running?

I am wrestling with the same thing. The proferred translation seems to have too many suggestions of benign neglect.

And, the whole notion of "began to form" just doesn't yield much content to me. If we are to look at the gap view, how exactly are the heavenly bodies part of the "waste" that was reformed into paradise? Again, we seem to be talking about everything being "formed?" What could that possibly mean?

 

[Jadis40]

I am wrestling with the same thing. The proferred translation seems to have too many suggestions of benign neglect.

And, the whole notion of "began to form" just doesn't yield much content to me. If we are to look at the gap view, how exactly are the heavenly bodies part of the "waste" that was reformed into paradise? Again, we seem to be talking about everything being "formed?" What could that possibly mean?

A possible answer could be found here, it describes the conditions during the Hadean eon of earth history, up to approximately 3.6 billion years ago:

The following is from: http://www.palaeos.com/Hadean/Hadean.htm

In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions. When temperatures finally cooled sufficiently, the clouds began to melt into rain, and the primordial atmosphere produced storms of unimaginable proportions, under which the Earth groaned and flowed. At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth's surface, forming the first oceans. On the primordial continents, the first river networks were created, and they transported detritus torn from elevated regions and then deposited on the bottom of the primordial seas.

In my mind, it could be that Genesis 1 is describing the conditions right after the earth more or less had it's shape after forming from the protoplanetary disk that made up the solar system.

For a picture of what this probably looked like, I refer you to this picture of a protoplanetary disk in the Orion Nebula:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

What's striking about that is, if the earth was already here, as Genesis 1:1-3 seems to indicate, then that means that the whole universe was already here, including the Milky Way galaxy, and all the stars. In my mind, that gives weight that the "days" in Genesis really don't refer to 24-hour days.

 

[Mallon]

The reference to the preexisting "surface of the deep" would not have been news to the first Hebrews. It is present, as Tiamat, in the surrounding Mesopotamian myth, Enuma Elish. Little wonder, really. They knew what it meant.

 

[Nooj]

I don't follow the reasoning of the passage you quoted. I am frankly prejudiced against the conclusion that the absence of a "better" word means something else was implied.

There were better words for the writer of Genesis to have chosen if he wanted to say 'In the beginning, God created.."

Jewish commentators believe that every word has a reason why it was chosen, which is why they focus on grammar so much. There's in fact a whole mystical tradition based around the study of Hebrew letters. If the Bible is in fact written by God or inspired by God, the exact form of the words are incredibly important.

But, in creating the "heavens and the earth", how does that mean something less than everything? If that is everything, how does a choice of verbs make much difference?

'In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth' is a more accurate translation and has direct relevance to this creationism vs evolution debate.

Genesis 1:1 is not part of the order of creation. The heaven and the earth were not the first things to be created.

Gen 1:1 is an introduction to the order of creation, which starts off in Gen 1:3 with the creation of light.

Think of it this way.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, Jack created a painting.
Gen 1:3 He made paint.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning of Jack's creating of a painting
Gen 1:3 (first of all) he made paint.

The first scenario sounds like he made the painting first. Whilst the second scenario starts off with an introduction primer to what Jack was doing, and then later on comes the first step in Jack's creating.

What relevance does this have to the debate? Going by the literal translation of the verse, God didn't create everything at the beginning of the Universe, which the traditional translations imply. 'In the beginning' describes not the time period in which God created the universe, but the beginning of God's actions. And God most certainly didn't create everything at the same time, as the order of creation later on proves.

Aside from the obvious implications of light having been created first.

If we translate Genesis 1:1-3a as recommended (mind you, I haven't quite made up my mind about that) we get:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth -
the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters -
God said, "Let there be light."

In other words, when God began, the Earth was already there albeit barren - and who'd left the tap running?.

This is just my own interpretation of Genesis and you probably won't like it, but Genesis doesn't describe the formation of the tehom, the deep. In Near Eastern mythology, water represents the primordial chaos, out of which the gods create land (for example, Marduk slaughtering Tiamat and using her body to create the earth). I think the water predates God's creation of the universe, but that doesn't necessarily rule out God creating the waters earlier on, before the Genesis account.

 

[busterdog]

In Near Eastern mythology, water represents the primordial chaos, out of which the gods create land (for example, Marduk slaughtering Tiamat and using her body to create the earth). I think the water predates God's creation of the universe, but that doesn't necessarily rule out God creating the waters earlier on, before the Genesis account.

Exactly. So, if the beginning of creating requires a "beginning of creating", Tiamat would have been created before the earth was formed. The formting of the earth would not have been the beginning of creating, but a later part of the process of creating.

As a later addition:

Seems to me we get to fish or cut bait time on the text. I am have a hard time squaring it with anything anyone really teaches about how the universe/earth started. The enormously subtle point about the Hadean era, just remains that, very, very subtle. What is really left of the text in that context? What is really left of the text if a "beginning to create" time period is different that "in the beginning?" I am reminded of Wm Kunstler's view of Constitution, that if it meant to guarantee the rights the people, it does a pretty poor job. The only way I can square this text with the other views is to say it does a lousy job of representing reality, which of course I will not do.

 

[mark kennedy]

Exactly. So, if the beginning of creating requires a "beginning of creating". Tiamat would have been created before the earth was formed. The formting of the earth would not have been the beginning of creating, but a later part of the process of creating.

Tiamat was before the creation of even the gods. When you look closely at these pagan mythologies you begin to realize that the elementals are precursors to the pagan pantheon, they are in fact, more powerful. It is essentially a materialistic philosophy not unlike the Darwinian mythology that is so often mistaken for the theory of evolution.

Just popped in for a brief comment on an interesting post. Now on with the previously scheduled discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark