Was Genesis mistranslated?

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2009/12/christians-go-nuts-bible-says-god-did.html

Christians go Nuts: Bible Says God Did NOT Create Universe!

What happens when you insist that the Bible be taken literally ... and it turns out there is a big mistake in the translation? For example, what if the original doesn't say God created Heaven and Earth?

Oops.

It's a perfect example of what happens when you let irrational faith trump scholarship and rationality: every time a new fact comes along, your defense of your beliefs has to get even more contorted and far-fetched than before.

According to Professor Ellen van Wolde, the story of Genesis was mistranslated, and badly. God didn't create the universe, it was here already. He just sorted it all out and made sense of it. Sorting out the heavens and firmament, and the waters from the land, and so on, would be a mighty task, one worthy of any ordinary god. But it's a far cry from creating the universe itself ex nihlo.

If Professor van Wolde is right, it puts Yahweh in the same league as gods like Thor, Zeus and Baal: mighty gods, but of-this-universe rather than creator of the universe. Instead of being omniscient and omnipotent, Yahweh would just be more like an ultra-magical human. Quite a downfall.

While this academic debate over a single Hebrew word is interesting and amusing, it's the reaction of Christians and Jews that I find far more instructive, and sad. Professor Van Wolde's short thesis has spawned hundreds of replies on the newspaper's web site, and some of them fill pages with their arguments.

To a scholar, this sort of thing is fun and fascinating, and the debate is just part of an ongoing, somewhat esoteric, effort to expand knowledge. If this were any book other than the Bible, it would be left in the dry, dusty attics of just a few linguists and historians.

But because it affects one of the core beliefs of conservative Christians and Jews, it has to be refuted. Never mind that in a scholarly debate, everyone might eventually conclude that the professor is right (or not ... that's what scholarship is about). No matter what the facts are, these conservative Christians and Jews have to concoct dozens of reasons why the experts must be wrong.

The refutations fall into three main camps:
  1. Professor van Wolde's translation is wrong (this from people who don't even speak Hebrew).
  2. The word "separate" can be taken to mean "create."
  3. The original Hebrew is irrelevant, because the Bible is God's inerrant word and the current translation is His divine will.
Yikes.

A few months ago, I wrote a blog that is relevant again:
There is no objective truth for religion, no foundation. When religious people argue, they're arguing about opinion, and they can argue forever. But when scientists argue, it's over facts, and sooner or later, the facts prevail. One theory will win out because it is true, and the others will be forgotten. And the scientists will then move on to the next question, to expand our knowledge even more.​
That's the beauty of true scholarship, that ultimately, through hard work and clear thinking, and by ignoring our own wishes about what we'd like to be true, we find a core truth that everyone can verify for him/herself. And we move on to the next question.

Religion's reliance on faith, and belief in things that can't possibly be true, makes it impossible to move forward. People waste days, years, and even whole lifetimes, concocting silly explanations to justify two-thousand-year-old mythology, simply because some priests or rabbis declared it to be from Yahweh's own mouth. It's a terrible waste of human intelligence.
 
Yeah, I'm not going to spend much time defending stupidity like this. But in all honesty Water, irrational beliefs are pretty harmless in these applications. Wanting to educate the unwashed masses is fine, but at the end of a long day where few things have gone right religion is a nice crutch to turn to. I don't see the harm in that.
 
Religion's reliance on faith, and belief in things that can't possibly be true, makes it impossible to move forward.

Can't possibly be true? Where do you conclude this based on any evidence? You have taken a huge leap of faith yourself, in concluding something you can't support with evidence. It's impossible to move forward when you do this, you have already concluded it can't be possible. In the other thread, you just finished posting that we "must wait for the evidence" but that isn't what you are willing to do here at all, you've already made up your mind, without evidence... that IS faith!

concocting silly explanations to justify two-thousand-year-old mythology

Much of the Bible is documented historical fact, supported by archeology. To dismiss it as "myth" is silly and ignorant. We know certain things described in the Bible, happened exactly as they are described in the Bible, that isn't "mythology" is it? Did some people misinterpret translation? Perhaps! Do people presume something is mean literally when it wasn't intended to be taken literally? Probably so! In a time before literature, people told stories in different ways, much of the time, the stories contained 'examples' or what we may call 'analogies' to convey the point or principle. It was just a different way to tell the story. None of this "proves" the Bible or "disproves" the Bible, nor does it make the Bible a bunch of myths.
 
Yeah, I'm not going to spend much time defending stupidity like this. But in all honesty Water, irrational beliefs are pretty harmless in these applications. Wanting to educate the unwashed masses is fine, but at the end of a long day where few things have gone right religion is a nice crutch to turn to. I don't see the harm in that.

Liberal and moderate religion is fine and harmless. Fundamentalism presents a danger. I'm always scared that what happened to all Islamic nations but Turkey could happen to the US. Out of all "Christian" nations, we are the most likely to fall to fundamentalism.

But the point of this thread is the new translation. And it is very interesting if the old testament can be translated as God merely "separating" rather than creating the universe.
 
Can't possibly be true? Where do you conclude this based on any evidence? You have taken a huge leap of faith yourself, in concluding something you can't support with evidence. It's impossible to move forward when you do this, you have already concluded it can't be possible. In the other thread, you just finished posting that we "must wait for the evidence" but that isn't what you are willing to do here at all, you've already made up your mind, without evidence... that IS faith!

I didn't right this. He means "can't possibly be true" in the common sense, rather than the philosophical sense, BTW. Which means he means that its extremely unlikely and contradicts all available evidence.


Much of the Bible is documented historical fact, supported by archeology.


