Scripture discussion: Genesis 1 and 2 (New chapter added!) [ Edited ]

[Joseph_F]

Hi there, friendly neighborhood religion mod guy here. This is a thread I promised awhile ago and never got around to but here it is and boy you're gonna love it!

There are few passages in the Abrahamic tradition more rich for discussion than chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. In the interest of taking things one at a time, I'll start by just opening up discussion on Genesis 1

Before joining this discussion, please read all of the following translations of the chapter (it won't take long):

King James

New Revised Standard Version

Good News Bible

Also would love people to read it in the New Jewish Publication Society translation (1999 translation, not 1917 translation), but you'll have to check your local library because it's not available for free online.

Ok, so starting out, what do you think of the differences in translation?

One obvious difference is that both the KJV and the Good News Bible (dunno what the accepted acronym for that is, so let's just call it GNB for now) refer to the "spirit" of God moving across the waters, while the NRSV says that it's a "wind" from God. This is not some radical reinterpretation by the NRSV; the Hebrew word used, ruach, can mean either "spirit" or "wind" depending on context. And since the context here provides no definite answer, it's really a matter of interpretation.

You'll notice that the NRSV puts a little asterisk there to let you know that the meaning is unclear (and if you mouse over the asterisk it'll give you alternate translations on the side). The sign of a good scripture translation is less the absolute correctness of the text, but the willingness to admit that a passage is unclear and provide a few alternate translations to readers. It's the reality of working with such old texts written in such an old language.

One other note about the translation is how much more dramatic the GNB tries to make the language sound. The text of Genesis 1 is very spare, I might even describe it as elegant. It's described such big events that it doesn't try to make the excitement come from the language, which is very straight forward. Consider the phrase (KJV translation): "darkness was upon the face of the deep". The NRSV has a similar translation: "darkness covered the face of the deep". Now take a look at the GNB version: "The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness." Wow. Seems someone's trying to pump up the excitement a little.

So what are your thoughts on the difference in translation? Or anything about Genesis 1 at all (I really encourage you guys to bring up your own stuff outside of my discussion questions!!)?

I have more stuff to point out later, but I'd like to see what you guys find first.

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 08-26-2009 09:57 AM

[Laurel]

Interesting: here's what just showed up at the Christianity Today site.

The GNB is not really a translation; it is more like a story retelling for children. I don't think I could read very far into it.

"Spirit," "wind," and "breath" are the same word in Greek, too.

[Joseph_F]

---

Laurel wrote:

The GNB is not really a translation; it is more like a story retelling for children. I don't think I could read very far into it.

---

I'm aware that its intent is not exact accuracy My goal was to cover three very different translations: one known for its literary beauty, one that is considered an extremely accurate translation, and one that is designed for "easy reading" and so is not very accurate at all.

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 06-24-2009 05:09 PM

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 06-24-2009 05:09 PM

[Peppermill]

"So what are your thoughts on the difference in translation? Or anything about Genesis 1 at all (I really encourage you guys to bring up your own stuff outside of my discussion questions!!)?"

Joseph -- would you please clarify or restate the above?  I am not certain whether you are asking us to "bring up our own stuff" or to refrain, at least in this initial discussion or thread.

Pepper

PS -- thanks for making clear to everyone how to get to the footnotes on the NRSV edition.

[Joseph_F]

I'd love anyone who wants to bring up anything they want In any discussion thread, please don't feel restricted to my discussion questions at all, they're just there to get people talking.

---

Peppermill wrote:

Joseph -- would you please clarify or restate the above?  I am not certain whether you are asking us to "bring up our own stuff" or to refrain, at least in this initial discussion or thread.

---

[Laurel]

Right, Joseph. I was just agreeing with you.

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

Laurel wrote:

The GNB is not really a translation; it is more like a story retelling for children. I don't think I could read very far into it.

---

I'm aware that its intent is not exact accuracy My goal was to cover three very different translations: one known for its literary beauty, one that is considered an extremely accurate translation, and one that is designed for "easy reading" and so is not very accurate at all.

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 06-24-2009 05:09 PM

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 06-24-2009 05:09 PM

---

[Texas-Buckeye]

The differences in translations are due primarily to the underlying methodology of the translation.  The KJV is a word-for-word translation, as are the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Bible (ESB), while the GNB and the New International Version (NIV) are thought-for-thought translation.  The though-for-thought translations try to impart the same thoughts and reactions in readers today as the original text did in its time.  Personally, I think the GNB goes overboard a bit and tries to read too much like a modern novel.

