Lost in Translation: Genesis 1 is NOT About the Creation of the World! ~ James Tabor

[corbe]

Lost in Translation: Genesis 1 is NOT About the Creation of the World! ~ James Tabor

May 23, 2024


The very first verse of the Bible--Genesis 1:1--which millions can quote by heart--is MIStranslated in most all major versions and all languages--with very few exceptions. The reasons are simple--Marketing and Commercialism. Who would buy a Bible translation that does not begin with "In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth"?  In this short exposition I dhow how the original Hebrew has a completely different meaning. It is not a philosophical or scientific statement--but rather a description of the ordering of the chaotic, empty, water covered, wind sweep, wasteland that was Planet Earth, WHEN the "Force of All Forces" (Elohim) begin to bring order out of the random chaos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYDQXbn4NhA

[Smokin Joe]

"heavens and the earth" is something I always took as creating the whole Universe, not just our planet.

[corbe]

  Interesting point to make @Smokin Joe
  I rarely broadened my horizons to think of it in that Philosophical construct.

[roamer_1]

What gets me is gap theory.... millllllions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

Talk about your exegesis....

[corbe]

   'exegesis' I should have known that word, but I had to look it up @roamer_1   Sure, they're as many interpretations of the 'O'rignal Hebraic Old Testament Bible as they're secret items on a Taco Bell menu.

[The_Reader_David]

Complete rubbish.  The translators who translated the Hebrew text into Greek at the behest of the Ptolemaic Pharoah, rendered the verse as ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, which leaving aside the word order difference between Greek and English is exactly what Tabor is asserting is a mistranslation.  Tabor is thus claiming that the best Hebrew scholars of the third century before Christ didn't know Hebrew well enough to get that translation right, and moreover that Solomonia when she exhorted her sons to bravery in the face of impending martyrdom didn't have the sense -- which she, like most Christians held to be creation of all that is ex nihilio -- correct.  (BTW, straight up creation ex nihilo cannot be proven from the Masoretic text used by protestants as the basis for their canon. It only occurs in Solomonia's exhoration in Second Maccabees, which we Orthodox Christians and the Latins still have in our canons of Scripture which are based on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament prepared by Jews still awaiting the Messiah, not having followed Luther's delusion that the Masorete, a version selected from among many Hebrew versions by Christ-denying rabbis was a Hebrew ur-text, and thus authoritative.)

Sorry, the preview pane rendered the Greek correctly, for some reason the board does not.

[roamer_1]

Complete rubbish.  The translators who translated the Hebrew text into Greek at the behest of the Ptolemaic Pharoah, rendered the verse as ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, which leaving aside the word order difference between Greek and English is exactly what Tabor is asserting is a mistranslation.  Tabor is thus claiming that the best Hebrew scholars of the third century before Christ didn't know Hebrew well enough to get that translation right, and moreover that Solomonia when she exhorted her sons to bravery in the face of impending martyrdom didn't have the sense -- which she, like most Christians held to be creation of all that is ex nihilio -- correct.  (BTW, straight up creation ex nihilo cannot be proven from the Masoretic text used by protestants as the basis for their canon. It only occurs in Solomonia's exhoration in Second Maccabees, which we Orthodox Christians and the Latins still have in our canons of Scripture which are based on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament prepared by Jews still awaiting the Messiah, not having followed Luther's delusion that the Masorete, a version selected from among many Hebrew versions by Christ-denying rabbis was a Hebrew ur-text, and thus authoritative.)

Sorry, the preview pane rendered the Greek correctly, for some reason the board does not.

While I concur, I will take exception with your mishandling of the Masoretic text -  The Dead Sea Scrolls are proto-masoretic, aligning more with the Masoretes than some would find comfortable.... and kicking that translation far back, to be, in cases, every bit as authoritative as the Greek. Particularly Isaiah and Daniel, which can be considered contemporary with the authors of the Septuagint.

And further, This Protestant, and many others, are just as conversant with the Septuagint as they are with the Masoretic text. Both have their faults. Both have their triumphs. But in general, where there is difference it is in the taking of liberties in the Greek by not defaulting to the Hebrew. It is, in the end, an Hebrew text.

[roamer_1]

   'exegesis' I should have known that word, but I had to look it up @roamer_1   Sure, they're as many interpretations of the 'O'rignal Hebraic Old Testament Bible as they're secret items on a Taco Bell menu.

It's one of my twenty-five dollar words @corbe

And I will disagree. there are not many interpretative families. The Hebrew, the Greek, and the Aramaic.
The words are pretty plain. It is the twisting of those words that causes difference.

[corbe]

   Finding the Dead Sea Scrolls has led me to believe that it's all mishmash of previous Theologies based on previous Sumerian Society.

[The_Reader_David]

While I concur, I will take exception with your mishandling of the Masoretic text -  The Dead Sea Scrolls are proto-masoretic, aligning more with the Masoretes than some would find comfortable.... and kicking that translation far back, to be, in cases, every bit as authoritative as the Greek. Particularly Isaiah and Daniel, which can be considered contemporary with the authors of the Septuagint.

