News11 mins ago
Has religion got it wrong?
64 Answers
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
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, does that suggest (as I suspect) that translating bara as 'separate' is pretty speculative? Do you know if the word is used in that sense in non-biblical texts (if such things exist)?
Naomi, my own beliefs are neither here nor there. I'm happy to have them confirmed, or proven wrong - but only by persuasive arguments. So far I don't find Prof van Wolde's arguments convincing. But I am aware that a single newspaper report may not be the whole story.
Naomi, my own beliefs are neither here nor there. I'm happy to have them confirmed, or proven wrong - but only by persuasive arguments. So far I don't find Prof van Wolde's arguments convincing. But I am aware that a single newspaper report may not be the whole story.
jno, how can anyone attempt to prove or disprove your beliefs if you don't acknowledge them? Never mind. I was simply responding to your query.
I very much doubt that any newspaper report gives the whole story. That, I imagine, is rather too much to hope for. I simply think that if a respected academic has come up with a new theory, the very least a rational mind can do is seriously consider the possible validity of it. Having said that, since none of us here, (including, with all due respect, Clanad) can number ourselves among her peers, we can only await their response.
I very much doubt that any newspaper report gives the whole story. That, I imagine, is rather too much to hope for. I simply think that if a respected academic has come up with a new theory, the very least a rational mind can do is seriously consider the possible validity of it. Having said that, since none of us here, (including, with all due respect, Clanad) can number ourselves among her peers, we can only await their response.
jno, great stuff. Very measured posts I think in the circs. Which are dreadful. The article in the Telegraph is pathetic and the fuss about this 'claim' all over the Web is pathetic. Pure puff and hype.
Naomi, you and I have been in agreement before, and I hope we have a good enough relationship for me to be able to say that this time you are barking up the wrong tree. I regret to have to say this, because you have invested a lot of energy in this tree. Ankou is so right about it being a non-story. Don't be sarcastic about his expertise, or mine. I certainly am "qualified to comment negatively on the results of a serious scholar's work", as are "the thousands of scriptural scholars – Jewish, Catholic, Protestant – who have studied the text for millennia" that Ankou mentions, and not a few of them have not been above "generating sensational headlines".
Dont get me wrong. I realize the claim may have been misreported. She may NOT be confusing meaning with etymology. A lot of the reporters all over the Web may hardly know the difference. But please forgive me for not bothering to check that in detail. I must be brief.
The etymology is relatively transparent, as it is so often in ancient languages like Hebrew, rather than just a matter of record in languages with thousands of years of literacy. Genesis was an oral tradition through centuries of oracy before its literary transmission. And in all that time it is obvious that the word 'bara' meant quite simply "created".
And the wonderful thing about the etymology (and I have taught this all my life - there is nothing new under the sun, though far more of my students have thought my detailed exegesis of it idiosynccratic than have found it revelatory) is the very fact that the concept of creation itself evolved from the idea of "separation", though it might be less obscurantist to say "distinguishi
Naomi, you and I have been in agreement before, and I hope we have a good enough relationship for me to be able to say that this time you are barking up the wrong tree. I regret to have to say this, because you have invested a lot of energy in this tree. Ankou is so right about it being a non-story. Don't be sarcastic about his expertise, or mine. I certainly am "qualified to comment negatively on the results of a serious scholar's work", as are "the thousands of scriptural scholars – Jewish, Catholic, Protestant – who have studied the text for millennia" that Ankou mentions, and not a few of them have not been above "generating sensational headlines".
Dont get me wrong. I realize the claim may have been misreported. She may NOT be confusing meaning with etymology. A lot of the reporters all over the Web may hardly know the difference. But please forgive me for not bothering to check that in detail. I must be brief.
The etymology is relatively transparent, as it is so often in ancient languages like Hebrew, rather than just a matter of record in languages with thousands of years of literacy. Genesis was an oral tradition through centuries of oracy before its literary transmission. And in all that time it is obvious that the word 'bara' meant quite simply "created".
And the wonderful thing about the etymology (and I have taught this all my life - there is nothing new under the sun, though far more of my students have thought my detailed exegesis of it idiosynccratic than have found it revelatory) is the very fact that the concept of creation itself evolved from the idea of "separation", though it might be less obscurantist to say "distinguishi
is the very fact that the concept of creation itself evolved from the idea of "separation", though it might be less obscurantist to say "distinguishing" things from one another, and thereby from chaos, separating things out from the blur of perception and giving them form and meaning and giving us CONception. The act of creation is seen as divine, which is why the subject is always Elohim (let's not go into the etymology of the Name), and in Christianity, following Gnosticism, as the Word through Whom, all things are made.