What is of interest to me is why you selected these translations.  The most popular and widely used translations today are the KJV, NIV, and NASB, although I prefer the ESB.  The KJV can be the most difficult translation as it was published in 1611 and many of the English words used have changed in meaning over the intervening four centuries.  My preference for the ESB is that as a word-for-word translation it keeps closer to the original texts.  The NIV and GNB are not wrong, but they do call for a subjective analysis of not what the words mean but what the thoughts were of those who originally read the text.  Reading the various translations, as you are doing, can be useful in understanding the more difficult texts, but it really boils down to a matter of personal preference.

[Joseph_F]

---

Texas-Buckeye wrote:

What is of interest to me is why you selected these translations.  The most popular and widely used translations today are the KJV, NIV, and NASB, although I prefer the ESB.

---

As I said above, I wanted the KJV because it is the traditional standard translation, I wanted the NRSV because it is very accurate to the Hebrew, and the GNB to consider looser, less accurate translations

[Peppermill]

This, on Genesis, is from Karen Armstrong's The History of God, p. 248:

"In Genesis, God's first creative word had been: 'Let there be light!' In The Zobar's commentary on Genesis (Called Berestit in Hebrew after the opening word: 'in the beginning') this 'dark flame' is the first sefirah: Kether Elyon, the Supreme Crown of Divinity."

(Sorry for the mis-spelling, but this was about the closest B&N's censor would allow!)

[Choisya]

In the earlier Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, from which Genesis may be derived, light also emanates from the gods. 

In the Egyptian creation myth there was only 'churning bubbling water' called Nu in the beginning. The Sun God Ra emerged out of this primeval chaos - he came out of a giant blue lotus flower that appeared on the surface of the water, and gave light (the Sun).    A common theme in creation myths is of primordial chaos, 'when the earth was without form and void' (KJV). 

Sura 41:12 of the Quran says 'Thus he completed the seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every universe. And he adorned the lowest universe with lamps and placed guards around it.  Such is the design of the Almighty, the Omniscient.'  

I particularly like this Kiowa Apache myth from the Wikipedia Creation Myths:

'In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light. To the east, he created yellow streaks of dawn. To the west, tints of many colours appeared everywhere. There were also clouds of different colors. He also created three other gods: a little girl, a sun god and a small boy. Then he created celestial phenomena, the winds, the tarantula, and the earth from the sweat of the four gods mixed together in the Creator's palms, from a small round, brown ball, not much larger than a bean. The world was expanded to its current size by the gods kicking the small brown ball. Creator told Wind to go inside the ball and to blow it up. The tarantula, the trickster character, spun a black cord and, attaching it to the ball, crawled away fast to the east, pulling on the cord with all his strength. Tarantula repeated with a blue cord to the south, a yellow cord to the west, and a white cord to the north. With mighty pulls in each direction, the brown ball stretched to immeasurable size—it became the earth! No hills, mountains, or rivers were visible; only smooth, treeless, brown plains appeared. Then the Creator created the rest of the beings and features of the Earth.'

The 'Creation of Light' is the first of Gustav Dore's superb Bible illustrations. 

---

Peppermill wrote:

This, on Genesis, is from Karen Armstrong's The History of God, p. 248:

"In Genesis, God's first creative word had been: 'Let there be light!' In The Zobar's commentary on Genesis (Called Berestit in Hebrew after the opening word: 'in the beginning') this 'dark flame' is the first sefirah: Kether Elyon, the Supreme Crown of Divinity."

(Sorry for the mis-spelling, but this was about the closest B&N's censor would allow!)

---

[Peppermill]

In the earlier Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, from which Genesis may be derived, light also emanates from the gods.

This note is from The HarperCollins Study Bible:

"1.1 In the beginning when God created, lit. 'In the beginning of God's creating,' or 'When God first created.' Cf. the dependent clause introducing the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish: 'When on high the heavens had not been named....'"

Also:

"1.1--11.32 The primordial history recounts the earliest generations of the world and humankind as background for the call of Abram in 12.1. Although human events are viewed pessimistically -- through its misdeeds humankind repeatedly brings God's curse upon itself and all life -- the hope for a divinely blessed flourishing of life never truly dies, and God does not abandon the world.

"1.1--2.3 The creation story serves as a preface not just to Genesis but to the entire Hebrew Bible. Recounting the origin of the cosmos and its glorious centerpiece, earth, it shows God masterfully orchestrating the events of creation.  Each phase follows more of less the same basic pattern established on day one: divine command, result, divine approval, enumeration of the day.  But the effect is anything but monotonous.  Like a musical theme with variations, the story shows the world gradually becoming more mobile and complex, until, by the sixth day, it is ready for self perpetuation through procreation."

