The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top acad

[Haruko]

Is this really the big deal it is being made out to be? There doesn't seem to be a source that I can use for this story better than the Telegraph. Hm. Maybe that says it all?

God is not the Creator, claims academic
The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.


By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 5:45PM BST 08 Oct 2009

<snip picture of Earth from space>
The Earth was already there when God created humans and animals, says academic Photo: PA

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

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.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing.

Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."

She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.

She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb.

"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.

"There was already water," she said.

"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."

God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness.

She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.

She said: "Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust."

A spokesman for the Radboud University said: "The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."

Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."

[Thanas]

I'll believe it when I see it published and when it stands up to peer review.

[Shroom Man 777]

So you believe that God is the creator of the universe, Thanas?

[TheManWithNoName]

I'm curious... Has this type of thing been tried before? People have been studying the Bible for a long time, so it definitely wouldn't surprise me if this idea has been brought up before.

[Thanas]

So you believe that God is the creator of the universe, Thanas?

I believe that this sounds like one of the countless "HURRAH. Breakthrough" stories that are oftentimes exposed as little more than mistakes under peer review.

[hongi]

"There was already water," she said.

This isn't exactly new. The plain reading of the text states that the deep was already there when God began creating or separating, if the scholar is right. And it's been long known that the Ancient Near East believed in a watery chaos from which everything came out, as seen in the Enuma Elish.

The first thing in fact that seems to be created ex nihilo in Genesis is light. But that doesn't necessarily spell defeat for the belief in God as a creator of everything, as opposed to a guy who's using pre-existing materials. If Genesis only starts off with the creation of the Earth, theists will argue that before that (and unrecorded in the text), God had obviously created the deep as well. And for some reason, that fact wasn't important enough to go into the Bible.

[Rye]

C&P from my post on spacebattles:

this has been known for quite a while, I don't know why people are saying this is a "new shake up" at all. In the NSRV translation, the one used in official Oxford-certified Bible translations, it reads; "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the Earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the surface of the waters."

The "when" in there arguably changes everything, and yes, learned jews are cognisant of this. It does indeed imply that pre-existence of the primordial, chaotic waters. Scholars differ on this, and whether it's an independent sentence summarising what follows or a temporal phrase describing the initial conditions. In either case, it doesn't describe creation ex nihilo, it describes God enforcing order on watery chaos.

A similar idea crops up in the other creation myths of the area, what with Tiamat being the primordial chaos water dragon being slain by Marduk (the deity, not the ass-kicking black/death metal band), or equivalent. Like I said, this is nothing new, though changing "created" to "separated" is new, I guess. God does that with the dome ("firmament") he constructs over the Earth to keep the upper waters separate from the lower ones. The rest of it is, I suspect, running with quotes to make it look like this is a whole paradigm shift when it's really already quite accepted.

[Drooling Iguana]

So does this mean that God didn't create the Universe in the dark? He just became significantly less badass.

[Darth Wong]

I'll believe it when I see it published and when it stands up to peer review.

There's rational peer review in theology? Isn't it possible to be a Biblical literalist theologist? If so, that would mean the field basically has no intellectual standards whatsoever.

[Patrick Degan]

Good luck getting Christian Taliban, Inc. to even acknowledge the idea.

[Rye]

I'll believe it when I see it published and when it stands up to peer review.

There's rational peer review in theology? Isn't it possible to be a Biblical literalist theologist? If so, that would mean the field basically has no intellectual standards whatsoever.

There's rational peer review in textual criticism, translation, anthropology and history.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll believe it when I see it published and when it stands up to peer review.

There's rational peer review in theology? Isn't it possible to be a Biblical literalist theologist? If so, that would mean the field basically has no intellectual standards whatsoever.

It's sort of like the split between astronomy and astrology, only less so. Say, like the split was around 1700 (when Newton could blend the two seamlessly and shamelessly). So there's still peer review on questions like "did you in fact get the translation right?"

If that isn't what you'd call satisfactory, and it probably isn't, consider the fundamental problem of peer review: it only works insofar as your peers are sane. If your peers are screwballs on all topics except linguistics, the only area where a peer review catches your mistakes is linguistics.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'll believe it when I see it published and when it stands up to peer review.