For Language creates order out of chaos, and makes the "distinctions" which enable us to come up with all this stuff in the first place. And to have a heaven and earth to talk about. Never mind the unimaginably impossible macrocosmic and microcosmic wonders we can now contemplate thanks to millennia of evolution of the metalanguages such as mathematics which depend on the power Language gives us to formulate them. We may very well be amoebae to the extraterrestrials celebrated on flobadob's thread, but we are privileged to be suddenly quite a bit closer to Childhood's End, since the Anthropic Principle came to be better understood.
All that was off the top of my head. Don't expect to find that particular distillation of those particular insights anywhere else on the Web, but when it comes to the impossibility of one-to-one correspondences between languages, or even interpretations within the perspective of one language, you will find commentaries such as this on the first verses of Genesis:
Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.'
This is because the Hebrew grammar permits these interpretations as well as the on
For Language creates order out of chaos, and makes the "distinctions" which enable us to come up with all this stuff in the first place. And to have a heaven and earth to talk about. Never mind the unimaginably impossible macrocosmic and microcosmic wonders we can now contemplate thanks to millennia of evolution of the metalanguages such as mathematics which depend on the power Language gives us to formulate them. We may very well be amoebae to the extraterrestrials celebrated on flobadob's thread, but we are privileged to be suddenly quite a bit closer to Childhood's End, since the Anthropic Principle came to be better understood.
All that was off the top of my head. Don't expect to find that particular distillation of those particular insights anywhere else on the Web, but when it comes to the impossibility of one-to-one correspondences between languages, or even interpretations within the perspective of one language, you will find commentaries such as this on the first verses of Genesis:
Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.'
This is because the Hebrew grammar permits these interpretations as well as the on
This is because the Hebrew grammar permits these interpretations as well as the one that got into the translation. You may find that surprising, but it should give you pause.
The short answer is that all we may ever hope to do is achieve ever better approximations to the world-view of a thinking being in its early Childhood, but never to recapture that Childhood, however much research and discoveries in the various fields may yet reveal.
Neither you nor I have the patience to go into the long answer here. But believe me my answer would be VERY long.
What I will say is that you only have to look at the next few verses after the spurious "separation" to see that it is right there that the real concept of "separation"is introduced as DISTINCT from creation!
And it is consistently so distinguished, as clanad has pointed out with respect to another verb. This "separation", 'yavdel' is quite different from the concept of "creation", 'bara' in the language of the time!
And quite correctly it has been differently translated from the earliest times of the Septuagint, as "divided" or whatever (apols for the translation, which might as well be the King James Version as anything else):
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[17] And God set them in the firmament of t
The short answer is that all we may ever hope to do is achieve ever better approximations to the world-view of a thinking being in its early Childhood, but never to recapture that Childhood, however much research and discoveries in the various fields may yet reveal.
Neither you nor I have the patience to go into the long answer here. But believe me my answer would be VERY long.
What I will say is that you only have to look at the next few verses after the spurious "separation" to see that it is right there that the real concept of "separation"is introduced as DISTINCT from creation!
And it is consistently so distinguished, as clanad has pointed out with respect to another verb. This "separation", 'yavdel' is quite different from the concept of "creation", 'bara' in the language of the time!
And quite correctly it has been differently translated from the earliest times of the Septuagint, as "divided" or whatever (apols for the translation, which might as well be the King James Version as anything else):
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[17] And God set them in the firmament of t
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:
There is also much speculation about whether [7} should be "...and it (the firmament) divided the waters...", as the subject is not expressed. Does it matter?
The point is that even this "dividing" is a kind of creation, as it is what determines the identity of what is divided.
Naomi, you say "at the very least acknowledge that she is a serious scholar." I say "Probably." Probably as serious as many PhD students and less serious than some. However much the paparazzi have misrepresented her, she is obviously trying to make her mark. But you are on a quaking bog of academic self-delusion when you conclude that she is "someone who is hardly likely to risk her reputation". That rather depends on whether she has one, doesnt it? Frankly I cant be bothered to find out!
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:
There is also much speculation about whether [7} should be "...and it (the firmament) divided the waters...", as the subject is not expressed. Does it matter?
The point is that even this "dividing" is a kind of creation, as it is what determines the identity of what is divided.
