The Great Oxygen Event

Job 33:6 said:

Let's look at the passage again:
Hebrews 11:3 NRSVUE
[3] By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.

He doesn't even use the word "Beginning" here. What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Heb 11:3 NASB "By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible."
John 1:1-3 NASB "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being."
Gen 1:1 NASB "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Everything that is was made from what cannot be seen (God's Power), and it was all created (nothing made into something) by God when He created everything in the beginning.

Job 33:6 said:

That's not what the Bible says. No need to change the text. Just read it:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

When God began,

The earth was formless,

Then God said, let there be light.

That's it. It doesn't say that the earth didn't exist, and then it came into existence and was then formless, and then God spoke.

When God began, it was formless. That's all there is to it.

Click to expand...

Your translation is not accurately depicting what the original language says. When God began there was nothing. And God made from nothing everything that is. He stated with nothing, and made the heavens and the earth, and then He made light to shine on what He had created.

Job 33:6 said:

Ah ok, so now you're better than the Bible. Got it. Lol.

Denial of scripture is not a valid argument. If you have a problem with what the Bible says, that's your own issue. Not anyone else's.

Click to expand...

No denial of Scripture. Denial of your translation that perverts the Scripture.

Job 33:6 said:

In the book of Genesis, every creation day begins with "God said".

Click to expand...

No, it does not. Day one begins with God making the heavens and the earth without saying anything.

Job 33:6 said:

God creates through the spoken word, and so when God speaks in Genesis, that's God creating.

And that doesn't happen until verse 3. The very first thing that is created is light.

And I'm sorry if you have a problem with what the Bible says, but that's your own fault. Not mine.

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

When you're ready to come to terms with what the Bible says, I'll be here.

Click to expand...

When you are ready to accept that the NRSVUE (whatever that is) is not the ultimate authority, then we can talk. I cannot even find that translation anywhere. Did you write it? It sounds about as authoritative as the book of mormon or the quran (that is to say, not at all).

Doug Brents said:

Heb 11:3 NASB "By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible."
John 1:1-3 NASB "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being."

Click to expand...

Again, John isn't retelling Genesis. Nor is Paul. "The beginning" isn't even mentioned in Hebrews.

John doesnt say "hey everyone, I'm going to go through Genesis and tell you what the original authors were describing".

Remember, Jesus isn't even mentioned, ever, in the old testament. He wasn't born yet. So that's not what Genesis is talking about. Same with Hebrews.

John and Paul, they reference the old testament, and they reference OT traditions. But they're not retelling those stories. They are telling new stories, in light of Jesus. And these new stories are not the same, even if the NT authors reference the old testament in doing so.

And I'll give this example again to help explain:

Paul might reference the old testament. But they are different books with different authors. Both inspired. But different nonetheless.

Ephesians 4:8 ESV
[8] Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

Psalm 68:18 ESV
[18] You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

And Paul is not "contradicting" the psalmist. He's just telling a different story. And that's ok for him to do that. It's okay for the New Testament author to reference the Old Testament, but that does not mean that they are retelling those stories.

You're confusing the new testament with the old testament. These are very very different books. Written centuries apart by people living in very different contextual backgrounds. And you're trying to read them as if they're saying the same things. But they are not. And the new testament authors never say that they are.

Doug Brents said:

No, it does not. Day one begins with God making the heavens and the earth without saying anything.

Click to expand...

Nope. In Genesis, God creates with the spoken Word. And that doesn't happen until verse 3. Light is the first thing created.

And that's how every day in Genesis begins, God speaks, God said.

Nothing is happening in verse 1.

Genesis 1:1-3 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters— [3] God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared.

Doug Brents said:

When you are ready to accept that the NRSVUE (whatever that is) is not the ultimate authority, then we can talk. I cannot even find that translation anywhere. Did you write it? It sounds about as authoritative as the book of mormon or the quran (that is to say, not at all).

Click to expand...

Did I write the NRSVue? What do you live under a rock? Have you never heard of the RSV before?