Structurally, I find it interesting that Chapter One consists of six days of creation; the seventh day of rest opens the second chapter.

[Peppermill]

---

Joseph_F wrote:

---

Texas-Buckeye wrote:

What is of interest to me is why you selected these translations.  The most popular and widely used translations today are the KJV, NIV, and NASB, although I prefer the ESB.

---

As I said above, I wanted the KJV because it is the traditional standard translation, I wanted the NRSV because it is very accurate to the Hebrew, and the GNB to consider looser, less accurate translations

---

Buckeye -- is ESB the same as the English Standard Version?

Reviewers and my own (ex) minister have indicated that the ESV is known for its literary beauty among the key modern translations.  The Literary Study Bible  (Leland Ryken and Philip Graham Ryken) uses the ESV.

Some refer to versions of the Bible written in colloquial English, often to a particular reading level, as "paraphrases" rather than as translations.  

I and a number of my Bible reading friends especially enjoy the work of Eugene Peterson in The Message.

Unlike many other paraphrases, which often work off an existing translation, Peterson has apparently made extensive use of original texts.  The Message, however, is basically the work of a single person, rather than a committee of scholars.  It became available in stages, most recently in editions with numbering that corresponds to that in the traditional translations. 

Although I do not particularly "like" the introductory verses for  Genesis, I do like the modern, almost poetic rendition of the six days of creation.  Oftimes, Peterson's work acts for me almost as a commentary on a text like the NRSV, helping me observe nuances I would otherwise have overlooked.

Apparently some of the most accurate translations in the KJV derive in a direct line from the work of William Tyndale himself, probably via the popular Geneva Bible, which was probably the version upon which John Milton relied, although the timing is such that he could have had access to the newly published KJV. (The Bishop's Bible and the Great Bible also fit into this story.)

[Choisya]

Not sure what you are getting at here P.  I was referring to the many similarities in creation myths, in particular the one relating to light.     

---

Peppermill wrote:

In the earlier Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, from which Genesis may be derived, light also emanates from the gods.

This note is from The HarperCollins Study Bible:

"1.1 In the beginning when God created, lit. 'In the beginning of God's creating,' or 'When God first created.' Cf. the dependent clause introducing the Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish: 'When on high the heavens had not been named....'"

Also:

"1.1--11.32 The primordial history recounts the earliest generations of the world and humankind as background for the call of Abram in 12.1. Although human events are viewed pessimistically -- through its misdeeds humankind repeatedly brings God's curse upon itself and all life -- the hope for a divinely blessed flourishing of life never truly dies, and God does not abandon the world.

"1.1--2.3 The creation story serves as a preface not just to Genesis but to the entire Hebrew Bible. Recounting the origin of the cosmos and its glorious centerpiece, earth, it shows God masterfully orchestrating the events of creation.  Each phase follows more of less the same basic pattern established on day one: divine command, result, divine approval, enumeration of the day.  But the effect is anything but monotonous.  Like a musical theme with variations, the story shows the world gradually becoming more mobile and complex, until, by the sixth day, it is ready for self perpetuation through procreation."

Structurally, I find it interesting that Chapter One consists of six days of creation; the seventh day of rest opens the second chapter.

---

[Choisya]

With regard to the order of creation, this piece poses some interesting questions:

'Does the Creation Account in Genesis fit the Big Bang and Modern Cosmology  - by Capella.

Some have tried to fit the first creation account in Genesis chapter 1 into modern cosmology. Seems natural enough. “Let there be light” could be the Big Bang. Each of the six days of Creation could actually have been billions of years.

There’s what seems like an upward “evolution” in the order of creation of living things that seems correct. Plants, lower to higher animals, then people. But let’s take a closer look at what Genesis actually says.

From the get go there are problems. In the first two verses, Heaven and Earth are created. This is before the “let there be light” command which is supposed to be the Big Bang. According to theory, there was no space before the Big Bang for the Earth to exist in any type of shape or condition. Space itself expanded after the Big Bang.

In verse 5 God is separating light from darkness which one might interpret as something in the unfolding of the universe except that the Bible has God calling the light day and the darkness night and then there’s an evening and a morning. This would indicate that this is the Earth rotating and being lit from something other than the Sun (created “Genesis days” or billions of years later) which contradicts the theory of solar system formation which has the Earth and the Sun forming at the same time.

