Has religion got it wrong?

[naomi24]

This follows on from Flobadob's thread. According to a new study, original Biblical texts have been mistranslated. God did not create the heaven and the earth. He 'separated' them. Your thoughts?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

[chakka35]

I can't see that it matters, naomi. If research showed that the original version of the Goldilocks story had four bears, not three, should normal (adult) people be concerned? Until the creationists can manage to explain how you can have mornings and evenings for three days before the sun is invented I don't think they're going to be too bothered about a translation issue.

[naomi24]

Actually, Chakka, I think it should bother them a lot. If this means that God didn’t create the universe, as they insist he did, but simply separated the earth from the rest of it (Terraforming?), where does that leave religion?

[Ankou]

"According to a new study, original Biblical texts have been mistranslated."

thats a new revelation is it ?

[naomi24]

In this particular instance, yes it is a new revelation, Ankou.

[123everton]

Has he written a book about it?

[Ankou]

"Professor van Wolde concedes that “technically” the verb “bara” does mean “create”. But, she contends, “Something was wrong with the verb.” Of course there was: if you simply accept the same “technical” meaning of the verb as the thousands of scriptural scholars – Jewish, Catholic, Protestant – who have studied the text for millennia, you will never generate sensational headlines around the world or fill lecture theatres." .......

....."No other Hebrew scholar has a problem with the verb “bara” as signifying “to create” and even Professor van Wolde admits it is “technically” correct."

bit of a non story isnit.

[naomi24]

I don't believe so, Everton.

Ankou, gosh, your field of expertise is astounding. Not only do you disagree with the editor of a serious and respected newspaper, you also feel qualified to comment negatively on the results of a serious scholar's work. If she is correct the implications to religion are enormous, but why oh why didn't she ask you for your expert opinion before publishing her findings? Silly lady! You could have put her straight. ;o)

[jno]

naomi, that's one serious scholar who says one thing and millennia of serious scholars who've said something else. Maybe she's right and it's all the rest of the regiment who are out of step. Maybe she's not. But it's worth bearing in mind that translation is never, ever accurate. Words don't have identical meanings in different languages. Prof van Wolde has "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" and drawn her conclusion, which, rather remarkably, is one that nobody else in history has ever come to. She thinks that because the text always says God created two things, it must mean he actually separated two things. That seems to me to be a leap of imagination rather than of scholarship: 'well, the Bible says this but it obviously means something completely different'.

That doesn't mean she's wrong. But in answer to 123everton's fair question: no, she hasn't written a book as such - it appears it's her university thesis. Which in effect is the same thing.

[beso]

This is just another "Biblical Scholar" reinterpreting the Bible in an effort to show it is consistent with modern knowledge. This is important to some because the failure of Genesis to accurately model the observions is a weakiness in the claim that the Bible is the indesputable Word of God.

In fact the Biblle is the operators manual for a primitive cult that came to dominate the planet through indoctrination of its member and violent suppression of those who opposed it.

[naomi24]

jno, It's rather facetious, not to mention insulting, to call this woman's work a leap of imagination. Perhaps she is wrong, but perhaps she isn't - and since I believe that ancient texts often record facts, I think it possible that she has stumbled upon something that no one else has - or at least that no one else has had the courage to publicise. As Beso says, the church oppressed anyone who opposed its teachings. Remember Galileo? And what about Darwin? For fear of upsetting the church, he waited years before publicising his findings - and that was only 150 years ago - so when you say history, what sort of period are you talking about here? You have to bear in mind that the church has determined the status quo for almost two thousand years, and penalties for what would have been deemed heresy, blasphemy, or even insurrection, were harsh, so any scholars who may have been aware of a mistranslation that had the potential of plunging the very foundation of the Abrahamic religions into chaos, would have been brave men indeed to admit it. You say that no translation is accurate, but in saying that, you've inadvertently given credence to this new theory. However, since religion propagates as fact the idea that God created the universe, I doubt it would agree with you because that would not be in its best interests.

I think Everton had a best seller in mind - something rather different to the findings of a respected scholar of the Old Testament.

[123everton]

If you want to make money out of a book about religion, you'd better pray that it's good, to do so you'll need something sensational coupled with huge dollops of scepticism.
It's a free country, fill ya boots.
P.S.
Can't give you a reference on the other, I was watching a show on religion several years ago and an Imam (or maybe a scholar, I've slept since then) said it, so I took his word for it.
Either way, I think it's a good turn of phrase.

[naomi24]

Not to worry then, Everton. It's just that I can't recall that from the Koran, and wondered if you knew where it was. Thanks anyway.

[jno]

naomi, I wasn't being facetious. What has happened seems fairly clear from the report. This woman has seen that when the Bible lists things God created, it lists them two at a time. She then concludes that this must mean he didn't 'create' them but 'separated' them.

