Genesis without Creation Ex Nihilo

[Jayhawker Soule]

The KJV begins:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Most Christian Old Testaments contain similar wording. An interesting exception is Young's Literal Translation (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&version=yng&Go.x=24&Go.y=11) which reads: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.As we'll see, the basic distinction here is between two distinct constructs ..."in the beginning God created" and "when God began to create"Apparently, the opening lines of Genesis lend themselves to more than one interpretation and may have nothing to do with creation ex nihilo.

If we investigate further, we find that the KJV variant corresponds to the early translations of the Jewish Masoretic text. So, for example, we find it in the Jewish Publication Society (JPS - 1917) (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Genesis1.html) In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the water.
And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
What is interesting, however, is that more recent scholarship has consistently resulted in translations more closely resembling Young's. So, for example, the highly proclaimed and authoritative Stone Edition Tanach (http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) renders the 1st verse as ... In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth... and treats verse two as a parenthetical.

Similarly, Etz Hayim (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2w6H1dpCfl&isbn=0827607121&itm=1) offers ... When God began to create heaven and earth
-- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --
God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.... and notes in its commentary:1. When God began to create The conventional English translation reads: "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." The translation presented here looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence and takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from the second half of 2:4 and of 5:1, both of which refer to Creation and begin with the word "when".

2. unformed and void The Hebrew for this phrase (tohu va-vohu) means "desert waste." The point of the narrative is the idea of order that results from divine intent. There is no suggestion here that God made the world out of nothing, which is a much later conception.Similar constructs can be found in
The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2w6H1dpCfl&isbn=0393019551&itm=1)
Commentary on the Torah (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2w6H1dpCfl&isbn=0060507179&itm=3)
JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, Standard Edition (1999) (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2w6H1dpCfl&isbn=0827606567&itm=7)
So, what we have in these more modern translations of the Torah is not creation ex nihilo but the creation of order out of chaos. "First Cause" is simply not addressed.

[norwegen]

Hebrews 11:3 also suggests that creation came from something.

[spiritmech]

This makes God out to be not a creator, but a mechanic. St. Athanasius deals with this.
sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hebrews 11:3 also suggests that creation came from something.Conversely, creation ex nihilo is suggested by 2 Macabees 7:28.

[norwegen]

This makes God out to be not a creator, but a mechanic.A mechanic's job is to repair, replace, and maintain. In the beginning, the cosmos wasn't in need of any of these.

Your analogy says that Shakespeare and Rembrandt didn't create, either, then, as they used materials that were already in existence.

[spiritmech]

Far be it from me to keep you from arguing with St. Athanasius. If you'd like to read the text yourself, it's at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-15.htm#P1813_664122

sm

A mechanic's job is to repair, replace, and maintain. In the beginning, the cosmos wasn't in need of any of these.

Your analogy says that Shakespeare and Rembrandt didn't create, either, then, as they used materials that were already in existence.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Far be it from me to keep you from arguing with St. Athanasius.I, for one, have no reason to argue with St. Athanasius or his "ecclesiastical mafia". But I would think that this new consensus by Torah translators (reinforced by Midrash and supported by Maimonides) is worthy of consideration.

[spiritmech]

So you've traded an older mafia for a new one? What's the diff? New consensus vs. old consensus? You're going to have to do better than that if you want to appear objective. I, for one, am completely biased and am in no way objective. That's why I need the Church Fathers.
sm

p.s. Why are you so bitter?

I, for one, have no reason to argue with St. Athanasius or his "ecclesiastical mafia". But I would think that this new consensus by Torah translators (reinforced by Midrash and supported by Maimonides) is worthy of consideration.

[technomage]

Hebrews 11:3 also suggests that creation came from something.
That is one possible reading, but far from the only one. Let's examine the verse:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

pistei nooumen kathrtisqai touV aiwnaV rhmati qeou, eiV to mh ek fainomenwn to blepomenon gegonenai.

Justin's more-or-less literal translation:
By faith we understand that framed was the world by the words of God, for from the not apparent the visible comes into existance.

The word for "apparent" is related to the concept of coming to light. The concept is that of something that can be seen because it is visible--a chair in a dark room is "not apparent" until the lights are turned on.

This doesn't completely "shoot down" the argument that Heb 11:3 suggests creation ex nihlo, but does cause grave difficultes for it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you've traded an older mafia for a new one? What's the diff?Huh?

