That is not the point. Unless Hebrew is your native language you are imposing your own conceptualisation and understanding onto the words. You are still translating. Why should your version be any better than the scholars who constructed the Bible translations?
Why do you think Hebrew scholars still debate Scripture? Why did Christ? Perhaps there is no such thing as a definitive understanding?
Richard
×Ö°×ØÖ£×Ö¼×Ö· ×Ö±×Ö¹×Ö“Ö×× ×Ö°×ØÖ·×Ö¶Öפֶ×Ŗ ×¢Ö·×Ö¾ ×¤Ö°Ö¼× ÖµÖ„×
No, rachaph does not āmeanā vibrate. A different translation is always preferable in the context of ancient literature.
With respect to ×ŖÖ¹Ö××Ö¼Ö ×Öø×Ö¹Ö××Ö¼ I prefer āempty and desolateā to the more abstract āformless and voidā. Genesis One culminates in a world that has been transformed from such a state to a hospitable place full of life.
If Genesis is simply ancient literature, then it holds no more regard than the Hindu Vedas or Homerās Odyssey. Translation is interpretation. Any new interpretation that does not include a new translation is either putting new wine in old wineskins or makes the story an allegory that is free to be understood any way the reader prefers. It would be equally valid to understand Genesis as allegory that is simply meant to convey the idea that the spoken word of the character called āGodā has authority that must be obeyed.
Iām laughing at a memory this prompted: one of my classmates one night when we were tackling some Hebrew text handed to us by our professor (with no vowel pointings and not even spaces between words) to work through decided we needed a break, so he picked up his Biblia Hebraica, opened to Genesis 1, propped it on a chair back, and proceeded to read it to us ā in a Billy Graham preaching style but a Mexican accentā¦ plus gestures for emphasis. So while we were cracking up over the opening clause, he gets to ā×Ö°×ØÖ·×Ö¶Öפֶ×Ŗā and sticks his arms out the the side and flaps them mildly but more like flopping than flapping. Some of the guys threw things at him but most of us were laughing so hard we could barely see.
Now I shared that both for the humor and to state agreement that " rachaph does not āmeanā vibrate" ā in fact it comes closer to āflapā, or a bit more respectfully perhaps, āflutterā.
To test a āmeaningā we might pick, our professor had a test he got from a rabbi: pick a dozen verses from the Tanakh that use the word, and use that āmeaningā to translate it in those verses: if it sounds ridiculous in any of them, itās probably not a good rendition.
That said, the value of āvibrateā lies in contrast it to ālinear motionā as was noted above ā but once that comparison has been made, throw the word away!
Genesis is never āsimplyā any kind of literature. But it is ancient literature, and while it may be more than that it is never less than that.
That was a principle stated not just for the scriptures, but for all ancient literature: any approach that does not treat it as ancient literature is automatically a fail, whether itās Moses or Homer or Solomon or Xenophon or Paul or Aesop.
And that applies to allegorical interpretation as well (a reason that my professors disparaged a number of church Fathers): before you treat it as allegory, first treat it as the literature it is.
I admire your level of respect and regard for ancient literature. I donāt think that I have the aptitude for it. I do realize that it represents the earliest example of literate language preserved by humans as a grammatical expression of human thought. Literate language is unique to humans. āManā created alphanumeric symbols to express the thoughts of the human mind in literature and mathematics. That is an amazing attribute. Whether a person prefers a literal, allegorical, concordist, or epistemic interpretation is a matter of aptitude and taste.
Better interpretations can be discovered, taught and learned. (Right, @DOL? ;Ā -Ā )
Thank you for that insight. Your reasoning would support my suggested translation from āthe heavens and the earthā to āspace and matterā as something that makes more sense. Could the Hebrew word that is translated āthe watersā alternatively be translated āthe fluid (matter)ā?
Maybe God used ancient Hebrew for Genesis because it is so pliable and open to interpretation.
Whether Iām entitled to or not, I like to read the word for ādustā, as that from which God formed man and breathed the breath of life, as determinate matter. By the Spirit of God man became a self-determining creature.
Or maybe not so much.