And further, This Protestant, and many others, are just as conversant with the Septuagint as they are with the Masoretic text. Both have their faults. Both have their triumphs. But in general, where there is difference it is in the taking of liberties in the Greek by not defaulting to the Hebrew. It is, in the end, an Hebrew text.

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls, more often align with the Septuagint than with the Masorete when the two disagree (and sometimes give a third rendering of a text).  The Evangelists by and large used the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament (though Matthew sometimes uses the Hebrew, but sometimes with different vowels than the Masorete would use).  The problem with the Masorete is that is was selected by Christ-denying rabbis from among multiple extant Hebrew texts precisely because it was the one least supportive of a Christian reading, and that the oldest extant manuscripts of it are much newer (I think 10th century) than the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint (3rd century).  Moreover the Septuagint was used by the Church as the Scriptures of the Old Covenant from the very beginning, while use of the Masorete among Christians begins with St. Jerome, who used it in preparing the Vulgate.

[roamer_1]

   Finding the Dead Sea Scrolls has led me to believe that it's all mishmash of previous Theologies based on previous Sumerian Society.

I will heartily disagree. It is in fact most often a counterpoint to pagan scripts - Often telling the same story, but from a very different perspective. The Bible is far too ingenious to have been assembled by Man. It is a complex, self-affirming script that is truly a wonder from a textual point of view. There is nothing the pagans have that comes even close.

The proof is in the Prophecy.

[roamer_1]

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls, more often align with the Septuagint than with the Masorete when the two disagree (and sometimes give a third rendering of a text). 

That's simply not true. But the reply in full will take us far beyond the restrictions against religion on this site. I will happily correspond with you otherwise. That would be fun. I have not crossed swords with the Orthodox (IIRC).

The Evangelists by and large used the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament (though Matthew sometimes uses the Hebrew, but sometimes with different vowels than the Masorete would use).  The problem with the Masorete is that is was selected by Christ-denying rabbis from among multiple extant Hebrew texts precisely because it was the one least supportive of a Christian reading, and that the oldest extant manuscripts of it are much newer (I think 10th century) than the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint (3rd century).  Moreover the Septuagint was used by the Church as the Scriptures of the Old Covenant from the very beginning, while use of the Masorete among Christians begins with St. Jerome, who used it in preparing the Vulgate.

NAH. That is largely an affirmation based with those that lean that direction. Self-fulfilling by scholars farting in their overstuffed leather chairs. If one approaches the text with an Hebrew mindset rather than a Greek one, the context leans very neatly toward the Masoretic. In fact, I will go rogue and apply the same criteria to the New Covenant - What it says is much clearer translated into Hebrew when approached within an Hebrew environment.

I think in the end, that realization will be the wedding of the sticks of Judah and Ephraim.

[corbe]

I will heartily disagree. It is in fact most often a counterpoint to pagan scripts - Often telling the same story, but from a very different perspective. The Bible is far too ingenious to have been assembled by Man. It is a complex, self-affirming script that is truly a wonder from a textual point of view. There is nothing the pagans have that comes even close.

The proof is in the Prophecy.

   That's what this whole things about ~ 'a very different perspective' @roamer_1 

   No doubt we, as a Society, as directed by our Forefathers, would not be capable of achieving this much progress in 250 years, as a Society, without the backbone 'Judeo-Christianity'. 

   I just don't have Your FAITH
   But I'm willing to explore and question my current mindset, so to speak, by posting this very Thread.

[corbe]

   I know TBR does not like Religious Threads
   I get it; discussion of Religion seems to bring out the worst in people, like politics.
   So maybe "Alternative Realities' is Afterall 'The Safest Place' to put these Discussions.

[roamer_1]

   That's what this whole things about ~ 'a very different perspective' @roamer_1 

   No doubt we, as a Society, as directed by our Forefathers, would not be capable of achieving this much progress in 250 years, as a Society, without the backbone 'Judeo-Christianity'. 

   I just don't have Your FAITH
   But I'm willing to explore and question my current mindset, so to speak, by posting this very Thread.

It is not a matter of faith for me - That faith rests only in Messiah, and the sure promise that was given. Before the fact of that faith, it was all about proof. How does a god prove he is a god? According to YHWH, the gauntlet thrown down across all of history is that he would call his shots, but he'd call em all from the beginning. And they would all happen, just exactly as he says, or he is not God. And he claims, because of his exclusive nature, that he is the only one that can make that claim.

That is a mighty impressive claim, right there. And so far, he ain't missed a lick.
I have read about every prophecy from about every god ever, and believe me, none other can even begin to make that claim. Neither can any humanist.

So because I can prove it, I think my faith is not in vain.

I don't mind a different perspective, providing it's not butchering the text _ and the complexity of the text makes it pretty dang hard to butcher the text without the text calling you out later on.

My own perspective is well afield from most other Christians. But I can defend my use of the text very explicitly. I am not adding to, nor taking away, nor making shit up. That's the demand the text requires. And in that, explicitly *not* doing damage to Torah (the first 5 books). Torah says what it says and no one - not even someone from heaven can change that, or that person is not from Yah.

See, when faced with that sort of complexity it becomes dang hard to lay it out differently than its claim.
That's a pretty tall order.