Or maybe God is the Creator, and we shouldn’t read Genesis too literally?
This isn’t actually news to me, I should begin by saying. Anyone with a gram of knowledge about ancient Hebrew texts shouldn’t be surprised by the news that according to the Book of Genesis, God did not create the waters and the Earth. Or, rather, He might have created them…but the book doesn’t actually tell us whether He did or didn’t. Genesis begins in media res, with the spirit of God floating over the face of the waters.
Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” is not a true translation of the Hebrew.
Now, granted, I find this claim to be a bit dubious, not because my faith will be inexorably shattered if the translation of Genesis read in exactly the above-highlighted way, but because I find it hard to believe that a translation of the text that has been broadly accepted by Jews and Christians alike for…well…thousands of years, in many languages other than, but also including, English, is actually wrong. Put more plainly, I find it strains credulity to believe that this one professor is right, and thousands of years of Jewish and Christian scholars who have upheld the traditional translation of the text are wrong.
Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”.
The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth”
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing.
Of course, most modern scientific theories about the origin of the Universe teach something similar. But let’s not mention that bit, shall we?
Here’s the thing: Genesis 1:1 isn’t actually the first line of a narrative; it’s actually the book’s title. We give the book the title of “Genesis,” but the original manuscript’s title is…well…a bit more descriptive. The real “first line” of Genesis is Genesis 1:2, more or less, and it’s an in media res beginning: God’s spirit is hovering over the face of the waters of a dark and unformed Earth.
Did God create the waters? It doesn’t say…which to me suggests that the author of the ancient text didn’t consider that to be an important point. God goes on the create everything thereafter, leading up to the creation of man; that’s the main point of the text.
Not that it’s a literal account anyhow, of course! It’s a histographical myth (I use the term in its proper, academic meaning), not a historical discourse chronicling the literal events of the world’s first week. So in a broader sense, it really doesn’t matter whether Genesis says God made the waters and the formless Earth; that sequence of events never transpired!
Of course, Prof van Wolde contradicts herself here:
She said technically “bara” does mean “create” but added: “Something was wrong with the verb.
“God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?”
This is the problem with trying to be smarter than you are, good reader. Or, rather, it’s the problem with trying to take your piece of pet knowledge and turn it into something which is meant to refute established theological wisdom, rather than trying to see if there is already an answer for it within that body of knowledge.
Why indeed did God create not just one thing, “but always more?” Well, it could be that God wasn’t actually creating new things, and that He was merely dividing extant things into new categories. Or it could be that God is love, and that the nature of divine love is outwardly directed, life-giving, and principally ordered toward the creation of new ideas, new things, and new beings.
You know…all those things that the Judeo-Christian God is.
Prof van Wolde’s translation work is novel, though probably not correct. But even if it is correct…so what? Genesis can’t be read literally; it was never meant to be read literally! Granted, there’s no harm in reading it that way, but that was not the Spirit’s intent when He inspired the ancient author(s) to reach for the ink and the parchment.
In the end, whether the water was already there at the beginning of the narrative matters not a whit to me, or to my faith, or to the Church…so long as Christ, the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity, died and rose again three days later. Genesis is an important text…but not so important as Jesus. And novel interpretations of Genesis are…well…novel…but that’s about it. Insofar as those novel translations do not alter our understanding of the nature of Christ, they are utterly unimportant, except as matters of curiosity.
(hat tip)
“Genesis can’t be read literally; it was never meant to be read literally! Granted, there’s no harm in reading it that way, but that was not the Spirit’s intent when He inspired the ancient author(s) to reach for the ink and the parchment. ”
i agree that genesis is not literal.
how do you objectively know that the spirit inspired the ancient authors?
No need to leave comments twice, Boz; they won’t get out of the admin queue any quicker.
You ask:
And I note that in your second comment, you deleted the word “objectively.” This was probably a wise decision, but I chose to publish this comment because I wanted to comment on the use of the word, which (to begin with) is quite a loaded term. How, for example, would you even begin to define what an objective standard of knowledge is here? It’s not as though the Spirit signed, with a floruish, the various books that make up the Bible. The books bear all the hallmarks of human authorship, and in fact we know that they were written by human authors. We even know who many of those authors were.