You clearly are not...sigh. no offense but if you don't even know what the NRSV is, I mean, you're not prepared for this kind of conversation. You're not studied on the matter.

Asking me if I wrote the NRSVs updated edition. You're just completely lost on this subject.

Have you heard of the CEB before?

Genesis 1:1-3 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters— [3] God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared.

Are you one of those kjv only people? Oh gosh, now you have me laughing. Come on now. Don't troll me lol.

This is also how hebrew Bibles are written, with the indefinite article under bereshit. "In beginning of God created".


Don't blame me, or the Bible, for your own lack of familiarity with the subject.

Job 33:6 said:

Again, John isn't retelling Genesis. Nor is Paul. "The beginning" isn't even mentioned in Hebrews.

Click to expand...

When did God create everything that is from what is not seen? In the beginning. This is not rocket surgery here. It does not take a massive intellect to understand what God is saying in Hebrews or in John.

Job 33:6 said:

John doesnt say "hey everyone, I'm going to go through Genesis and tell you what the original authors were describing".

Click to expand...

No, He doesn't. He references something everyone knows who has read Genesis, and establishes that Jesus (the Word of God) was there in that beginning, and through Him everything that was made came into being. Nothing that exists was made without His being a part of its making.

Job 33:6 said:

Remember, Jesus isn't even mentioned, ever, in the old testament. He wasn't born yet. So that's not what Genesis is talking about. Same with Hebrews.

Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, not by name, but He is mentioned frequently.
Gen 3:15 - "...And of your offspring and her Descendant; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise Him on the heel.”"
The Descendant mentioned here is Jesus.

Job 33:6 said:

John and Paul, they reference the old testament, and they reference OT traditions. But they're not retelling those stories. They are telling new stories, in light of Jesus. And these new stories are not the same, even if the NT authors reference the old testament in doing so.

Click to expand...

If I told you that I know the wolf personally and his name is William. Then I tell you the story of William woven into the story you already know with the three pigs in it, am I telling you a new story? Or am I telling you the same old story with new information added to it? The Three Little Pigs story is still the same, but we have new information, and new details. The New Testament is not a new story, but the same story of God and His interaction with mankind told if a different light. Creation didn't change.

Job 33:6 said:

Nope. In Genesis, God creates with the spoken Word. And that doesn't happen until verse 3. Light is the first thing created.

And that's how every day in Genesis begins, God speaks, God said.

Nothing is happening in verse 1.

Genesis 1:1-3 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters— [3] God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared.

Click to expand...

Just because that was the way He did it most of the time, doesn't mean that He had to do so, or that He didn't speak the words that caused the beginning and the heavens and earth to be formed. We just don't have that statement of His recorded. He just says that He made the heavens and earth at the point that the beginning occurred.

Job 33:6 said:

Did I write the NRSVue? What do you live under a rock? Have you never heard of the RSV before?

Click to expand...

I have heard of it, but I have not spent much time reading this new, bastardized version of it from which you are quoting. The RSV that I have referenced don't look anything like the nonsense you keep posting.

Job 33:6 said:

Have you heard of the CEB before?

Genesis 1:1-3 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters— [3] God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared.

Are you one of those kjv only people? Oh gosh, now you have me laughing. Come on now. Don't troll me lol.

This is also how hebrew Bibles are written, with the indefinite article under bereshit. "In beginning of God created".

Click to expand...

Having done a little research on these translations, the CEB falls under the "thought for thought" part of the spectrum of translations. That makes it only slightly more reliable than the "paraphrase" bastardizations. The NRSVUE appears to be on the lower end of the "word for word" part of the spectrum. It does not align with the vast majority of the other "word for word" translations. This is good in that it gives perspective. But it makes it less reliable than the other "word for word" translations which agree that "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." is the proper and correct translation and meaning of that first verse in the Bible.

Doug Brents said:

I have heard of it, but I have not spent much time reading this new, bastardized version of it from which you are quoting. The RSV that I have referenced don't look anything like the nonsense you keep posting.

Click to expand...