I'm sorry, but a lot of things that the bible says have no archaelogical evidence. The exodus itself has no evidence for it, and Solomon and David, if they ever existed, could have only been tribal leaders, not kings of massive walled cities and kingdoms as is described in the old testament.


To dismiss it as "myth" is silly and ignorant. We know certain things described in the Bible, happened exactly as they are described in the Bible, that isn't "mythology" is it? Did some people misinterpret translation? Perhaps! Do people presume something is mean literally when it wasn't intended to be taken literally? Probably so! In a time before literature, people told stories in different ways, much of the time, the stories contained 'examples' or what we may call 'analogies' to convey the point or principle. It was just a different way to tell the story. None of this "proves" the Bible or "disproves" the Bible, nor does it make the Bible a bunch of myths.

Well interpreting these things as analogies is a very liberal religious viewpoint, which isn't honestly what I'm trying to combat. I can argue against it but I don't really see the point when my true enemy is fundamentalism.
 
But the point of this thread is the new translation. And it is very interesting if the old testament can be translated as God merely "separating" rather than creating the universe.

There is nothing "new" about various translations of The Bible! This has been going on for over 2,000 years!

When the Bible says, God told Adam and Eve to 'go forth and replenish the Earth' ...how could they "replenish" it unless it had been previously inhabited? Doesn't the word "replenish" indicate that Adam and Eve were NOT the first humans? When Genesis says, "God created the Heavens and the Earth" , why is "heavens" plural? Does this mean there might be more than one? Could this indicate there might be other planets with people besides Earth, and thus, multiple heavens are required to accommodate them?

There are a billion questions you can ask... things to ponder... we don't have the answers, we can only have "faith" in one set of beliefs or another. You've chosen your set of beliefs, and that is fine... but stop trying to tear down others beliefs with your FAITH!
 
I didn't right this. He means "can't possibly be true" in the common sense, rather than the philosophical sense, BTW. Which means he means that its extremely unlikely and contradicts all available evidence.

"can't possibly" means the exact same thing, regardless of what "sense" you are using! (except for "non-sense") If he meant "extremely unlikely" that is what he should have said! In either case, it can't contradict "evidence" that just doesn't exist! You claim "all available evidence" is contradicted, but there is NO evidence! If you have some evidence for origin of life, present it! Let's examine whether it is "impossible" or "extremely unlikely" something else could have happened! So far, you have presented NOTHING but your FAITH!

I'm sorry, but a lot of things that the bible says have no archaelogical evidence. The exodus itself has no evidence for it, and Solomon and David, if they ever existed, could have only been tribal leaders, not kings of massive walled cities and kingdoms as is described in the old testament.

And I'm sorry but a lot of things in the Bible DO have archeological support. And why do you CONCLUDE AGAIN, that something isn't possible, when you have no evidence to prove it impossible? Why could Solomon and David only have been tribal leaders and not Kings? Merely because you don't see evidence to support it? Just because you don't find evidence of something, doesn't mean no evidence exists or ever existed and it is impossible for evidence to exist! That is the premise you are using and it's FLAWED!

Well interpreting these things as analogies is a very liberal religious viewpoint, which isn't honestly what I'm trying to combat. I can argue against it but I don't really see the point when my true enemy is fundamentalism.

Your true enemy is God Almighty. Something happened in your life to make you angry and resentful of God, and as a way of punishing God, you have vowed to take every opportunity to bash Him on an internet message board. It is the ONLY reason or justification you could have for your behavior.
 
lol......you should always follow to the original source, WM....it's pretty obvious that the original hadn't been mistranslated....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

first of all, this could hardly be construed as a transition from "mythology" to "science" since the author's methodology was not "scientific"....
Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.

secondly, the she didn't do a bang up job of analysis...
"God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?"

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

the Qal tense of the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1 is only found as a verb used in conjunction with a single noun.....nowhere in scriptures does anything other than God "ברא" {not sure how that will show up on your computer, you may need Hebrew font for it to appear}.....nowhere is it used for "separate".....

it is used many times where it is followed by single objects.....there is simply no reason to apply a different textual analysis to Genesis 1:1 than we do to all the other instances where this word is used simply because it says he created the heavens AND the earth.....

in short, the author was trying to reconcile the Hebrew creation story with the Mesopotamian creation stories and got a bit carried away......

here's the Strong's Index for the word
ww.searchgodsword.org/isb/view.cgi?number=01254
 
Last edited:
I and Solomon and David, if they ever existed, could have only been tribal leaders, not kings of massive walled cities and kingdoms as is described in the old testament.

good lord, where did you come up with that silly conclusion.....this may surprise you, but Jerusalem is still there......would you also argue that Alexandria and Rome and other ancient cities didn't exist because we haven't found ALL of them just as they were 3000 years ago?......we have the Wailing Wall, which is part of the temple built by Herod, on the land of the temple built by Nehemiah, on the land of the temple built by David.....undoubtedly, stones were reused......
 
Last edited:
Genisis 1:29 is ignored by the all going to hell right wing republican chritian fundamentalist.

we're not ignoring Genesis 1:29, TS....we're just ignoring stoners......
images
 
All religion is myth.

There are thousands of those myths that are now dead and no one remembers them.

When they were "alive" the people that believed them believed them as strongly and devoutly as any Christian, jew, Muslim or whatever does today. Were they wrong in what they believed? Was their religion better or worse than any religion today? Did they have more or less proof they were correct than any religion today? If you lived at the time it was the religion would you have gone to hell for not believing in a religion you did not know exsisted?
 
Religion may be a myth. But how can the republicans not abide by the bible saying "god gave us all herbs with seed" LOL
 
Back
Top