The closest that exists in Scripture to a signature of the Spirit is:
“God breathed” is often translated as “inspired by God,” and the meaning is essentially the same. That’s as close as any book of the Bible comes to explicitly claiming that the Spirit (who is one in being with God, being the third person of the Trinity) is the inspiration behind it all, and it’s as close as we can find to the Spirit’s personal signature in the various texts.
Chances are, that isn’t what you meant when you wrote “objectively,” however. In which case, I really would have to wonder what you meant, what your definition of objective was. In my experience, most people use terms like that as a way to set up highly mobile goalposts that they can use later on in the discussion, so as to reject any and all evidence I might bring forth in support of my statements.
As it is, my knowledge of Scripture’s inspiration comes from the Church and her tradition and teachings.
CCC105-108:
CCC 101-104:
CCC 109-119:
And finally, CCC 120:
In summation, I suppose I could say that my knowledge of the inspired nature of Scripture stems from two sources: the Church, who safeguards and interprets the word by the authority of apostolic tradition, and Christ, who is the living embodiment of the Word of God, and who is very literally the source, summit, and substance of the Scriptures.
It sounds like you are saying “The spirit inspired the authors because the catechism says so”. If that is an accurate summary of what you are saying, how do you know that the catechism is correct on this issue?
I don’t really understand your second point. It sounds like “The spirit inspired the authors because Christ”.
That wouldn’t be an accurate summary of what I am saying, no. Granted, I’m quoting heavily from the Catechism, because its articulation of the matter is about the simplest that is available (the Church, in her centuries of age, has managed to refine the language used quite a bit). If you can’t follow what the Catechism is asserting in this regard, there is little I can do to simplify it further, and would probably fail in the attempt.
It would be fair to say that the Church, by her apostolic authority and sacred tradition, are a means of knowing that Scripture is inspired, and then in part because she has taught this to be true out of that authority and tradition. But equally, that’s not really the end of the statement, because neither the idea of the authority the Church inherits from the Apostles, nor the idea of the sacred revelation that is conveyed by the traditions of the Church, is a terminal point in that statement. Indeed, both ideas open doors to wider discussions which there is simply not time for in this comments form at present.
Or perhaps not. You say:
In a strange sort of way, that’s actually almost what I’m asserting, yes. Not quite, granted, but not far off the mark either.
First, it must be remembered that Scripture is Christ, present in the words of human authors). Jesus is not merely a character in the Bible; He is the Bible, and the Bible is merely an expression — a revelatory form — of Him. From this, we can begin to know that the Spirit guided the hearts and minds of Scripture’s human authors, not to perfection and accuracy in every detail (rabbits chewing cud, etc.), but to perfection and accuracy in presenting the person and deity of Jesus in the sacred texts, and the message of His promise of salvation.
Equally, it must be remembered that both the apostolic authority and sacred tradition of the Church, as promised by Christ, are a further means of revealing Him, and can be thought of as additional ways in which He is present. And as with Scripture, the Spirit guides the formation and further understanding of this authority and this tradition, so that it too becomes a perfect means of revealing the deity and person of Jesus, and also a means by which Scripture can be understood by and interpreted to humanity. It is because of Christ, and the work of the Spirit, that the Church is able to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures and, in fact, see the work of the Spirit in them.
So I guess what I am ultimately asserting is that we can know Scripture is inspired by the Spirit because the Spirit reveals this knowledge to us not in the pages of Scripture directly, but through both Jesus and the Church, and His constant presence in every aspect of the life and wisdom of the latter.
I can understand if that’s not…er…exactly easy to understand; it wasn’t meant to be, because (as noted) I had no intent of attempting a simpler explanation than is offered in the Catechism. I can only suggest re-reading the above and the cited Catechetical passages as many times as is necessary for the meaning thereof to begin to sink in; prayerful contemplation of the aforementioned texts might also be beneficial.
“That wouldn’t be an accurate summary of what I am saying, no. Granted, I’m quoting heavily from the Catechism, because its articulation of the matter is about the simplest that is available (the Church, in her centuries of age, has managed to refine the language used quite a bit). If you can’t follow what the Catechism is asserting in this regard, there is little I can do to simplify it further, and would probably fail in the attempt.”
So I went back to your lengthy quote and found what I deem to be relevant portions for this issue.
