sin is the rejection of God’s authority over the self. the fall is the poetic description of puberty were we also establish the self by taking authority over morality. It brakes your identity of being the part of the eternal authority , thus a self that vanishes with death.
I will keep it simple for you. Don’t take the literal view of Genesis! I do not dispute the literary accuracy of an educated literal translation. There simply must be other ways to translate and interpret Genesis from the Hebrew words that existed at the time. The other methods may rely on the literal translation for the basic structure of the text, but it must be labeled something other than ‘literal’.
Going whole hog…
“At T = zero, God instantiated the Big Bang, and symmetry was unbroken. And opacity hid the face of the deep. And quantum uncertainty varied the energy thereof.”
But that would just be me making stuff up.
1 Like
Sorry, but your version doesn’t work. You are changing the syntax of a literal translation. An epistemic translation must follow the syntax of a literal translation while adding a translated meaning to specific Hebrew words for which no better word existed in the available vocabulary. Your rendering does not follow the rules of an epistemic translation. Even modern words can have several different meanings that depend on the context in they are used to determine the meaning that applies.
Hebrew syntax does not really translate literally into English, but fine, call it a paraphrase. The point is that it is not the object of translation to add more meaning than is actually in the source.
The reason better words did not exist in the Hebrew vocabulary is of course modern conceptions of space and fluid matter were foreign to those authors. So teleporting those ideas backwards presumes that they were attempting to convey more than they were able to express, that there was tucked away some hidden knowledge directed to the 21st century. There is more of the epistemic than translation in that reach.
And “vibrating”?? Like a wheel out of alignment? Off-balance laundry load? Old hair clippers? That is just a mistranslation, and the traditional “hovering” captures the actual sense well.
1 Like
Way late to contribute, as I have been traveling and only looking here occasionally. But, here is a blog entry by one of our crowd on the issue of Moses’ authorship:
http://vincentsapone.com/writings/authorship/moses.html
Pretty good, I thought. By the way, on my travels actually went to Mt. Nebo, but didn’t find his bones, even to this day.
4 Likes
Interesting - some Protestant faiths consider children innocent, others are more detail-oriented. Plenty of points on hand for both sides. However, since we are born with no (concept or) concern for others, we are in a state of pure id. Sigmund Freud is foundational to psychology. Even if that foundation is now encased in concrete (more than a century of research) it is useful to fall back on his id, ego, and superego formulation.
At birth we are the distilled essence of id. Id is the core of needs and wants. It is reptillian in that regard.
Around the age of 18 months to two years the idea of other wills in our world is a shock. No one can tell me when to go potty and when to go night-night. So every single interaction makes me say “No!” Hand me a cookie? I shout NO and grab the cookie.
Around the age of four we begin to understand that what hurts me will also hurt the kid across the table, such as when I throw a block at him. This looks like the birth of ego, i.e. awareness of others as distinct from self, thus it ends the “age of innocence.”
By six we can understand that when we put a box in the ground that has grandma in it, we will never ever see her again. Death has become comprehensible.
Adulthood means one has developed a functional superego. We recognize our own guilt, obligations, and need to conform top group expectations, as the tip of the superego iceberg.
SO - HOW DOES SIN ENTER IN?
Evolution means that the family tree of every living thing goes all the way back to a First Cell. And that means that for the past 3.8+ billion years every single one of our ancestors - no exceptions, all of them - managed to survive and reproduce.
Or in other words all living things have been honed and tuned continuously, across 3.8+ billion years, to focus on and succeed at doing those two things. Consider this: “No one has greater love than one who lays down life for another.” You can see the connection between the urge to survive and the love involved in laying down your life. Surely evolution is the material answer to Original Sin. There are spiritual consequences, as well. But the DNA of us means we begin with nothing but id.
1 Like
I realize that Hebrew syntax does not translate directly to English syntax. But the English syntax that provides a reasonable literal translation of the Hebrew is a necessary and valid foundation for an epistemic translation. The ancient Hebrew vocabulary had two different words to describe motion. One meant linear movement and the other one meant vibrating movement. Genesis 1:2 uses the word for vibrating movement. The fact that it could also be translated as ‘hovering’ or ‘fluttering’ or ‘flapping’ or many other similar words just proves my point that a given word can have several possible meanings in translation. Consider the epistemic translation of Genesis to be the fulfillment of prophecy based on future knowledge rather than a future event.
Careful there my friend. Genesis vv 1 and 3 do tell us that Day ONE saw God institute / invent time itself, plus space, matter, and light. Genesis literalists may be reluctant to do the exegesis, to pull that out. But it is there. God actually instantiates the Big Bang - think in terms of a sentient uncaused first cause, which I and perhaps you recognize as God, I AM.