Ok. Well when you're reading to discuss God's Word without referring to it as "bastardized", I'd be happy to oblige. But until then, your words are nothing more than heresy to me. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed for even saying such a thing, given that this translation is used in a number of instances, including in traditional Jewish translations based on the masoritic texts. In fact, these traditional renderings are more accurate than whatever KJV or ESV (written in the past decade) that you think are more accurate.



I'm happy to converse with most people. But people who disparage and talk down on God's Word, I have no tolerance for.

Job 33:6 said:

Ok. Well when you're reading to discuss God's Word without referring to it as "bastardized", I'd be happy to oblige. But until then, your words are nothing more than heresy to me. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed for even saying such a thing, given that this translation is used in a number of instances, including in traditional Jewish translations based on the masoritic texts. In fact, these traditional renderings are more accurate than whatever KJV or ESV (written in the past decade) that you think are more accurate.

Click to expand...

LOL, I had a feeling you would be "offended" by that term. But the word "bastard" is not inherently a "bad word". It simply means, "one whose mother was not married to his/her father at conception/birth". "Bastardization" simply means, "the act of debasing, corrupting, or degrading something". When someone paraphrases the Word of God, they inherently input their own beliefs/understanding into the text, which almost always changes the meaning of the original text; that is bastardizing the text. Trying to make it seem like God started with a preexisting world and then simply shaped it like we might with a ball of clay is bastardizing the text. When you are ready to accept that, then we can talk some more.

Doug Brents said:

LOL, I had a feeling you would be "offended" by that term. But the word "bastard" is not inherently a "bad word". It simply means, "one whose mother was not married to his/her father at conception/birth". "Bastardization" simply means, "the act of debasing, corrupting, or degrading something". When someone paraphrases the Word of God, they inherently input their own beliefs/understanding into the text, which almost always changes the meaning of the original text; that is bastardizing the text. Trying to make it seem like God started with a preexisting world and then simply shaped it like we might with a ball of clay is bastardizing the text. When you are ready to accept that, then we can talk some more.

Click to expand...

The masoritic texts and the BHS are among the most traditional texts that we have. The RSV, NRSV and NRSVue, JPS, NJPS, as well as the CEB, among other translations are not bastardized. They most accurately reflect the Hebrew tradition. It's just that modern evangelicals, as we see in these forums, have lost their way, and seem to be confused about why there is a lack of definite article in Genesis 1:1.

And the fact that you've never heard of the NRSV or it's updated edition, or perhaps you aren't familiar with its translators, only tells me that you're not familiar enough with the subject to engage it.

At the end of the day, you have a problem with what the Bible says. And that's an issue that only you can deal with. There isn't much more to say.

And if you have a problem with all these translations, then you can take it up with the Jewish Publication Society, the hundreds of Bible scholars who worked on the CEB, the national council of churches, or the German Bible society and their 4th edition of the masoritic text, among others. Or whomever else it is that you want to disregard.





Simply saying "well I don't like these translations" isn't a valid response. And every graph I've seen also lists the NRSV moreso on the word-for-word end of translations. Not that this necessarily makes it better or worse than other translations.

Job 33:6 said:

The masoritic texts and the BHS are among the most traditional texts that we have. The RSV, NRSV and NRSVue, JPS, NJPS, as well as the CEB, among other translations are not bastardized. They most accurately reflect the Hebrew tradition. It's just that modern evangelicals, as we see in these forums, have lost their way, and seem to be confused about why there is a lack of definite article in Genesis 1:1.

And the fact that you've never heard of the NRSV or it's updated edition, or perhaps you aren't familiar with its translators, only tells me that you're not familiar enough with the subject to engage it.

At the end of the day, you have a problem with what the Bible says. And that's an issue that only you can deal with. There isn't much more to say.

And if you have a problem with all these translations, then you can take it up with the Jewish Publication Society, the hundreds of Bible scholars who worked on the CEB, the national council of churches, or the German Bible society and their 4th edition of the masoritic text, among others. Or whomever else it is that you want to disregard.