“God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The [...]Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, [...] on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author”
“God inspired the human authors of the sacred books.”
As far as I can tell, the catechism is asserting “This is true”. I don’t see how this assertion is substantiated.
——–
“First, it must be remembered that Scripture is Christ, present in the words of human authors). Jesus is not merely a character in the Bible; He is the Bible, and the Bible is merely an expression — a revelatory form — of Him. From this, we can begin to know that the Spirit guided the hearts and minds of Scripture’s human authors, not to perfection and accuracy in every detail (rabbits chewing cud, etc.), but to perfection and accuracy in presenting the person and deity of Jesus in the sacred texts, and the message of His promise of salvation.”
I don’t get how the first sentence demonstrates how we can begin to know that the spirit inspired the authors. The first sentence doesn’t really mean anything to me. “Jesus is the bible” “the bible is an expression of jesus” “scripture is christ” – These phrases sound nice, but they don’t mean anything.
—–
“So I guess what I am ultimately asserting is that we can know Scripture is inspired by the Spirit because the Spirit reveals this knowledge to us through both Jesus and the Church, and His constant presence in every aspect of the life and wisdom of the latter.”
so, the spirit tells jesus that the authors were inspired by the spirit, who tells the church, who tells us ?
You are writing a lot of words that don’t really mean anything to me.
I’m just going to reformat your post slightly. Feel free to make use of blockquotes in the future.
I appreciate that you have deemed these to be relevant portions of the cited text, though I should mention that I’m somewhat dubious as to what authority you are leveraging in so deeming. I can appreciate that it probably serves your purpose in this discussion to cherry-pick as you’ve done, but…well, anyhow, let’s respond directly.
The Catechism is asserting the truth of Scripture’s inspiration, yes. As to substantiation, that’s another one of those terms that I suspect you’re leveraging in order to provide yourself with a set of movable goalposts for later on.
For example: if I were to point out that the Catechism substantiates its assertions by noting that…
…you would probably say that this says nothing at all, or maybe argue that it’s circular reasoning (not that it is, but…), or otherwise dismiss it out of hand as being unsubstantial. Movable goalposts, remember? Advantage, you.
Except in the area of reason and honest discourse, that is. Because an honest examination of the above would reveal that the Church notes that there is an underlying unity to Scripture, fulfilled in Christ Jesus, but indicated from the very first lines of the Bible. This underlying unity and indication of Christ is further bolstered by the fact that it is presented in a way that simultaneously communicates deep theological truths whilst remaining accessible to even children; it represents a condescension (in a non-negative sense, mind) on the part of the inspiring Spirit to the limited ability of humanity to understand the truths of God.
The Church also notes that the living nature of Scripture, and a further hint of its inspired nature, is reflected in the life and living vibrancy of the Church.
But I suspect that you’ll find a way and excuse to dismiss all of these considerations out of hand. Movable goalposts, remember?
They might not mean anything to you, but we’ve hardly demonstrated that your understanding is complete, correct, comprehensive, or…y’know…reflective of reality, have we? I’d be interested in seeing what evidence you could present that it…er…is any or all of these things.
As previously noted, I really don’t have the linguistic ability to communicate these concepts any more clearly, which I suspect is a situation not helped at all by what I am assuming is an overly empirical worldview on your part. The fact is, the assertion that Scripture — words, authorship, meaning, and intent — are Christ Himself is both a powerful and meaningful one. It is simultaneously a bold and difficult declaration that the Lord of the Universe and the means of its very creation is present, in a meaningful sense, in the words of a book. That you cannot understand this is unfortunate, but also expected:
And:
Now, to be fair, Boz, I don’t know your religious stance, if you have one. But as it is, if you are not a religious person, and especially if you are an avowed non-believer, your inability to comprehend what is being said to you is not surprising, and is in fact to be expected. Note that said inability neither invalidates what is being said nor makes it lack point or poignancy; the issue is with you and your limited understanding, not with the complex assertions being made.
Case in point:
Then I am sorry, but I cannot help you. Your mind and heart are closed to more complicated truths, it seems; there is little I can do to alleviate this problem.
I do appreciate that my words mean nothing to you, personally, and I feel some level of regret for that…but I also note that this lack of understanding on your part does not in any way argue against the words themselves, nor does it invalidate, repudiate, or give rebuttal to their meaning.
