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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.