Naomi, you say "at the very least acknowledge that she is a serious scholar." I say "Probably." Probably as serious as many PhD students and less serious than some. However much the paparazzi have misrepresented her, she is obviously trying to make her mark. But you are on a quaking bog of academic self-delusion when you conclude that she is "someone who is hardly likely to risk her reputation". That rather depends on whether she has one, doesnt it? Frankly I cant be bothered to find out!
naomi, I can't imagine that anyone would want to prove or disprove my beliefs and I'm not inviting anyone to try. But people will seek after truth anyway, for their own purposes and what they discover may, as a side-effect, challenge my beliefs. And that's fine by me. But Prof van Wolde's thesis, from what I've seen of it, isn't persuasive enough to change my mind on anything.
jno, I would value your comments on my marathon post. Its length may have put you off by giving the impression of a religious or atheistic rant. You would have to read it to see that it is neither, but an attempt to sort out this mess from the perspective of specialist expertise of my own.
It is all completely original, reasoned and informative argument, not some rubbish such as one finds all over the Web, put there by both religionists and anitreligions who want to provide everyone else with an axe to grind.
I admire your scruple in "seriously considering the possible validity of her claim", but there is nothing to consider: this whole hoohah is nothing but a misunderstanding of a trivial piece of elementary comparative linguistics and textual criticissm.
It is all completely original, reasoned and informative argument, not some rubbish such as one finds all over the Web, put there by both religionists and anitreligions who want to provide everyone else with an axe to grind.
I admire your scruple in "seriously considering the possible validity of her claim", but there is nothing to consider: this whole hoohah is nothing but a misunderstanding of a trivial piece of elementary comparative linguistics and textual criticissm.
on the matter in hand, mallam, your point that that the Bible, and the texts it is based on, actually have two different words - one given as create, one as divide - seems to me strong refutation of Prof van Wolde's claim. It may be that her thesis in full offers some further explanation, and of course we can't know from a single newspaper report (in, I presume, a different language from Prof van Wolde's own). And unless the Telegraph is undergoing a particularly news-free day, I don't expect it will run any further reports. So I regard the matter as pretty much settled.
I was also intrigued by your explanation that the notion of creation evolved from the idea of separation - yes, of course, you're right; it hadn't struck me before. I'd also add, regarding Prof van Wolde's 'discovery' that God seems to create two things at once, that pairing words seems not only a useful oratorical strategy (think how much more memorable are phrases like 'kith and kin', 'be-all and end-all', 'done and dusted' than single words would be) but one that seems appropriate to a religion with a strong dualistic streak: God and Satan, good and evil, heaven and earth. In other word, calling up words two at a time seems a perfectly reasonable way to write a religious text, since it mirrors the way God seems to work; and there's no need at all for Prof van Wolde to hypothesise that someone must have got his verbs wrong.
I was also intrigued by your explanation that the notion of creation evolved from the idea of separation - yes, of course, you're right; it hadn't struck me before. I'd also add, regarding Prof van Wolde's 'discovery' that God seems to create two things at once, that pairing words seems not only a useful oratorical strategy (think how much more memorable are phrases like 'kith and kin', 'be-all and end-all', 'done and dusted' than single words would be) but one that seems appropriate to a religion with a strong dualistic streak: God and Satan, good and evil, heaven and earth. In other word, calling up words two at a time seems a perfectly reasonable way to write a religious text, since it mirrors the way God seems to work; and there's no need at all for Prof van Wolde to hypothesise that someone must have got his verbs wrong.
Ah, the dualistic streak! Spot on! THAT is what mirrors the way God seems to work; and again it's because it's the way language works: by establishing dichotomies. See how much more sophisticated that word is, and how representative of how much more sophisticated our means of expressing these things have become!
Of course they had a heaven and earth, and then knew they had a heaven and earth, and then knew they knew they had a heaven and earth, and it makes by blood run cold to think it, but this whole cosmology must have started with someone SEEING how to express the wonder of how all that worked.
In the beginning God created the Whole World?? (You know, the one He holds in his hands (rx3). A blob! The Primaeval Atom? No, they got it right. Not like the fundamentalist eejits who still ask "Who put it there?" And just dont understand the question being thrown back at them: "Put what where?"
As long as the Cosmos is a blob, there IS no creation. No existence at all. Never mind flobabdob's stars and planets. Can you see that even if Life had evolved to any level of complexity, there is still nothing "but speaking makes it so"? And it wasnt Platonic Ideas that Shakespeare was talking about.
Can you see that without Language the most highly evolved life forms are just blobs blundering around the blob and not distinct from it. Nature in all her grandeur, but only from OUR perspective. Notta lotta people can see that, you know.
How right you are that the dualism was not only a useful oratorical strategy! How much more impressive it is even to us, once we see it, that they saw that it was heaven and earth that had to be created, not the one unholy and undivided Cosmos. And that that first Creation of Me and not-Me, Mine and not-Mine, Us and not-Us, Ours and not-Ours, Thought and not-Thought, True and not-True, was all embraced in the Creation of the Heaven and Earth wh
Of course they had a heaven and earth, and then knew they had a heaven and earth, and then knew they knew they had a heaven and earth, and it makes by blood run cold to think it, but this whole cosmology must have started with someone SEEING how to express the wonder of how all that worked.