If you have substantive arguments to present in rebuttal to the words, by all means have at ‘er. Though given your lack of understanding, I doubt such an effort would succeed.
It’s like we are speaking different languages. How strange.
I don’t find it strange at all; as noted, it was an entirely predictable outcome. I must say, however, that I’m rather disappointed that you don’t offer the same sort of comprehensive replies that I offer in turn; I try not to leave any statement of yours unaddressed, and find myself disappointed that you do not return the effort.
It is, of course, your prerogative, but it’s really impeding the dialogue in a few ways. All I know about you is that you don’t understand what I’m saying…which is an issue I cannot address until and unless you fill in some more gaps in my knowledge of you.
I also find I wonder at the nature of your refusal to address some of the things I say. Is it laziness that causes this, or inability? Or something else? Again, I cannot and do not know, and I think this really impedes the conversation.
“that I’m rather disappointed that you don’t offer the same sort of comprehensive replies that I offer in turn; I try not to leave any statement of yours unaddressed, and find myself disappointed that you do not return the effort.”
“I also find I wonder at the nature of your refusal to address some of the things I say. Is it laziness that causes this, or inability? Or something else?”
Many of the paragraphs you quote and type contain several implied assumptions and vague metaphorical claims. In order for me to discover what you are claiming, and the rationale for these claims would involve dozens of branching lines of inquiry for each of your posts. I don’t have the time or inclination for such a discussion to reach its end.
Take for example this paragraph you quoted. There are dozens of questions I might ask, and each of your responses would spawn several more questions each. This is just an example, and I don’t expect you to answer these questions.
““Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures”…In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.””
(1) What is the “word” metaphor saying
(2)What is a dead letter
(3)what does this: “the eternal Word of the living God” metaphor mean
(4)what is the holy spirit? Does it even exist? Why can’t christ act on his own?
(5)what does the “open hearts and mind” metaphor mean?
(6) another mysterious metaphor “the Word of the eternal Father”
etc.
Curious that you do not enumerate examples of this.
This is probably the most comprehension you have demonstrated thus far. You are exactly correct; the real discussion would have to span pages and volumes. And in fact it does just that: you’ve heard of the Summa Theologica, I presume? Please tell me you have.
Then there’s little worth, for you, in pursuing this discussion any further…because any further progress would necessitate having exactly the sort of lengthy discussion you have neither the time nor inclination to participate in.
Granted, I can sympathize, in part; I do not have the time for such a discussion either. Then too, I don’t really have the time to repeat myself again either, which is about all I could do in order to keep the discussion constrained to its present boundaries.
Since you haven’t asked said questions, it’s probably for the best that you don’t expect answers to them.
But may I point out something? What gave you the impression, when you posed your initial question, that the answer would be a simple one? You are asking after the deepest truths of reality itself here, not requesting a sum or a derivation to be performed. It was not some simple empirical examination you have embarked upon in asking what you did; you did not pose a question as easily answered as the question of what colour water turns when copper-2-sulfate is added to it.
You asked a deep question; we’ve only stepped into the shallows of the answer. If you cannot comprehend the answer you’ve received thus far, despite my repeated efforts to dumb it down as much as I can, then clearly the issue is not with the matter under discussion or the truth of the existence of God. The issue is with you, your limited understanding of the material, and what is either ignorance (for thinking that your question would have a short, simple answer) or dishonesty (for asking a question that you knew would have a complex answer, and then later remarking that you have no time for such things).
You’re right, I’m not going to answer these. Or: are you bloody-well serious?
“What is a dead letter?” Sorry to focus on just one question for a moment, but really…”what is a dead letter?” You honestly need to ask that?
No, no, no. Up to this point, I’ve attempted to address each statement — each paragraph, if not each sentence — you’ve written. I think it’s only fair that you show me the same courtesy. It is left as an exercise to you to go back over previous posts of mine so as to identify questions I have posed to you, or statements I have made which suggest the need for an answer, and address these. Make even a modest attempt at so doing, and I will gladly continue publishing your comments. Make no such attempt, and I will instead make use of the ‘delete’ functionality of the comments administration panel.
And if you should decide to give me the answers I’ve been waiting on for quite some time now, I will make an effort to give you your answers…as time permits.