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to appear objective.I know that this will come across wrong, but I doubt that either of us have the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you have reason to defend the KJV translation over the rest I would be excited to hear it.

p.s. Why are you so bitter?You are either seriously misreading me or intentionally misrepresenting me. If I've somehow threatened you, you have my sincere apologies.

[technomage]

Far be it from me to keep you from arguing with St. Athanasius. If you'd like to read the text yourself, it's at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-15.htm#P1813_664122

sm
Spiritmech ... that's kind of treading awfully close to "argument by weblink." The original paper is quite long ... can you boil it down for us? Better yet, can you give us your understanding of St. Athanasius' ideas?

[spiritmech]

Let me spell it out for you. You call Athanasius and his cohorts a "mafia."

Yet the organization of people you are putting forth is no different. Why should I prefer *your* ecclesiastical mafia over *my* ecclesiastical mafia?

I have no beef with the KJV or non-KJV. I try to adhere to how the Church has interpreted its texts.

You haven't threatened me, but you do seem threatened by my putting forth of Athanasius's view. You attacked him personally. It makes me wonder ... why are you so bitter towards Athanasius?
sm


Huh?

I know that this will come across wrong, but I doubt that either of us have the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you have reason to defend the KJV translation over the rest I would be excited to hear it.

You are either seriously misreading me or intentionally misrepresenting me. If I've somehow threatened you, you have my sincere apologies.

[spiritmech]

Spiritmech ... that's kind of treading awfully close to "argument by weblink." The original paper is quite long ... can you boil it down for us? Better yet, can you give us your understanding of St. Athanasius' ideas?

I already did. I didn't put the weblink up til after I'd mentioned the argument. If anyone feels I am misrepresenting the argument (which I *did* summarize) please let me know.

sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet the organization of people you are putting forth is ...What organization of people am I putting forth?

I have no beef with the KJV or non-KJV. I try to adhere to how the Church has interpreted its texts.Does your Church ever reconsider its interpretation based on new evidence?

[norwegen]

Conversely, creation ex nihilo is suggested by 2 Macabees 7:28.Yes, that appears to contradict Hebrews (I agree with Justin that Hebrews creates difficulties for ex nihilo). But Maccabees is not a part of the canon for good reason: it was not considered divinely inspired.Far be it from me to keep you from arguing with St. Athanasius. If you'd like to read the text yourself, it's at:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-15.htm#P1813_664122

smThanks for the link, sm. I shall read it, but at the moment, I would just say that the church fathers not only wanted to develop doctrine, but they also wanted the Scriptural concept of origins to be distinguished from those of pagan concepts. In ancient pagan views, things in the universe were made from other things in the universe. That is contrary to Judeo-Christian thought, but Judaism and Christianity don't explicitly say anything about God creating from nothing. Perhaps God created "out of things which do not appear."

[spiritmech]

What organization of people am I putting forth?

I'd rather not have to read your posts back to you:

"this new consensus by Torah translators"
sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

In ancient pagan views, things in the universe were made from other things in the universe. That is contrary to Judeo-Christian thought, but ...On what grounds do you say this? For example, the Etz Hayim commentary notes:

The first letter of the first word in the Torah, "b'reishit" is the Hebrew letter 'bet'. This prompted the Midrash to suggest that, just as the letter 'bet' in enclosed on three sides but open to the front, we ae not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation [Gen. R. 1:10]. The purpose of such a comment is not to limit scientific enquiry into the origins of the universe but to discourage efforts to prove the unprovable. ... The Torah begins with 'bet', second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to summon us to begin even if we cannot begin at the very beginning.There would be little need to caution against speculating on what existed before if the sages took Genesis 1:1-3 to mean creation ex nihilo. I am also reminded of Isaiah 43:10 (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20474) ... Ye are My witnesses, saith HaShem, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no G-d formed, neither shall any be after Me.Note the word "formed", as well as the implicit acknowledgement of a before and after.

Finally, we have Rashi's commentary ...

But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness…and God said, ‘Let there be light.’” But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, ... [Rashi (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8165&showrashi=true)]This seems a far cry from creation ex nihilo.

[technomage]

But Maccabees is not a part of the canon for good reason: it was not considered divinely inspired.

Just as a brief note: Maccabes is accepted as canon in some branches of the Church.

[technomage]

I already did. I didn't put the weblink up til after I'd mentioned the argument. If anyone feels I am misrepresenting the argument (which I *did* summarize) please let me know.

Eh ... I'm not exactly sure a one-sentence dismissal exactly qualifies as a "good representation" ... or even as a "good argument." Especially since your one-sentence dismissal is only a parody of the arguments against ex nihlo.

