Interpretation of Genesis 1

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
76

I can recite Genesis 1 in Hebrew, so I only have to close my eyes to “take a closer look”.

The “רָקִ֖יעַ” (rah-KEY-ah), given its root, can be translated as “a separation”, though the Greek “στερέωμα” (steh-REH-oh-ma) indicates that at the very least it had the property of being firm if not solid. The common use of “expanse” in English translations seem to hearken back to this root and give less credence to the Greek; combining their senses could give us “a firm expanse”, where “firm” does not have to be solid. And of course that leaves the question of just what the “waters” are, especially since some ancient Hebrew scholars regarded them as a primeval fluid which filled the universe and from which the Earth was formed or drawn out.

As for the moon, it is certainly a light in the sky; the Hebrew text doesn’t care where the light originates, it only indicates that light comes from the moon to the Earth. We speak the same way of light bulbs; we say there is light coming from the bulb and don’t bother to talk about electrons getting excited and giving off photons, and in fact we speak of light coming from a mirror even though we know it is reflected. Claiming the moon is not the actual source doesn’t just ignore the Hebrew text and its perspective, it ignores how humans think and speak of simple phenomena.

Only if we’re speaking of them scientifically. Though even in terms of science, we recognize that there is an expanse above us and that light comes from the moon to the Earth, so even though the writer isn’t speaking scientifically his broad brush strokes are correct.

A question: how much science do you find in Joyce Kilmer’s poem “Trees”? Given the poetic leaning of Genesis 1, it’s a fair parallel.
For those not familiaar with that poem:

Trees

By Joyce Kilmer

I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest

Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,

And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear

A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;

Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,

But only God can make a tree.

77

Good thing I remember reading this 2010 article by biblical scholar Pete Enns:
The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point

To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary science is a theological problem. It is important to remember that God speaks in ways that people can understand

In Job the firmament is described as “hard as a molten mirror”

You’re just tap-dancing, trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

78

How do you interpret John 11…the raising of Lazarus from the dead…as a concordist? For that matter, how do you interpret any supernatural event in the Bible?

79

Pure, rigorous science.

80

Well…that is what the online site said…and see below from todayfoundout.com (although another site said the Babs added and 8- or 9-day week from time to time—see wikipedia etc. OK here goes from todayfoundout.com—

Two of the earliest known civilizations to use a seven day week were the Babylonians and the Jews. The Babylonians marked time with lunar months and it is thought by many scholars that this is why they chose a seven day week (though direct evidence of this being why they did this i

81

Any valid comparison between what ‘God’s Word’ tells us and what ‘God’s Creation’ tells us must put both into the same form of interpretation. We do not interpret the Creation literally, we interpret it epistemically. Words are man-made and translation is interpretation by definition. Genesis must be given an epistemic translation. Such a translation would read, “In the beginning, God created space and matter. And the matter was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was vibrating over the fluid matter.” Seems to be amazingly accurate. Ancient Hebrew had no better words in its vocabulary to say that with the syntax found in Genesis.

1 Like
82

I personally don’t think vibrating is the best word. I think fluttering or hovering over it is better. I imagine the image was like a bird in the wind given that Noah ark and the flood had the dove over the water and in baptism, Jesus coming up out of the water had a dove as well.

Plus matter… I think earth as in the lands is good. The words would have been words they understood.

1 Like
83

What you have stumbled upon is the reason for so many translations or versions of the Bible. This in itself is reason for thinking carefully over what is written. rather than just taking it at face value.

Richard

84

You make an excellent comment. Ancient Hebrew had two different words to describe motion. One for linear movement and another one for vibrating movement. The word used in Genesis is the one for vibrating movement. If you’re imagination prefers ‘hovering’ or ‘fluttering’, then that is certainly appropriate for you. Words are man-made as is their meaning and translation. If Hebrew did not have a better word specific to your choice of translation, then your understanding is as valid as anyone else’s. We should not place human limitations on God with a strict ‘literal’ translation of human words.