There's rational peer review in theology? Isn't it possible to be a Biblical literalist theologist? If so, that would mean the field basically has no intellectual standards whatsoever.

It's sort of like the split between astronomy and astrology, only less so. Say, like the split was around 1700 (when Newton could blend the two seamlessly and shamelessly). So there's still peer review on questions like "did you in fact get the translation right?"

If that isn't what you'd call satisfactory, and it probably isn't, consider the fundamental problem of peer review: it only works insofar as your peers are sane. If your peers are screwballs on all topics except linguistics, the only area where a peer review catches your mistakes is linguistics.

I don't know if I understood you correctly, but if you are saying that literalists are to other theologians like astrologists are to astronomers, you are absolutely correct. There is a rational peer-review process in theology, but it does not include the literalists. You have to remember that internationally literalists are a minority among Christian theologians, because the only major Churches that officially support literalism are in North America. In other Protestant churces literalism may be tolerated, but it's not endorsed. Most Catholic and Orthodox theologians are non-literalists as well, even though the subtleties of Bible interpretation are slightly less import in those Churches, since they don't follow the sola scriptura principle.

[Spoonist]

Is this really the big deal it is being made out to be? There doesn't seem to be a source that I can use for this story better than the Telegraph. Hm. Maybe that says it all?

God is not the Creator, claims academic
...snip... Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."

If it where indeed "proof" that the biblical texture didn't claim "ex nihilo" creation, then yes it would be a big deal, especially for the catholics. However looking at the arguments given in the article it is easily discarded and comes down to interpretations and opinions. Which means that even if their suggestions and hunches are right there is no "proof". As Thanas was first to point out I do not think this will pass peer-review unless they in the actual paper have better arguments and facts than presented in the article.

Just like others have pointed out this is not a new argument and was indeed one associated with the gnostic heresies. If I remember correctly it is also part of mormon 'creed'.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know if I understood you correctly, but if you are saying that literalists are to other theologians like astrologists are to astronomers, you are absolutely correct. There is a rational peer-review process in theology, but it does not include the literalists. You have to remember that internationally literalists are a minority among Christian theologians, because the only major Churches that officially support literalism are in North America. In other Protestant churces literalism may be tolerated, but it's not endorsed. Most Catholic and Orthodox theologians are non-literalists as well, even though the subtleties of Bible interpretation are slightly less import in those Churches, since they don't follow the sola scriptura principle.

I think it includes some of the literalists at the edges of some of the traditions, but that's about it. Again, I think the proper analogy is astronomy/astrology circa 1700. The two communities still talked to each other to some extent, and there were very sincere people who still hopped back and forth across the line (like Newton)... but they were a minority of the overall community, because the astrologers were in the process of drifting off into their own sad strange little universe.

You've pretty much nailed what I'm saying aside from that.

[Darth Hoth]

A similar idea crops up in the other creation myths of the area, what with Tiamat being the primordial chaos water dragon being slain by Marduk (the deity, not the ass-kicking black/death metal band), or equivalent. Like I said, this is nothing new, though changing "created" to "separated" is new, I guess. God does that with the dome ("firmament") he constructs over the Earth to keep the upper waters separate from the lower ones. The rest of it is, I suspect, running with quotes to make it look like this is a whole paradigm shift when it's really already quite accepted.

How accepted? It certainly does not appear to reflect the beliefs of most Christians; is it acknowledged academically? I thought the New Revised Standard Version was quite controversial already?

I can see why it would irritate fundies if true, of course; while creating the Earth is very unimpressive compared to making the stars and all the rest of the Universe as the same chapter also claims as God's work, its pre-existence does diminish his perceived omnipotence as the source of all creation.

Though I wonder how this jars with the other Biblical retellings of original Creation (e.g., in Proverbs). Since the fundies believe the Bible to be one united book that does not self-contradict, any description of a more proper creation elsewhere will likely be used to invalidate such a reading as the article proposed.

[Rye]

How accepted? It certainly does not appear to reflect the beliefs of most Christians; is it acknowledged academically?

Yeah. I have an Oxford Study Bible, it covers it in that. I would expect it to be covered in any accredited "biblical literature" course.

I thought the New Revised Standard Version was quite controversial already?

Among inerrantist congregations etc that worship the KJV, probably. Not as far as decent education goes.