In the beginning God created the Whole World?? (You know, the one He holds in his hands (rx3). A blob! The Primaeval Atom? No, they got it right. Not like the fundamentalist eejits who still ask "Who put it there?" And just dont understand the question being thrown back at them: "Put what where?"
As long as the Cosmos is a blob, there IS no creation. No existence at all. Never mind flobabdob's stars and planets. Can you see that even if Life had evolved to any level of complexity, there is still nothing "but speaking makes it so"? And it wasnt Platonic Ideas that Shakespeare was talking about.
Can you see that without Language the most highly evolved life forms are just blobs blundering around the blob and not distinct from it. Nature in all her grandeur, but only from OUR perspective. Notta lotta people can see that, you know.
How right you are that the dualism was not only a useful oratorical strategy! How much more impressive it is even to us, once we see it, that they saw that it was heaven and earth that had to be created, not the one unholy and undivided Cosmos. And that that first Creation of Me and not-Me, Mine and not-Mine, Us and not-Us, Ours and not-Ours, Thought and not-Thought, True and not-True, was all embraced in the Creation of the Heaven and Earth wh
was all embraced in the Creation of the Heaven and Earth which symbolized the Cosmos and our place in it by the Our-God they saw in it from the dawn of consciousness - the Ancient of Days. It was the Creation of creation itself.
And still, the Creation myth tells us, this order has yet to spread over the newborn world: [Gen 2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Hence the next stage of creation is the multiplication of "divisions", the cladistics of evolution, the generation of fractals by computers and behavioural fractals by us.
There is indeed no need for an upstart to hypothesise that someone must have got his verbs wrong!
And still, the Creation myth tells us, this order has yet to spread over the newborn world: [Gen 2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Hence the next stage of creation is the multiplication of "divisions", the cladistics of evolution, the generation of fractals by computers and behavioural fractals by us.
There is indeed no need for an upstart to hypothesise that someone must have got his verbs wrong!
jno/mallam a fascinating discussion and agree with your respective comments on each others posts.
interestingly, and as i hinted in my very first post, this is not new. and as everton pointed out it really is just a an attention seeking headline grabber – that has worked !!!
the word bara jno is one of the many foibles of hebrew literary parallelism. people who are more scoloraly than the idiotic me (if noami is to be believed) have suggested that the word can also mean fat or to fatten. it is used in other parts of the bible where it is intended to mean exactly that, particularly when talking about cows or calves that are ripe and ready for a bit of unhealthy (but of course, godly) sacrificing, the word i believe the noun is beriya, maybe clanad – who’s comments i always enjoy reading – can expand on this (no pun intedned !!!).
i suspect that all this is just an attempt to get noticed over an issue that has been done to death, and this is why i said ‘non story’. but potentially it could lead to the claim that ultimately god was responsible for the big bang and the ‘fatteneing’ or ‘separation’ of the universe itself, which we know, like my midriff, is forever expanding.
to conclude, ‘has religion got it wrong?’as someone who is not religious and thinks the whole thing is nonsense but people are free to believe what they like i would say yes on every count. but in this instance, perhaps it is just the band-wagon-jumper-onners ! something quite aptly pointed out by chakka at post 1.
interestingly, and as i hinted in my very first post, this is not new. and as everton pointed out it really is just a an attention seeking headline grabber – that has worked !!!
the word bara jno is one of the many foibles of hebrew literary parallelism. people who are more scoloraly than the idiotic me (if noami is to be believed) have suggested that the word can also mean fat or to fatten. it is used in other parts of the bible where it is intended to mean exactly that, particularly when talking about cows or calves that are ripe and ready for a bit of unhealthy (but of course, godly) sacrificing, the word i believe the noun is beriya, maybe clanad – who’s comments i always enjoy reading – can expand on this (no pun intedned !!!).
i suspect that all this is just an attempt to get noticed over an issue that has been done to death, and this is why i said ‘non story’. but potentially it could lead to the claim that ultimately god was responsible for the big bang and the ‘fatteneing’ or ‘separation’ of the universe itself, which we know, like my midriff, is forever expanding.
to conclude, ‘has religion got it wrong?’as someone who is not religious and thinks the whole thing is nonsense but people are free to believe what they like i would say yes on every count. but in this instance, perhaps it is just the band-wagon-jumper-onners ! something quite aptly pointed out by chakka at post 1.
jno, Firstly, I didn't suggest anyone attempt to prove or disprove your beliefs. You brought that into the equation. Furthermore, I have also considered the possibility that she is wrong and I simply think that before coming to any definite conclusion, we have to await the response of her peers.
mallam, I don't believe the report suggests she is confusing meaning with etymology, and I don't think it's reasonable to refer to her as an upstart. You say you can't be bothered to find out whether or not she has a reputation, but perhaps you should.