Unfortunately, as she admits, the word in question, 'bara', does indeed mean 'create'. So there are two conclusions she could draw: (a) the word has another meaning which appears only in this one document and nowhere else (otherwise it would have been spotted long ago); or (b) the scribes writing the document somehow used a completely wrong word.

Neither of these seems plausible. A word that seems to have a 'rogue' meaning in just one single document is almost certainly a mistake - like Robert Browning, who used the word 'tw*t' in one of his poems thinking it meant something a nun wears. It does not mean that, and the fact that he misused it doesn't change its actual meaning.

Nor is it in the least likely that a scribe writing down the holiest documents imaginable (and as well as their sacred significance, they're also the annals of the Hebrew tribe) would have used a word that means something completely different, without being noticed at the time or since, and done it more than once. That would be an appalling sin - in effect, misquoting God, and a particularly grumpy God who would smite you dead on the spot.

None of this has anything to do with the church suppressing anything. Translation of the Bible has been going on for centuries. Ancient texts are still available to study, and that presumably is just what she's doing. What's happened is that she's arguing that 'apples' must also mean 'pears' because it suits her thesis. But nuns don't wear tw*ts, apples aren't pears, and bara means create.

[naomi24]

jno, 'this woman' is not just someone who happened upon a bible one day, and decided to make something else of it, and I know her assertion doesn't suit your beliefs, but you must at the very least acknowledge that she is a serious scholar of the Old Testament, and as such, is someone who is hardly likely to risk her reputation and her credibility by publishing something that is not worthy of a second thought, and that cannot be checked and qualified. Rather than it being unfortunate, it is surely to her credit that she openly admits that technically the word does mean create. She isn't implying it has a 'rogue' meaning as you suggest - she is simply saying that there is a discrepancy in the verb, which means that in the grammatical context in which it was used, it has been misunderstood and mistranslated - and anyone who has ever learned a foreign language will know how easily that is done.

You say this error exists in only one document, but that document just happens to be the original - hence if subsequent documents carry different information, then it follows that the fault lies in the translation from the original - unless, of course, you're saying that the original was wrong and all the subsequent translations are right?

As for misquoting God, it wouldn't be an appalling sin if he were portrayed as being even more spectacular than he really was. It's what the church, the synagogue, and the mosque, does best - so rather than being on the receiving end of this God's grumpy smiting, I imagine those sloppy scribes would have received a huge pat on the back.

[jno]

naomi, by 'one document' I didn't just mean one Biblical document, I meant that there seems to be no other examples anywhere of the word having the meaning she claims. If she were to produce a few (and she may well do so in her thesis, the report does not say), that would be powerful evidence in support of her theory. My guess is that she won't, and that her translation of bara as 'separate' will remain unique. But we'll see.

I have no doubt she is a serious scholar, as the Telegraph claims. But the 'discrepancy' seems to be only that the word didn't mean what she wanted it to mean, so she decided it must mean something else.

I don't know why you think her argument doesn't fit my beliefs?

[naomi24]

Jno, She’s working with the original Hebrew text, and there can only be one original. Everything since then has been an accepted, albeit possibly incorrect, translation, so why would you expect to find the same form of the verb elsewhere? Additionally, I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that a serious scholar simply ‘decides’ she wants a word to mean something else. No doubt the world which she inhabits abounds with serious scholars, so that would be a very silly thing to do. But as you say, we shall see, and it will make interesting watching.

From your posts in R&S, I gained the impression you’re Christian - but if I’m mistaken, please accept my apologies.

[Clanad]

It would probably strengthen the Professor's case if the Creation account of Genesis was the only use of the Hebrew "bara" in all of the Old Covenant, but Strong's assigns the number 1254 to the verb and states it used 54 times, including the much later Psalms and Isaiah. In all cases "bara" is used exclusively with Elohiym as the subject.
Additionally, there are a few cases where bara is translated as "make"... however this is a convention of the English translators and doesn't change the root meaning of the Hebrew source word...
There are additional meanings of the word, such as shape, form or fashion, but always by Elohiym and always as an original, not sourced from anything else, whereas the Hebrew word "asah" (Strong's 6213) used, for example, in describing the making of man (adam) is implicitly used to denote something made from something else (dirt, in this case) such as in Genesis 1:26...

[naomi24]

Thanks Clanad. That's interesting.

[Ankou]

"Ankou, gosh, your field of expertise is astounding. Not only do you disagree with the editor of a serious and respected newspaper, you also feel qualified to comment negatively on the results of a serious scholar's work."

thank you for acknowledging my intellect whih i agree are often outstanding. the comments however were quoted from another religious scholar. i cant take all the credit.