The Jewish Publication Society

jps.org

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.commonenglishbible.com/files/uploads/AbouttheCEB-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFiL2Bx_iJAxUxFFkFHSKFOicQFnoECB0QBg&usg=AOvVaw337yZtj_CD7a3y6r4wFXXi

National Council of Churches - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Simply saying "well I don't like these translations" isn't a valid response. And every graph I've seen also lists the NRSV moreso on the word-for-word end of translations. Not that this necessarily makes it better or worse than other translations.

Click to expand...

Here is another conservative translation, in addition to the NRSV, NRSVue, JPS, NJPS, CEB, and the BHS which is exceptionally traditional:

Genesis 1:1-3 LEB
[1] In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— [2] Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. [3] And God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light.

The lexham English Bible is developed by conservative scholars of logos Bible software. An exceptionally well credentialed and highly respected team of Evangelical scholars.

And here we see, verse 2 deliberately written as a continuation of verse 1, to help the audience understand the series of events in order. That verse 2 is not a result of verse 1, but rather it is a part of a single sentence. In that the earth was formless, in the beginning. And you'll actually notice an adjustment to this in the NASBs latest 2020 translation as well. Verse 2 begins with a conjunction to help the audience see understand that verse 2 is a part of verse 1, not a result of it.


In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth - and/now the earth was formless and void.

Is different than:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void.





Many many conservative Hebrew scholars acknowledge that "when God began" or "In the Beginning when" is actually the more accurate traditional translation, and not the KJV derived "In the Beginning" which is still a correct translation, however it does not take into account the lack of definite article in verse 1.

Job 33:6 said:

The masoritic texts and the BHS are among the most traditional texts that we have. The RSV, NRSV and NRSVue, JPS, NJPS, as well as the CEB, among other translations are not bastardized. They most accurately reflect the Hebrew tradition. It's just that modern evangelicals, as we see in these forums, have lost their way, and seem to be confused about why there is a lack of definite article in Genesis 1:1.

Click to expand...

It does not matter what original text one starts with if they paraphrase what is said through the lens of their own understanding and preconceptions. That is the bastardization. Not the fact of translating truthfully and honestly word for word what the original said. And when 30 different translators translate one way, and then someone comes along and translates it a different way, they must either give very good reasons for the change, or they simply putting their own preconception into the text, thereby changing the meaning and bastardizing the text.

Job 33:6 said:

At the end of the day, you have a problem with what the Bible says. And that's an issue that only you can deal with. There isn't much more to say.

Click to expand...

No, I have no problem with what the Bible says. What I have a problem with is people putting their own understanding into the text and calling it Scripture. No, there is no article "the" in the original ancient Hebrew text of Gen 1:1. But that doesn't change the meaning of the text. "In beginning...". What beginning? Beginning when all things started; when God made heavens and earth from nothing that existed before beginning. That beginning. It does not change the meaning of that sentence if I put "the" in there in several places where it could go or not.

Job 33:6 said:

And if you have a problem with all these translations, then you can take it up with the Jewish Publication Society, the hundreds of Bible scholars who worked on the CEB, the national council of churches, or the German Bible society and their 4th edition of the masoritic text, among others. Or whomever else it is that you want to disregard.

Simply saying "well I don't like these translations" isn't a valid response. And every graph I've seen also lists the NRSV moreso on the word-for-word end of translations. Not that this necessarily makes it better or worse than other translations.

Click to expand...

The NRSV is not a bad translation, and I have used it as a cross-reference with other translations. But I had never heard of the NRSVUE that you were quoting from. And the words you were quoting from it did not resemble any of the translations of the Scriptures that I had ever seen or referenced. So it looked like you were writing whatever made you happy so you could make your point.

Doug Brents said:

The NRSV is not a bad translation, and I have used it as a cross-reference with other translations. But I had never heard of the NRSVUE that you were quoting from. And the words you were quoting from it did not resemble any of the translations of the Scriptures that I had ever seen or referenced. So it looked like you were writing whatever made you happy so you could make your point.

Click to expand...

UE is just the updated edition. I'm sorry if you're not following along with your Bible translations.

You're acting like some translations are good and others are bad, but in reality it's the same collection of scholars doing both.

