Comments on: On the Word breishit

By: On Genesis 1:1 « God Didn't Say That

On Genesis 1:1 « God Didn't Say That — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:41:43 +0000

[...] have more on Genesis 1:1 here, here, and [...]

By: Translating and Improving the Bible « God Didn't Say That

Translating and Improving the Bible « God Didn't Say That — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:43:57 +0000

[...] second issue came up recently in a comment by Peter Kirk, who correctly points out that expanding on bara in Genesis 1:1 to specify details of creation that [...]

By: Jason A. Staples

Jason A. Staples — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:27:56 +0000

Good points. And to this I would add that this applies to certain words in the New Testament, where translators have gone “beyond what is necessary for translation … into theological speculation,” because they seem to think the average Bible reader can’t understand very basic language metaphors.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:49:57 +0000

Seth (will that do as an abbreviation), I certainly don’t want to imply that you shouldn’t ask questions. My point was simply that the questions you are asking go beyond what is necessary for translation, at least into English (they might be necessary for a language which doesn’t have a general word for “create” or “make”), into theological speculation. I’m not sure what theory of translation you operate with, but it certainly doesn’t allow theological speculation in the text.

Do you really think the average Bible reader understands “create” to mean something like “create in an instant with a flash of light and a loud noise”? If so, perhaps another word is needed – how about “make”?

By: sethmehorn

sethmehorn — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:43:59 +0000

I agree, and I am not commending another translation of bara. Rather, I’m simply pointing out that our culture–perhaps, because of modern issues and a systematic approach–might tend to infer (read out) more from “create” then the Hebrew would allow in Gen 1. This is where good teaching and preaching must pick up the ball, so to speak.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:29:34 +0000

Sethmehorn: As Peter points out, we're lucky in this case. We have an English word ("create") that is ambiguous in the same way that the Hebrew one (bara) is, so I don't see the value in choosing another translation. For that matter, neither bara nor "create" specifies how long the process took, or, say, whether it involved --- I don't know --- a flash of light or a loud noise. But I don't think "created in an instant with a flash of light and a loud noise" would be the right translation even if that's what (the text says) happened.

By: sethmehorn

sethmehorn — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:13:57 +0000

Hmmm…I do not think that asking a question about the coherency of an idea to the original audience implies importing my own presuppositions. In fact, I would suggest precisely the opposite. To be sure, I’m concerned with cultural issues (at least with this discussion) and think that they absolutely have an impact in how we think about meaning (and consequently translation).

With regard to “bara,” I agree that “create” is sufficiently ambiguous as an English term. However, I do wonder if the average reader of an English Bible version understands that. Don’t you?

Perhaps all we have identified in this exchange is that you and I operate with different theories of translation.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:06:06 +0000

Alternatively, sethmehorn, if we are talking about translation, then shouldn’t we leave aside cultural and theological speculation and simply translate the text as we have it, “In the beginning God created…”? The only real reason I can see for anyone departing from this kind of translation is an attempt to bring their theological and history of religions presuppositions to the text. But, since in English “create” does not always mean “create ex nihilo“, this traditional rendering leaves the issues just as open as the original Hebrew did.

By: sethmehorn

sethmehorn — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:01:06 +0000

If no clear evidence suggests that Gen 1:1 is describing creation ex nihilo on the lexical-semantic level, then shouldn’t we move to the logical level and ask if creation ex nihilo would have been on the radar for ancient Israelite culture? As you say, I see no reason to affirm or deny creation ex nihilo based upon Genesis 1. But if we get wrapped up in that question/problem, isn’t there a good chance that we are missing what the text is actually trying to do?

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:14:54 +0000

I (and most other people) agree that no clear evidence demonstrates that Genesis 1:1 describes creation ex nihilo, but, equally, no clear evidence that I know precludes the possibility. And my point here and in related posts is that the language in Genesis 1 is consistent with both interpretations.