Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

joel wrote:
"an early mix of time/space/energy/matter" seems absurd in this
context since each one of those words identify concepts that would
have been unknown to Moshe and his contemporaries. This sounds like an
attempt to synthesize the big bang with Genesis rather than an attempt
to understand the meaning of an ancient text. I recommend you look at
other creation accounts in ANE texts such as Enuma Elish and also
compare it to other creation references in the Tanakh. particularly
Job 38 is a great one. This is a story of beating back chaos,
particularly the sea. The chaotic state described can best be
understood as a mass of dark chaotic waters that will eventually be
lighted and formed into the sky and sea. They must be pulled back to
allow the heavens and the earth to exist between them. It could even
be argued that this is only a creation of the heavens and the earth
and that the waters above the heavens and below the land were
pre-existent.

Joel Stucki
END QUOTE

I'm sorry but there is so much wrong with what is said 
by Joel that I cannot even begin to comprehend how 
anyone could reach such a conclusion.

The bible narrative of creation stands in stark contrast 
to other ancient creation epics which usually involve 
dragons and other such comical facets. 
The hebrew cosmology was land vs' sky/space much as 
our perception of it is today. The opening statement 
'god made the heavens (sky/space) and the earth
(land/ground) is pretty much all-encompassing. It is 
clear that the idea was that nothing physical existed 
prior. And just in case it wasn't clear enough verse 
3 makes it super clear by letting us know that the 
concept of light didn't even exist. 
Before verse 1 what we have is the physical universe is 
basically, er, well, nothing. The above comments are 
typical of those who wish to place the biblical creation 
account in the same comical realm as other ancient epic 
accounts. However, as can be seen such vain attempts 
don't hold up to close scrutiny.

James C. Read
UK