"It does not matter what original text one starts with if they paraphrase what is said through the lens of their own understanding and preconceptions. "

These translations are not "paraphrasing". BHS is in Hebrew. It most closely reflects the original masoritic literature. That's why the Jewish Publication Society uses the same translation. This is in fact, the original traditional way of translating the text. The NRSV, JPS, CEB etc. Are actually translating the text more literally than the KJV, ESV etc. In this instance.

You're just being dishonest in marking off all these translations without any clear justification other than your personal feeling that they are "paraphrasing". However, in Hebrew, there is no definite article alongside bereshit. The text, as the most traditional and historic translations and literature that we have, is most appropriately translated as "in the beginning of" or "in the beginning when". Just as is the case in Genesis 5, or Jeremiah 26:1 or 27:1. Among others.

Job 33:6 said:

UE is just the updated edition. I'm sorry if you're not following along with your Bible translations.

You're acting like some translations are good and others are bad, but in reality it's the same collection of scholars doing both.

"It does not matter what original text one starts with if they paraphrase what is said through the lens of their own understanding and preconceptions. "

These translations are not "paraphrasing". BHS is in Hebrew. It most closely reflects the original masoritic literature. That's why the Jewish Publication Society uses the same translation. This is in fact, the original traditional way of translating the text. The NRSV, JPS, CEB etc. Are actually translating the text more accurately than the KJV, ESV etc. In this instance.

Click to expand...

The TANAKH is the canon of the Jewish Bible (also known as the Hebrew Bible, the Holy Scriptures, or the Old Testament). “TANAKH” is an acronym for the text’s three sections: the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

The JPS TANAKH is widely recognized as the most authoritative and preferred English translation of the Hebrew Bible in the Jewish world and beyond.

The JPS TANAKH is an entirely original translation of the Holy Scriptures into contemporary English, based on the original masoretic (traditional Hebrew) text.

These translations are stemming from the oldest traditions that we have.

Job 33:6 said:

UE is just the updated edition. I'm sorry if you're not following along with your Bible translations.

You're acting like some translations are good and others are bad, but in reality it's the same collection of scholars doing both.

Click to expand...

No, not all translations are equal. All of the "paraphrases" are nothing but garbage. The Word of God has been so garbled and mashed up with the "translator's" opinions that it is nothing more than that person's commentary on Scripture, and no longer God's Word. The "thought for thought" translations are little better, because it is the "translator's" opinion about the thoughts of God that make it onto the page, not the thoughts of God.

And even in the "word for word" translations, some of them have errors of translation, omissions, additions, etc. that render some sections of Scripture incorrect in the translation. One example of this is the word baptize/baptism. This was not even a word in the English language until the translators of the KJV started their work. They practiced sprinkling and/or pouring instead of immersion, and so when they came to the word in Greek that means immersion, they couldn't admit to their wrong practice and instead of translating the word faithfully, they transliterated the Greek "baptizo" into the English "baptize" and the Greek "baptizma" into the English "baptism". And then they were free to define this new English word however they chose to define it. And this has caused confusion ever since.

Job 33:6 said:

These translations are not "paraphrasing". BHS is in Hebrew. It most closely reflects the original masoritic literature. That's why the Jewish Publication Society uses the same translation. This is in fact, the original traditional way of translating the text. The NRSV, JPS, CEB etc. Are actually translating the text more literally than the KJV, ESV etc. In this instance.

You're just being dishonest in marking off all these translations without any clear justification other than your personal feeling that they are "paraphrasing". However, in Hebrew, there is no definite article alongside bereshit. The text, as the most traditional and historic translations and literature that we have, is most appropriately translated as "in the beginning of" or "in the beginning when". Just as is the case in Genesis 5, or Jeremiah 26:1 or 27:1. Among others.

Click to expand...

Having worshiped with, and studied under, a Messianic Jewish Rabbi for a time, I can tell you that Jewish Christ followers do not believe that God started with a preexisting world and did nothing more than shape what already existed. In Gen 1:1, He made all of the heavens (space) and the earth (it being at that time a formless mass of water). Then He made light. But His creative process began with Gen 1:1 when He made heavens and earth from nothing beyond His own power.