Then we look at verse two, nestled between these brawny arms of science, of fact, It stipulates the material details of Creation as they were presumed by that civilization. Genesis is about God. Those material details carry the theology of Seven Days and God as Creator, but the material details are just a stage with a painted scrim.
As written, Day Two places a forever supply of rain above the vault of the heavens, and Day Four places the sun, moon, and stars within the heights of that vault. Yet the reality of what God made (starting with that big bang) has earth in orbit around the nearest star.
As written, Day Three pulls earth up from beneath vast waters. Yet Earth is a sphere with a thin crispy crust of continents surrounded by films of water (or seas.)
It should be clear that Genesis consists of stories that teach. There isn’t much character development. Way beyond the Pentateuch we can find Elisha asking Elijah for an extra helping of the spirit (godly power) Elijah had possessed. But when we think of story we turn to character arc and character development, and whatever elegance lurks within the crafting of the plot. This kind of “story” is human. The story in Genesis (whispered: don’t say myth out loud - people might misunderstand) is the perfect form for God to teach us great Truths in broadest and most effective form.
The value of stories that are plain and simple is that each one is unique, thus easy to remember.
The power of story is that unlettered bronze age adults and six-ear-olds in Sunday School can both perceive and internalize theological truths - and profound ones at that.
To God be all the glory. We are in the age of science, where many tens of thousands of researchers are obsessed in full OCD mode with what God has made. Many of them see the overwhelming beauty, power, and glory in what God made, and come to believe in God. God’s riches include a universe that both materially and intellectually exceeds our reach forever.
Fascinating. Yes, reality trumps Genesis in that Days Two through Six are story, while Day One is science (vv 1,3 say that God instantiated time, space, and light. Those two verses constitute the entire science-and-fact portion of the first 10+ chapters of Genesis. All the rest is story-based lessons.
And verse 2? Cradled between those broad strong arms of fact we find a stipulation that the extant pagan cosmology was not the point. It is there to provide a material orientation. It does not puzzle those unlettered bronze age minds. Instead it acts as a platform on which the theology rises up and obliterates the pagan theology.
God is all-creating, intentional, and cares deeply about us. We are to learn from Him and answer to Him.
As for the pagan deities, they had a certain glory and grandeur for that age, but next to I AM they come across as college freshmen on their second spring break - thoughtless, promiscuous, unreliable, vulnerable, with no foresight and, at end, perhaps as concerned about their attempted genocide on everyone as a cattle herder would be when five head drown crossing a large river. They don’t deeply care.
BUT AS TO facts vs Scripture, facts are like accountants where Scripture is CEO and Chairman of the Board.
() Facts are beyond dispute. Their measurements and behavior never change
() Notions that have no or incomplete support from all facts on hand are beliefs. If they had total factual support they would be facts. It is a contradiction in terms to believe a fact,
() But where do we find Meaning Significance Morality Value and the like?
() Such as these are overlays of spirit governing our interaction with fact,
() The Big Bang is a fact. There is no spiritual meaning to it. It simply is.
() But the material world of fact has no mechanism to explain the separation of consciousness from the body. It has no mechanism to explain either soul or spirit.
() In other words I AM knits soul or spirit to flesh. God as ultimate consciousness trumps all facts all the time. The miracles, both Old and New Testament, demonstrate this.
Facts are interpreted by consciousness. Facts have no possible meaning or value or moral weight or significance until a consciousness evaluates them. God is the ultimate consciousness and tells us that facts and contexts do present moral states, or moral challenges such as sin.
Or in other words the Ten Commandments and the exhortations Jesus delivered to his disciples via the Sermon on the Mount are the granite base of our necessary understanding of God’s Will. And without needing to say it, God’s Will must govern our choices, our spirits.
No, it isn’t. People have been trying for centuries to read sex into the story, and it isn’t there on any level.
Where did I say anything about a literal view? I just said don’t read modern concepts into ancient literature.
Neither does yours – it destroys the meaning of the Hebrew by trying to make it taalk modern English.
That rests on the false assumption that the account was meant literally but they lacked the proper words, which in turn rests on the false assumption that they were trying to write modern scientifically-accurate prose instead of ancient literature.
Yep – it’s one of the top principles in both translation and interpretation of literature.
No kidding, even if by “vibrate” is meant a musical tone. “Meditating” is far better; I couldn’t make up my mind once and went with “meditatively hovering” and got bonus points from the professor.
Not bad at all! It’s definitely thorough.
