Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>]

On 7/2/06, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk> wrote:
> Now don't get me wrong. Nobody thinks you're a fool and
> nobody is getting upset. I just honestly couldn't
> understand how you could reach such a conclusion and I
> strongly suspect you are being heavily influenced by
> some kind of 'scholarly opinion' or 'scholarly text'
> you have read.

Since you know nothing of my educational background, I would
appreciate it if you not assume I am such a babe in arms with respect
to scholarship. I do not form my opinions from articles in the
National Enquirer.

> But let's just read the text as it stands without
> imposing any other ideas on it. Let's take the first
> two verses and see what they have to say:
>
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
>
> The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; 
> and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. " (RSV)
>
> Now, the opening statement tells us that elohim made
> the arets (everything below our feet) and the shamayim
> (everything above our feet). This is a rather simplistic
> cosmological view but it is one that everyone I have
> ever met seems to have some kind of innate understanding
> of and the hebrew bible seems to portray such a man's
> point of view cosmology throughout the text.

Both eretz and shamaim are explicitly defined in the chapter as the
dry land and the firmament dividing the waters below and the waters
above respectively. Throughout the chapter the waters are treated as a
separate entity from the heavens and the earth. Congratulations, you
have just met someone new who holds a different point of view than the
"simplistic cosmological view" of your other friends so you need not
use that generalization again.

> Next we are told that elohims spirit is flying about
> over the surface of the water. Now with your strict
> understanding of verse 1's reference to creation of
> only heaven and 'earth' you almost reasonably conclude
> that this must mean the water was already there as no
> mention is made of any creation of water. But could it
> not be that most people would understand that the
> creation of the water was greatly implied with the
> explicit creation of the earth?

The explicit creation of the earth takes place in verses 9 and 10 and
specifically refers to where the water has been held back. Compare to
Job 38

KJV
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had
issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a
swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall
thy proud waves be stayed?

Of course I have to point out the very strong parallel here to Marduk
ripping Tiamat in half and turning the lower half into the sea and the
upper half into the waters above the heavens. Tiamat being a symbol of
chaos in Enuma Elish. It very closely parallels this first creation
story.

> After all, our little
> planet is well known for being covered over 80% in
> water so most people would be forgiven for reaching
> such a conclusion without the author having to explicitly
> write 'in the beginning god made the heaven, the earth
> and the water on it' on the offchance that some
> conspiracy theory about water already existing would
> be born a few thousand years later.

Are you suggesting that Moshe understood the 80% of the earth's
surface was water? Are you suggesting he even understood that the
earth was a planet? Or even what a planet was other than a star that
moved?

> As for your observation about why scholars aren't using
> this as an example to disprove conspiracy theories
> about hellenistic influences on biblical ideas of
> creation the answer is quite simple. The so called
> 'scholars' you are referring to are too busy liking the
> idea that water already existed as in a world where all
> the original PhD's have already been done to death as it
> allows them to get funding for an 'original' research
> project which generally entails uncovering some kind of
> scandal. Of course, the masses like a good scandal
> story and many are easily swayed but like I said these
> vain attempts often don't hold up to any real scrutiny
> and an objective person can easily see the true
> motivations by such so called 'scholarly' works that
> you are generally referring to.

You lost me here. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I only said
that if the creation account really did speak of creation from nothing
(ex nihilo) then it could be argued that the text was very late since
these ideas developed around second century CE. Largely out of Greek
philosophy.

> In conclusion, I can see how you can theorise that
> there was water before but you have no solid proof
> whatsoever and the internal testimony of the scriptures
> makes it quite clear that the first chapter which
> doesn't make use of elohim's proper name serves to
> elucidate the meaning of his name by describing him as
> the creator of all things.

OK you lost me again on that last bit. Let me end this then with a
very brief overview of my understanding of what is happening in the
text.

Verse one is an introduction to the first creation story. Verse two
describes the state before creation begins. Lifeless chaotic dark
waters.
"let there be light" Its hard to say if the ancients understood this
as creating something or not. It's not a tangible thing.
Then he calls forth a firmament in the middle of the waters. This is
heaven. it is where the waters have been held back above and below.
Then he forces the waters back to reveal dry land and calls it Earth.
Note he does not create the land, he just uncovers it.
He then has the dry land make vegetation. He does not call the
vegetation out of no where.
He fashions the lights and hangs them in the firmament. Again this is
the space between the waters.
He then makes animals in three distinct zones, The seas, the heavens
and the earth. Again he does not call them out of nowhere but has the
various zones make them.
Finally his last creation is Adam who he makes as male and female and
gives dominion over animals in all three zones.
Then the Sabbath rest.


The second story starts in 2:4 with a new intro verse corresponding to 1:1
God has a new name in this one, YHVH Elohim. Gone are the multiple days.
2:5 corresponds with 1:2. There is no life on the earth and in a
complete reversal this time it is because there is no water!
God waters the land and molds man from clay again in a reversal this
is his first creation.
He then plants a garden (with a nifty four river irrigation system)
and forms all the animals from the ground. His crowning event is the
formation of woman from a rib.

So the two creation accounts focus on different things and clearly
contradict each other in order of creation. But both focus on a
lifeless world existing before God decides to make it into our world.

One final note would be the verb bara' more likely means to cut out,
fashion or shape. So 1:1 could actually read: In the beginning God
molded the heavens and the earth.

I'm rather tired now. Everyone have a good fourth.

Joel Stucki