Doug Brents said:

No, not all translations are equal. All of the "paraphrases" are nothing but garbage. The Word of God has been so garbled and mashed up with the "translator's" opinions that it is nothing more than that person's commentary on Scripture, and no longer God's Word. The "thought for thought" translations are little better, because it is the "translator's" opinion about the thoughts of God that make it onto the page, not the thoughts of God.

And even in the "word for word" translations, some of them have errors of translation, omissions, additions, etc. that render some sections of Scripture incorrect in the translation. One example of this is the word baptize/baptism. This was not even a word in the English language until the translators of the KJV started their work. They practiced sprinkling and/or pouring instead of immersion, and so when they came to the word in Greek that means immersion, they couldn't admit to their wrong practice and instead of translating the word faithfully, they transliterated the Greek "baptizo" into the English "baptize" and the Greek "baptizma" into the English "baptism". And then they were free to define this new English word however they chose to define it. And this has caused confusion ever since.

Having worshiped with, and studied under, a Messianic Jewish Rabbi for a time, I can tell you that Jewish Christ followers do not believe that God started with a preexisting world and did nothing more than shape what already existed. In Gen 1:1, He made all of the heavens (space) and the earth (it being at that time a formless mass of water). Then He made light. But His creative process began with Gen 1:1 when He made heavens and earth from nothing beyond His own power.

Click to expand...

You're not even addressing the issue at hand here. The translations that most accurately reflect the masoritic tradition, observe the fact there there is no definite article in Genesis 1:1, state, "in the beginning, when" or "when God began".

It's not paraphrasing. It's the historical and traditional translation.




All you're doing is just baselessly rejecting all these translations. You're rejecting the Bible. It just doesn't get more plain than that.

And you can have whatever opinion you want about Jewish Christians, the Jewish publication Society translation says what it says.

I don't need to study under a Jewish rabbi to know that the Jewish publication Society translation directly says "when God began".


And you can just listen to Jewish scholars talk about this exact topic, and that's what they say that it is and what it means.

And the reason is, there is no definite article in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew doesn't say "the" beginning. There is no word "the". It's just, "in beginning of God created". Or in English it's better rendered as "in beginning when God created".

Or simply and concisely translated:
When God began.

And that's just what it is. And that's how it's translated elsewhere. The Old Testament, such as Jeremiah 26:1 or 27:1. Or Genesis 5.

"The Word of God has been so garbled and mashed up with the "translator's" opinions that it is nothing more than that person's commentary on Scripture"

God has protected His word perfectly fine. You just have a personal problem with what it says. What I am sharing with you, is the traditional position. And you'll hear scholars reference medieval Jewish scholars saying this exact thing 1,000 years ago. And even more historically, texts dated to ages older than the 2nd temple period also use this same phrase.

And, Not only that, but that's exactly how Genesis chapter 2 starts as well, if you look closely, it starts with a barren land where there are no plants, and God then takes that and creates.

It's the same thing. Same syntax as well.

Genesis 2:4-7 NRSV
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, [5] when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; [6] but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— [7] then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.


Verse 4 is your intro. (It's a teledoth)
Verses 5-6 is your background tohu wa bohu.
And verse 7, then God...

Here is Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Verse 1 is your intro.
Verse 2a and 2b is your background tohu wa bohu
Verse 3, then God

It's the same thing.
@Doug Brents

This is, in fact, the traditional renderings of the text. Prior to KJV and the Latin Vulgate. But some people just get bent out of shape because it's not what they grew up with in Sunday school.

Well, too bad. It is what it is. And responding with "well I just don't like those translations", well, that's your personal problem. That's not a valid response, it's just your own issue.

Job 33:6 said:

You're not even addressing the issue at hand here. The translations that most accurately reflect the masoritic tradition, observe the fact there there is no definite article in Genesis 1:1, state, "in the beginning, when" or "when God began".

Click to expand...