In verse 11 God creates the plants before the creation of the Sun which seems like a huge problem since plants obviously evolved to perform photosynthesis from sunlight. 

Also the Bible has trees being created before “swimming creatures.” “Swimming creatures” or marine animals evolved in the oceans long before any life (including trees) began populating the land.

In verse 16 God finally makes the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. But dating of rocks from the Moon shows that the Moon and the Earth are virtually the same age. The Earth is not billions of years (or four “Genesis days”) older than the Moon.

Also all elements other than hydrogen and helium were created by the deaths of stars, yet the Bible has the Earth, land, water, etc… billions of years before the stars are even created.'

[Texas-Buckeye]

Yes, I used ESB but the correct abbreviation should be ESV for English Standard Version.  For me, I have found it the best and most readable translation of the Bible. 

I do believe that your time line of Biblical translations is off, if I understand you correctly.  The Tyndale Bible preceeded the Geneva Bible.  Tyndale began his translation in 1524 while the Geneva Bible dates from around 1550.  Much of Tyndale's work is used in the Geneva Bible.  What makes the Geneva Bible unique is that it is the first English translation to include the complete Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew texts.

[Texas-Buckeye]

I understand your difficulty in getting the Genesis account to square with the theory of the Big Bang.  Remember, the theory itself has some problems.  The biggest one being, what or who caused the bang to occur.  We have yet to be able to great something from nothing.

Your problem with the timing is best explained in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  According to the Big Bang Theory, at the time of the bang the universe would expand at a rate very close to the speed of light.  According to Einstein this would make time inside the bank slow to almost a standstill.  If this happened, then how do you date the material formed during that time.  Carbon dating rests on the principle that carbon decays at the same rate throughout history so measuring the amount of carbon remaining in an object helps to date that object.  But if time stood still, what was happening to the carbon?  This same phenomena between the speed at creation and time could explain your timing differences.  Dr. Greene does an excellent job in explaining this in his book, The Elegant Universe.

Two others who have attempted to reconcile this issue were Francis Schaeffer in Genesis in Space and Time and Hugh Ross in The Genesis Question.  For me, however, I did not find the reasoning of either completely satisfying, although they were helpful.  In the end it comes down to a matter of faith, whether you accept scripture or scientivic theory as the truth.

[Choisya]

In the end it comes down to a matter of faith, whether you accept scripture or scientivic theory as the truth.

Exactly and I prefer to wait for scientific explanations and to accept that a mere unscientific mortal like myself cannot understand much of what is explained to me.   Most of the time I just do not care.  I am therefore I am - the whys and the wherefores just do not interest me.  Pragmatism is my middle name. 

---

Texas-Buckeye wrote:

I understand your difficulty in getting the Genesis account to square with the theory of the Big Bang.  Remember, the theory itself has some problems.  The biggest one being, what or who caused the bang to occur.  We have yet to be able to great something from nothing.

Your problem with the timing is best explained in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  According to the Big Bang Theory, at the time of the bang the universe would expand at a rate very close to the speed of light.  According to Einstein this would make time inside the bank slow to almost a standstill.  If this happened, then how do you date the material formed during that time.  Carbon dating rests on the principle that carbon decays at the same rate throughout history so measuring the amount of carbon remaining in an object helps to date that object.  But if time stood still, what was happening to the carbon?  This same phenomena between the speed at creation and time could explain your timing differences.  Dr. Greene does an excellent job in explaining this in his book, The Elegant Universe.

Two others who have attempted to reconcile this issue were Francis Schaeffer in Genesis in Space and Time and Hugh Ross in The Genesis Question.  For me, however, I did not find the reasoning of either completely satisfying, although they were helpful.  In the end it comes down to a matter of faith, whether you accept scripture or scientivic theory as the truth.

---

[Peppermill]

I didn't mean to imply that Tyndale "worked" on the KJV, rather that his apparently excellent translations impacted the KJV through their inclusion in the intervening versions, especially the Geneva and the Great Bible.  It is my understanding that sections based on other translators that reached the KJV were not as accurate.  My only point was really to say how astonishing is the legacy we apparently owe to Tyndale.

(Paradise Lost is dated to 1667; the authorized KJV to the early 1600's (~1611), so certainly Milton could have had access to the KJV.  However, most of what I have read suggests that he used the Geneva Bible, perhaps like many today who prefer the much beloved KJV.  I have never dug deep enough to verify this with a scholar's certainty, but I have looked for the evidence on several occasions and have come away each time believing the Geneva Bible was probably a main source for Milton.  I'd be delighted be pointed towards better documentation than I have seen to date.) 