Yes, the concept of creation did evolve from the idea of separation, but the point is that is not what religion teaches, and consequently that is not what millions believe.
I asked for your thoughts, I have read them, and I thank you for your input. However, since my original question was 'Has religion got it wrong?', and no one has discussed that, it seems to me that this thread has gone somewhat awry, so I'll leave you to it.
mallam, I don't believe the report suggests she is confusing meaning with etymology, and I don't think it's reasonable to refer to her as an upstart. You say you can't be bothered to find out whether or not she has a reputation, but perhaps you should.
Yes, the concept of creation did evolve from the idea of separation, but the point is that is not what religion teaches, and consequently that is not what millions believe.
I asked for your thoughts, I have read them, and I thank you for your input. However, since my original question was 'Has religion got it wrong?', and no one has discussed that, it seems to me that this thread has gone somewhat awry, so I'll leave you to it.
I can hardly believe this correspondence!
Can people really be that fussed over the meaning of one word written by an unknown Jew some three thousand years ago when giving his naive and quite incorrect idea of how the universe came about? What other fairy stories are we going to analyse with equally straight faces? Oh here\'s one...
There is a theory that Cinderella didn\'t have a glass slipper but a fur one. The idea is that, in the French version, the word \'ver\' (meaning \'fur\') was misread as \'verre\' (glass). Seems to make sense, since a glass slipper must be very (sorry!) uncomfortable to dance with. The only trouble is that in my French dictionary \'ver\' means a orm or a maggot.
There! That should keep us going for a page or two.
Can people really be that fussed over the meaning of one word written by an unknown Jew some three thousand years ago when giving his naive and quite incorrect idea of how the universe came about? What other fairy stories are we going to analyse with equally straight faces? Oh here\'s one...
There is a theory that Cinderella didn\'t have a glass slipper but a fur one. The idea is that, in the French version, the word \'ver\' (meaning \'fur\') was misread as \'verre\' (glass). Seems to make sense, since a glass slipper must be very (sorry!) uncomfortable to dance with. The only trouble is that in my French dictionary \'ver\' means a orm or a maggot.
There! That should keep us going for a page or two.
well to help you get your toys back in the pram we can analyse your original question can’t we.
the bible said god created heaven and earth, scribes and scholars for a few thousand years wrote and copied and copied and wrote this word into their scripts and text which was selectively joined together to make the bible tanslated into latin and then into english. religious people have taken that god created heaven and earth to be fact.
yes, religion got it wrong - in the sense i don’t believe god is the great architect that he is purported to be. most fundamentallly for another reason, in that I believe there is no “god” in the first place.
so, this professor pops up a few thousand years after all the other learned scholars, and appoints max clifford to declare that god didn’t actually create them, he just pushed them apart.
now, whether you are religious or not, i think there would be some eyebrows raised at that statement. yuo have said ‘that is not what millions believe’ so again as said by chakka ‘don't think they're going to be too bothered about a translation issue’. so that just leaves us with a numpty bumpty professor who has gained 15 minutres of fame over what is ultimately a non-story. but apparently jesus and hitler started out all alone with their thoughts, and look where that took us. maybe you could become her acolyte and start a trend.
the bible said god created heaven and earth, scribes and scholars for a few thousand years wrote and copied and copied and wrote this word into their scripts and text which was selectively joined together to make the bible tanslated into latin and then into english. religious people have taken that god created heaven and earth to be fact.
yes, religion got it wrong - in the sense i don’t believe god is the great architect that he is purported to be. most fundamentallly for another reason, in that I believe there is no “god” in the first place.
so, this professor pops up a few thousand years after all the other learned scholars, and appoints max clifford to declare that god didn’t actually create them, he just pushed them apart.
now, whether you are religious or not, i think there would be some eyebrows raised at that statement. yuo have said ‘that is not what millions believe’ so again as said by chakka ‘don't think they're going to be too bothered about a translation issue’. so that just leaves us with a numpty bumpty professor who has gained 15 minutres of fame over what is ultimately a non-story. but apparently jesus and hitler started out all alone with their thoughts, and look where that took us. maybe you could become her acolyte and start a trend.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News38 mins ago
News41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