1 Like
Genesis one is more literate than literal. While written in the context of the Ancient Near East, with its simple and elegant sweep of creation, and poetic cadence, it soars above other origin stories of that setting. That makes it uniquely amenable to concordant interpretations, and limited to exposition, I am fine with that. Yes, there was light before the sun or stars.
But it is one thing to find harmony between the creation story and modern physics, it is quite another to retrofit scripture with modern conceptions, especially when presented as translation, as my clumsy rendering was intended to demonstrate. I think that actually diminishes the timeless force of Genesis one, and is leading the witness instead of letting scripture speak for itself.
If what you provided earlier is an example of “epistemic translation”, then the method is deeply flawed.
Got a source for that claim? Hebrew has more than just two words for describing motion, for starters; and the root meaning of רָחַף is not “vibrate”.
There is no “also”; “vibrate” is not a legitimate rendering of רָחַף.
1 Like
Speaking of being careful: structurally, Genesis 1:1 is not part of the first day.
There is no science in Genesis 1, there is just ‘story’ – two specific types of story, in fact.
Nope – the Cross is the base; it is the victory and the enthronement.
the act of sex isn’t anything to do with sin as we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. Puberty comas with the discovery of the private parts being private. Its the moment when you come into the bathroom and your son is afraid that his bits fall off when you see him naked in the shower. The problem lies in the definition by ones own moral authority. To separate from the parents and define yourself as a “self” you have to become your own authority over your actions. Remember that you do not eat from the tree of wisdom, but the tree of moral realisation. Sex comes into it when you pursue it decoupled from its function of creation of life as to look at it as an element of creating pleasure as in getting your personal “high”, e.g. recreation is that what happens between your ears, reproduction or procreation is what happens between your legs. It has changed in its meaning from spiritual renewal to pleasuring oneself, which is when sex become a sin.
In his famous video on stupid design, where NdGT complains about the proximity of the recreational department and the waste disposal area as a design worthy of the civil engineers of the city’s administration. One should tell him that if he finds his recreational organ where the body dumps its waste it is either time to pull hid head out of there or stop talking said waste. The worst cases are those who actually use the rectum for recreation, so it is easy to see were the link between sex and sin is coming from 
Thank you for the gentle corrections, but allow me to demur.
I am confused here: how can “In the beginning” not be part of Day One? Please hear me: Genesis is not linear. Linear thinking appeared in the mental operations, “if - then - else,” of successful military leaders, surviving heads of state, and great philosophers. Today it is a prerequisite for STEM. It was not operative in Genesis. In those introductory verses Day One begins with evening and ends with morning, but the context not being linear does enfold all of those initial acts of Creation.
Or perhaps you were correcting a flaw but not a fatal one. I get that.
How is it that the Spirit hasn’t inserted a wink at the age of science, left a breadcrumb for it, to assert that God is the uncaused first cause? Creating time, space, matter, and light conform fully to the Creation we inhabit.
The cross is the base of our salvation, I take your point. My intention was to illustrate that those Scriptures are God’s “Cliff’s Notes” if you will on which to base our servant hood to God’s Will.
In terms of form and structure, the “poem” starts at verse 2. Verse 1 is an introduction
Agreed, the creation of all things comes first, but, we are talking verbal form, not science or even history.
I once heard a version which suggested that God Shouted and everything came into being, the scriptural equivalent of the Big Bang… The narrative then builds from that creation.
Richard
1 Like
I agree there is no spiritual meaning in the Big Bang, although it seems to fit quite well to the idea that there is a beginning for this universe (creation) and somehow a great amount of energy just started to exist in this space-time universe. Did someone extremely powerful (Creator) has something to do with it? I believe so.
Whatever we believe, it is good to keep the facts straight. Big Bang is not a fact, it is the dominant theory of the start of this universe. It is the prevailing main theory because it can explain the known facts better than any competing hypothesis. Yet, it is not a perfect theoretical explanation. There are observations that do not seem to fit well to the current theory. There are attempts to modify the details of the theoretical models to better explain some apparent conflicts in the story. Maybe there were ‘two bangs’, the second shortly after the first one (a ‘dark’ bang). Maybe the theory needs a major modification. Whatever the future research reveals, the prevailing theory is (just) a scientific theory. As you wrote, it has no spiritual meaning to it, although I admit that it is tempting to speculate with the similarities between the concepts of the Big Bang and God creating the universe through His word.
3 Likes
I think Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 form an inclusio. 1:1 can also be translated as “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth”. So that would mean that everything that happens on day 1-6 is part of God creating the heavens and the earth.
1 Like