2 Likes
85

You are absolutely correct that the Hebrew people would likely have understood Genesis according to the ‘literal’ translation of the words. All translations from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English have been based on the literal approach that limited the meaning of the words to the common knowledge of the original vocabulary. It is a valuable foundation to preserve the original language. I believe that God is bigger than that. He could inspire the use of words that allow for the addition of relevant vocabulary to specific words as new knowledge is gained from His creation. This would permit an epistemic translation that makes sense today. It would certainly give Genesis a unique credibility over other alleged scriptures and creation stories.

86

When it comes to understanding the purpose for Genesis 1 and 2, it seems that people miss the ‘forest for the trees’. Genesis is a novel about the past. All good novels start by introducing the main characters. Genesis 1 introduced the Hebrew people to God, the creator of all things, whose commands have authority. Genesis 2 introduced the Hebrew people to human beings, the caretakers of God’s creation, who gained the knowledge of and imagination for God. This knowledge gave humans awareness of the blessing and curse of life. God gave the Hebrew people commandments for living that were said to bring blessing if obeyed and curse if disobeyed. The authority of them rests entirely on Genesis 1. The truth or accuracy of the stories in Genesis has no power of its own. The power is in the passion of belief that the Jewish people have preserved to this day. Even falsehood has power if there is passion to believe it.

2 Likes
87

Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-Day Saints religion, did something similar in his “translation” of the Bible. Not exactly a translation, the LDS call it the inspired version. Instead of limiting himself to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, he pulled in all kinds of sources asl well as his own ideas.

88

Joseph Smith was trying to reconcile the Book of Mormon with the Bible by his new translation. The King James Version already did what I am suggesting by using the word ‘firmament’ rather than the more literal word ‘expanse’. Literal translation has strict rules, created by man, just as words are created by man. I am suggesting the use of God’s creation to translate Genesis in a way that produces no change to the original Hebrew words or syntax. The ‘literal’ translation remains as the foundation of human knowledge 3,000 years ago. A creation based version would be an ‘epistemic’ translation that makes no change to the original Hebrew text.

89

Fred_W – “The ‘literal’ translation remains as the foundation of human knowledge 3,000 years ago. A creation based version would be an ‘epistemic’ translation that makes no change to the original Hebrew text.”

The ‘Concordist View’ of Genesis 1 presented previously on this thread (with a Dropbox link) is based on the scientific knowledge of the present universe and its origin compared with the creation narrative of Genesis 1. To this extent, it appears that the Concordist View corresponds with an ‘epistemic’ interpretation that harmonizes with science. Would you agree with this understanding?

1 Like
90

Not true. My point was that he was reading lots of stuff into his “translation.” We call this eisegesis.

“Expanse” is not more literal than “firmament.” The firmament/raqia, in the eyes of the writer of Genesis, was a hard dome that separated the waters above from the waters below.

Your words are created by man also. Not sure I follow what you are after. What I prefer is scholarly translations and scholarly commentary. I like Robert Alter’s translation of Genesis. It’s best to use 2 or more translations.

It might be helpful to discuss these things with ray9will, who has his own unique take on Genesis.

91

God is created by man too, so the whole debate is circular reasoning.

92

Others have concluded differently.

The grounds of [true] belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.

Roy Clouser

1 Like
93

An epistemic interpretation must include and begin with translation. Simply putting the literal translation into some kind of modern scientific framework would be insufficient. In an epistemic translation, the earth would be formed in Genesis 1:9 when God gathers some of the fluid matter into ‘one place’ that consists of land and water. Interpretation begins with translation. If a translation describes nonsense to an educated reader, then belief will rest on the reader’s aptitude for suspending reality in favor of fantasy.

94

It may depend more on the reader’s presumptions and presuppositions than their education.

95

The New Testament mentions no other grounds for belief in God than experiencing God, and there is good reason to be skeptical any argument that purports to prove his existence. That reason is found in Col.1 where Paul says God has created everything “visible or invisible.” It’s a tautology that everything is either visible or not, and that includes the laws found in creation. This means God created the laws of logic, the laws we use to prove conclusions true. But if God is the creator of the laws or logic (and math), then God’s being cannot be proven by means of them because they don’t apply to him. In fact, the proper inference is that whatever can be proven would thereby not be God.

2 Likes