Struggling with God & Origins: A Personal Story, Denis O. Lamoureux, p.123-24
Thank you. You have convinced me that Genesis 1 is an allegorical poem meant only to depict the authority of Godās commandments and establish the weekly cycle of 7 days. Those elements of the story have certainly influenced civilization.
And he just incidentally created the cosmos? 
@ray9will and @adamjedgar: Please note the post above.
Yes, the cosmos as you call it does not show up until Genesis 1:14. A more authentic literal translation of Genesis 1 would begin with, āAt the first of God creating sky and land the land was desolate and empty and darkness was on the face of the deep and the Spirit of God waved over the watersā¦ā Ancient Hebrew just ran on with no punctuation or sentences or paragraph distinction. It has only a vague and earth centered resemblance to how the universe actually formed. The only interpretation of useful value must be allegorical. We have been duped by the ātelephone gameā of translation into thinking that it might be an accurate depiction of the creation sequence. Someone somewhere is laughing at our mental gymnastics over it.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
That covers it.
Umā¦ not really. Itās always necessary to discover as much as possible what the original writer meant his audience to understand from a piece of writing before venturing into a personal approach. Ultimately, what the writer intended his work to say IS what it means; the rest is just mental games.
It might make more sense to a modern person trying to fit the account into a modern worldview, but suggest that to the writer and youād just get a blank stare and then a flat dismissal: The stare because he would have no idea what you were talking about ā āspaceā and āmatterā were not concepts in his worldview ā and the flat dismissal because whatever he might have guessed you might have been talking about (if he didnāt just decide you were a madman) it had nothing to do with what he wanted to convey.
Later interpreters, still operating just on the Hebrew, did in fact consider āwatersā as āfluidā, maintaining that the entire universe was nothing but fluid right up until God commanded light into being ā when it continued to be fluid, but a much, much, much thinner fluid that allowed light to flow. But carrying that back to the original writer wouldnāt work, because āmatterā would not have been a distinct category (any more than āsecularā and āsacredā would have been).
For both, though, the āwaters belowā really were water, whatever the heavenly āwatersā might have been.
It carries more meaning of unorganized (formless) and lifeless, and thus to an extent useless āstuffā drifting around in Creation: God took what was useless to make the pinnacle of His Creation.
Except it isnāt. Itās two different types of literature at once, and neither is allegorical; it serves three different functions, and none is allegorical. It has poetic elements, but it is not a poem.
It describes a mighty accomplishment of a great king, it describes the establishment and inauguration of a temple, and it slams the typical ANE creation story by following the same order of events while turning every element that was considered a god (which is just about everything) or at least a spirit into a mere tool fashioned by YHWH-Elohim.
Heh ā good point. It does establish the āweekly cycle of 7 daysā, but thatās an aspect of it being a temple inauguration: the rhythm of the top deityās temple of course has to be reflected in the rhythm of those who worship the deity of that temple.
āCosmosā is a good choice of word since it refers to order and system, and both the literary types ā royal and temple ā are asserting that YHWH-Elohim established order and system.
From that post:
The Earth couldnāt be dated in any case: there is no timeline given for how long the Spirit brooded over the āface of the deepā, nor for the length ā if a literal reading is being insisted on ā of the first day.
But Genesis 1:2 doesnāt actually say that ā it is still included under the rubric of 1:1, which says that God created everything that is.
And no, that isnāt a āmore authentic literal translationā, itās just another attempt to twist it to fit a worldview not shared by the author. It isnāt about āskyā because āheavensā doesnāt mean āskyā, it means a spiritual realm which consists of everything above the raqiyah, the solid dome over the world.
You say all this, yet it shows that youāre just doing this:
And so you incorrectly conclude this:
Allegorical is useless because it ignores the writerās intent ā and you only arrive at allegorical because you tried to force the account to fit a modern worldview, yet your way of ācorrectingā that is to try to force it into yet another worldview that it doesnāt fit!
Genesis 1 may be more than ancient literature, but it is never less than that. Youāre completely ignoring that it is ancient literature and keep trying to make it fit a modern worldview ā which canāt be done without destroying the writerās meaning.
Iām despairing of your mental gymnastics!
The human imagination is a wonderful thing.
āLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.ā -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.