Neither of those change the meaning of the full sentence found in Gen 1:1.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth..."
"When God began creating the heaven and the earth..."
All three of these mean the same thing, that God started with nothing and created (made something from nothing more than His own power) the heavens and the earth, before He created light and the rest of the days of creation.

Job 33:6 said:

"The Word of God has been so garbled and mashed up with the "translator's" opinions that it is nothing more than that person's commentary on Scripture"

God has protected His word perfectly fine. You just have a personal problem with what it says. What I am sharing with you, is the traditional position.

Click to expand...

No, I have a problem with what people think it says and write books thinking they are correcting God's wording for Him.

Doug Brents said:

Neither of those change the meaning of the full sentence found in Gen 1:1.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth..."
"When God began creating the heaven and the earth..."
All three of these mean the same thing,

Click to expand...

See, now all of a sudden you're ok with these other translations because they "mean the same thing".

Well, actually, no they don't. "When God began" being part of the same sentence as verse 2, the earth was formless, is obviously different, because it states that the earth was formless when God began.

It is what it is. And Jewish commentators are very clear about this. Rashi said it 1,000 years ago. Ancient near east texts use this same syntax dated back to 1,000BC.

You just spend all that time criticizing the text as "bastardized " and "garbled" and "mashed up", now all of a sudden it's "well I guess they all say the same thing, so it's ok".

Face it. You have a problem with what the Bible says. It is that simple. And only you can wrestle with this one. It's a heart issue. You're hardened.

Doug Brents said:

No, I have a problem with what people think it says and write books thinking they are correcting God's wording for Him.

Click to expand...

The only person trying to correct God here, is you.

Doug Brents said:

No, I have a problem with what people think it says and write books thinking they are correcting God's wording for Him.

Click to expand...

"The Word of God has been so garbled and mashed up with the "translator's" opinions that it is nothing more than that person's commentary on Scripture"

God has protected His word perfectly fine. You just have a personal problem with what it says. What I am sharing with you, is the traditional position. And you'll hear scholars reference medieval Jewish scholars saying this exact thing 1,000 years ago. And even more historically, texts dated to ages older than the 2nd temple period also use this same phrase.

And, Not only that, but that's exactly how Genesis chapter 2 starts as well, if you look closely, it starts with a barren land where there are no plants, and God then takes that and creates.

It's the same thing. Same syntax as well.

Genesis 2:4-7 NRSV
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, [5] when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; [6] but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— [7] then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.


Verse 4 is your intro. (It's a teledoth)
Verses 5-6 is your background tohu wa bohu.
And verse 7, then God...

Here is Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Verse 1 is your intro.
Verse 2a and 2b is your background tohu wa bohu
Verse 3, then God

It's the same thing.
@Doug Brents

This is, in fact, the traditional renderings of the text. Prior to KJV and the Latin Vulgate. But some people just get bent out of shape because it's not what they grew up with in Sunday school.

Well, too bad. It is what it is. And responding with "well I just don't like those translations", well, that's your personal problem. That's not a valid response, it's just your own issue.

And we've already covered the topic of passages in Hebrews 11 and John 1. I see no need to repeat myself.

This is an issue between you and God, and all I can do is show you the door. The rest is on you.

Job 33:6 said:

See, now all of a sudden you're ok with these other translations because they "mean the same thing".

Well, actually, no they don't. "When God began" being part of the same sentence as verse 2, the earth was formless, is obviously different, because it states that the earth was formless when God began.

Click to expand...

No, God didn't begin with a formless, preexisting earth. He began by creating the heavens and the earth that was formless. That is where the rewording of the Word of God becomes problematic. In changing the Word in Genesis, you are making it contradict John 1:1 and Heb 11:3. Because they both say that God didn't start with a preexisting anything. He started with nothing and made everything that is from nothing but His own power.

Job 33:6 said:

Face it. You have a problem with what the Bible says. It is that simple. And only you can wrestle with this one. It's a heart issue. You're hardened.

Click to expand...

No, as I said, I have a problem with you, and anyone else, changing the text to fit their own preconceptions.