For my part, the Hebrew is pretty clear ... and it simply doesn't indicate "ex nihlo." Now, to be sure, it also doesn't definitely indicate what substance was there. What it does indicate is that before God's creative work, there may have been some form of substance, but it was chaotic and unshaped.

I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical of the Midrashic argument about the shape of Bet being significant to the discussion: however, I think the point the argument makes is a good one. We cannot prove what is not specifically stated. We can speculate all we wish ... but while speculation may be all well and good, speculation is not proof.

In this case, if someone were to require an answer, I would say "The Hebrew definitely doesn't look like Creation Ex Nihlo." Now, I can also point them to John 1:3, and say "Even the chaos before God said 'Let there be light' was of God's making"--but if I am to be honest with the text, I must acknowledge that creation ex nihlo is not taught in Genesis 1.

[spiritmech]

Eh ... I don't care. Moderate it, Mr. Moderator, if you don't like it. You're the man in charge. That's all that matters around here.
sm

Eh ... I'm not exactly sure a one-sentence dismissal exactly qualifies as a "good representation" ... or even as a "good argument." Especially since your one-sentence dismissal is only a parody of the arguments against ex nihlo.

For my part, the Hebrew is pretty clear ... and it simply doesn't indicate "ex nihlo." Now, to be sure, it also doesn't definitely indicate what substance was there. What it does indicate is that before God's creative work, there may have been some form of substance, but it was chaotic and unshaped.

I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical of the Midrashic argument about the shape of Bet being significant to the discussion: however, I think the point the argument makes is a good one. We cannot prove what is not specifically stated. We can speculate all we wish ... but while speculation may be all well and good, speculation is not proof.

In this case, if someone were to require an answer, I would say "The Hebrew definitely doesn't look like Creation Ex Nihlo." Now, I can also point them to John 1:3, and say "Even the chaos before God said 'Let there be light' was of God's making"--but if I am to be honest with the text, I must acknowledge that creation ex nihlo is not taught in Genesis 1.

[Jayhawker Soule]

In retrospect, my reference to "St. Athanasius or his 'ecclesiastical mafia'" was clearly unnecessary and provocative. Hopefully you, spiritmech, will accept my apologies and we can move on to discussions of substance.

[technomage]

Eh ... I don't care. Moderate it, Mr. Moderator, if you don't like it. You're the man in charge. That's all that matters around here.
sm

Spiritmech, if my words or actions have caused you offense, then I profoundly apologise. Such was definitely not my intent.

[spiritmech]

I'm sorry as well. I have no beef with the translation. But once you start saying "this excludes creation ex nihilo" you've gotten into the business of interpretation.

Obviously there are multiple theories of translation. On one end the translation *is* an interpretation and offers no apologies. On the other end the translation tries to be as clear as possible and attempts no actual interpretation.

No matter the translation, the Church has interpreted those passages in a specific way for a particular reason. Occasionally those interpretations are questioned or re-interpreted but for the most part, as Christians we ought to at least be interested in what our Forefathers have gathered over the years.

I don't know if you're a Christian or not, so I don't mean to offend you by saying "we as Christians." Obviously many Christians will disagree with me. I am an OEC who also believes in the literal truth of Genesis. However, deriving chaos from Genesis seems to be overly literalistic to me.

Thanks,
sm


In retrospect, my reference to "St. Athanasius or his 'ecclesiastical mafia'" was clearly unnecessary and provocative. Hopefully you, spiritmech, will accept my apologies and we can move on to discussions of substance.

[spiritmech]

Spiritmech, if my words or actions have caused you offense, then I profoundly apologise. Such was definitely not my intent.

I think some posters/threads need to be more highly moderated (i.e. the people who *always* argue about the same thing), but for the most part it's not that necessary.

I'm sorry for piling on you.
sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

What has not yet been addressed is ...
Why such commonality among early translations?
Why such commonality among new Torah translations?
How is it that Young anticipated the new rendering?I have no answer to these questions, but it seems that there's an interesting story there to be told.

[technomage]

I'm sorry as well. I have no beef with the translation. But once you start saying "this excludes creation ex nihilo" you've gotten into the business of interpretation.

Perhaps I have, but Spiritmech, there is a difference here. The Church interprets the scripture as a wholistic message ... I am looking at these passage isolated from the balance of Scripture. As such, I am not saying that the Bible "excludes" creation ex nihlo--I am simply saying that this passage (and Hebrews) cannot be conclusively used to prove the doctrine.