It is interesting to me to see you use the word "best" to describe the role of the ESV for yourself.  Personally, although my denominational roots expose me most to the NRSV and it is the version for which I have the three study bibles that I use the most frequently, I have also had a teacher and leader who strongly encouraged us to read Biblical text in multiple versions to the extent time and interest permit.  (She is the person who introduced me to Eugene Peterson's The Message, as well as the most recent ESV  and the Tanakh.)

---

Texas-Buckeye wrote:

Yes, I used ESB but the correct abbreviation should be ESV for English Standard Version.  For me, I have found it the best and most readable translation of the Bible. 

I do believe that your time line of Biblical translations is off, if I understand you correctly.  The Tyndale Bible preceeded the Geneva Bible.  Tyndale began his translation in 1524 while the Geneva Bible dates from around 1550.  Much of Tyndale's work is used in the Geneva Bible.  What makes the Geneva Bible unique is that it is the first English translation to include the complete Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew texts.

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 07-01-2009 11:01 PM

[Joseph_F]

I have to say, I've really enjoyed reading the discussion going on here. 

In terms of the Big Bang versus Genesis, to me personally that seems a strange comparison. I understand there are those who take Genesis as a literal history, but for me it's like saying "Which can I choose to side with: the real history of Denmark, or Hamlet?". The story of Genesis is gorgeous, and talking about entirely different kinds of truth than science's exploration of the actual genesis of our universe. I'd almost say that I'm taking Genesis as literature, except I'm taking it as more than that: I'm taking it as myth, which is more transcendent and alive than literature. More to come on myth with this month's book I'm sure.

Also interesting to see you all talk about the order of creation. The order of creation, however you take the book, is a very important point to consider. What we see here is a hierarchy: light can exist without day, but can day exist without light? land and sea can exist without creatures, but creatures cannot exist without land and sea. Why creation was ordered the way it is and what that might mean for our lives is a point that has been debated in every religion that includes Genesis as part of their scriptures. So: what do you think about the order of creation according to Genesis 1? Does it all seem logical or is there something that strikes you as odd?

And how about those things which exist before our creation story begins? The primeval waters, the wind from God and/or God's spirit, the unformed and void earth? Were these always there as long as God was there? Or were these just created before our record begins? And if so, why would the creation of these things not be recorded?

Thoughts? 

[Peppermill]

I understand there are those who take Genesis as a literal history, but for me it's like saying "Which can I choose to side with: the real history of Denmark, or Hamlet?".

I like your analogy, Joseph.  I shall probably use it in future conversations!

The story of Genesis is gorgeous, ...

Agree here, too, although I am not certain of the words I would chose to elaborate on the concept of "gorgeous" in this context.  Look forward to your future comments on "entirely different kinds of truth." 

Does it all seem logical or is there something that strikes you as odd?

Haven't gone back over the text to think about that question myself, but the passage from Choisya does say trees are created before sea creatures.  (I haven't even verified that is what Genesis says.)

Some of the Genesis arguments revolve around whether God "started" with the "unformed and void" or with (from) "nothing."  I have never quite figured out how those arguments "matter" to the story, even though I "hear" the statements about creativity needing to start with "something".

---

Joseph_F wrote:

I have to say, I've really enjoyed reading the discussion going on here. 

In terms of the Big Bang versus Genesis, to me personally that seems a strange comparison. I understand there are those who take Genesis as a literal history, but for me it's like saying "Which can I choose to side with: the real history of Denmark, or Hamlet?". The story of Genesis is gorgeous, and talking about entirely different kinds of truth than science's exploration of the actual genesis of our universe. I'd almost say that I'm taking Genesis as literature, except I'm taking it as more than that: I'm taking it as myth, which is more transcendent and alive than literature. More to come on myth with this month's book I'm sure.

Also interesting to see you all talk about the order of creation. The order of creation, however you take the book, is a very important point to consider. What we see here is a hierarchy: light can exist without day, but can day exist without light? land and sea can exist without creatures, but creatures cannot exist without land and sea. Why creation was ordered the way it is and what that might mean for our lives is a point that has been debated in every religion that includes Genesis as part of their scriptures. So: what do you think about the order of creation according to Genesis 1? Does it all seem logical or is there something that strikes you as odd?

And how about those things which exist before our creation story begins? The primeval waters, the wind from God and/or God's spirit, the unformed and void earth? Were these always there as long as God was there? Or were these just created before our record begins? And if so, why would the creation of these things not be recorded?

Thoughts? 

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 07-02-2009 11:53 AM