Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for joining in on the conversation.   Let me explain part of what is
> at issue here.
>
> You say, "In v1 God created the heavens and the earth. In the following
> verses, the planet earth already existed. So, v1 cannot be a summary, but
> an action. In vv9-10 He made the dry land and named that "earth". That is a
> different meaning of the word earth: the planet earth in v1, and the dry
> land in v10. Similarly in v1, the heavens is the universe, but in v8, God
> made the atmosphere around the earth and named that "heavens" also. "Day"
> has 3 meanings in Gen 1-2:4."
>
> The logic you've produced in this paragraph only works if "create" in this
> chapter means "to create out of nothing."  But that really is not the
> meaning of the verb.


All “creating” is making something that didn’t exist before. It’s not
limited to only creating out of pre-existing materials, though when we talk
about mental constructs, those are ex-nihilo creations, even by humans. The
meaning of the word is not limited to forming things out of pre-existing
matter.


>  Further, a large number of commentators/scholars
> believe that the creation account in Gen 1, like other creation accounts
> from the ANE, assumes a setting where chaotic conditions are in play.


This is directly contradicted by the words used in Genesis 1:2. “The earth
came into being lifeless and still…” the first description used also of
human formed inanimate objects, the second used only three times, always in
connection with the first, so the “still” meaning, though not 100% certain,
is pretty close. This is in direct contradiction to the other ANE accounts
“where chaotic conditions are in play”.


>  So
> v. 1 is a title or summary statement for the entire chapter; v. 2 gives
> what the conditions were like when God started the process of creation; and
> then v. 3, "Let there be light," is the first act of creation, i.e., God's
> turning the chaos conditions of v. 2 into an ordered universe.  On this
> understanding then, the "heavens" of v. 8, i.e., the sky, the solid
> vault-like structure that separates the waters above from the waters below,
> is not different from the "heavens" of v. 1; they are the same.


This is a mistranslation, otherwise known as medieval cosmology. רקיע RQY(
is not a “solid vault-like structure” rather it’s from a root that referred
also to expanding out unsolid things like mist and dust wafting in the wind.

  Likewise,
> when God forms the dry land in v. 10, it is not different from the earth of
> v. 1; they are the same.
>

This claim is indefensible from linguistic reasons. The word ארץ is used
throughout Tanakh in more than one way, and unless there is good contextual
reason to restrict its use to only one of its uses, we have to admit that
it can, and probably is, used in more than one way in this chapter. I see
no contextual clues to back up your claim.

>
> Again, holding to this understanding does not mean that one cannot still
> believe in a creation out of nothing.  There are other statements in the
> canon that indicate that.  It only means that this particular account is
> not describing such a creation.   I hope this at least makes the position
> clear, whether is is indeed correct or not.
>

It was clear to me before, but the text of Genesis 1 doesn’t support it.

>
> Blessings,
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> Taylor Seminary
> Edmonton, Alberta
>
> Jerry Shepherd
> jshepherd53 AT gmail.com
>
> Karl W. Randolph.