No matter the translation, the Church has interpreted those passages in a specific way for a particular reason. Occasionally those interpretations are questioned or re-interpreted but for the most part, as Christians we ought to at least be interested in what our Forefathers have gathered over the years.

I am interested ... I was not asking you to give a synopsis because I did not want to read it, and perhaps I should have made that clear. I was asking you to give a synopsis so that I had (if you'll pardon the expression) "living iron" to sharpen my mind against, rather than arguing with a deceased bishop who cannot respond if my queries go outside of the text he presents.

However, deriving chaos from Genesis seems to be overly literalistic to me.

Well ... while interpretations and comments on the text may change, the one thing we have that must not change is the text itself, and accurate tanslations are an absolute requirement.

I tend towards the middle of the "translation vs. interpretation" school--for me, the text seems to speak very clearly on almost every issue it discusses. Now, that could mean that I have an easy and intuitive grasp of what the Bible is saying ... or it could mean that I'm simply reading my own expectations into the text.

This particular discussion is not about what the Church Father's taught as doctrine (though that is very important)--this thread is specifically about what the text says. The Church Fathers did not consider the text alone: they also considered the doctrine of the Church as a whole, and the needs of their congregation. Yes, I can quite easily see how the doctrine of "ex nihlo creation" could have come as much from a rejection of pagan teachings as it does from John 1:3 ... but we deal with a different time, different cultural expectations.

SM, I don't know what the Orthodox Church says about the writings of the Early Church Fathers, but I see them as wise and learned men ... not necessarily as authoritative as the Scripture itself, but certainly something to be considered. I, on the other hand, am somewhat educated on the subject, but I make no claims to be a Doctor of the Church--and I certainly make no claims of wisdom. If I'm wrong, I'm more than glad to be corrected.

But ... please, if I argue against a particular belief that you hold, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, please don't take my statements as an "attack" on your faith. Such a thing is the farthest from my intentions.

[spiritmech]

I would say that the verse from Genesis doesn't really exclude creation ex nihilo, and it doesn't really include it, either. As I said before, I don't have any beef with the actual translation.

I just think the writer of Genesis was putting it the best way he knew how. It's poetic, it tries to put it in terms which we can understand. But deriving a theology (or attacking a theology, as the OP does) isn't really what it's about.

sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I have, but Spiritmech, there is a difference here. The Church interprets the scripture as a wholistic message ...
Please also note that the Torah is not a Christian document. This is not to prejudge the interpretation of this or that Church Father, but to emphasize that some hold those like Maimonides in equal esteem.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just think the writer of Genesis was putting it the best way he knew how. It's poetic, it tries to put it in terms which we can understand. But deriving a theology (or attacking a theology, as the OP does) isn't really what it's about.Pledase reread the OP, spiritmech. Where do I "attack a theology"?

[spiritmech]

Perhaps I am misguided. Are you not arguing against Creation Ex Nihilo? Maybe you aren't. :shrug:
sm

Pledase reread the OP, spiritmech. Where do I "attack a theology"?

[spiritmech]

Duly noted. Thanks.
sm

Please also note that the Torah is not a Christian document. This is not to prejudge the interpretation of this or that Church Father, but to emphasize that some hold those like Maimonides in equal esteem.

[technomage]

Pledase reread the OP, spiritmech. Where do I "attack a theology"?
Jay, in the Orthodox Christian understanding of G-d, the existence of HaShem as the only uncreated entity is very important to their theology, not just to their doctrine. It has to deal with certain heresies that developed about 250 years after the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I am misguided. Are you not arguing against Creation Ex Nihilo? Maybe you aren't. spiritmech, my sole point (which I though I had made explicitly clear) is that, according to many renderings of Genesis 1:1-3, those verses do not speak of creation ex nihilo. Nor, by the way, do they preclude it. I remain curious about what appears to be a shift in rendering.

As for what I believe, since I consider myself an ontological naturalist I'll await further clarification from science.

[spiritmech]

spiritmech, my sole point (which I though I had made explicitly clear) is that, according to many renderings of Genesis 1:1-3, those verses do not speak of creation ex nihilo. Nor, by the way, do they preclude it. I remain curious about what appears to be a shift in rendering.

As for what I believe, since I consider myself an ontological naturalist I'll await further clarification from science.

Then I guess I am in agreement with you. Forgive me for being so pedantic. Let me know if you find a reason for the shift.
sm