Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The ''Waters'' at the beginning of Genesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seeker
    replied
    An atheist has claimed: ''Read the text [Genesis 1:2] and you see that the ''waters'' are not explicitly created. In the Bible [conception of] universe, the ''waters'' occupy the universe, it's the same ''primordial ocean'' of other mitologies. The ''firmament'' is a solid dome created by Yawveh to contain the atmosphere of the Earth beneath all this water''.

    So what can we conclude?

    Leave a comment:


  • Geert van den Bos
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    A friend has claimed that there is no textual evidence that the ''waters'' mentioned in Genesis 1 were created. That they formed some sort of ''chaos'' from which the demiurge (or God) made the world. However, in a review of the book Creation out of Nothing by W. L. Craig and Paul Copan, it is written: ''The authors also understand the toledots in Genesis as introducing a new section of the narrative rather than being colophons, and rightly point out that although ברא (bārā) does not inherently refer to creation ex nihilo, the context clearly implies this. They subscribe to the traditional view of a two step creation process: that God first created the raw materials ex nihilo, and then formed these materials into the universe in which we now live. The days of creation, however, are not discussed''. This comes from CMI: https://creation.com/argumentum-ad-n...ing-to-nothing.

    I interpret this quote as saying that the ''waters'', were, in fact, created. Does anyone here agree?
    He created the universe by cleaving the water (Exodus 14:21) and by thus leading the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

    to cleave = "baka", done with an axe or sword like "beirei", pi'el-form of "bara" does mean to fell down trees

    https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1254.htm

    "mayim" = water, written "mem-yud-mem"

    So "splitting the water" would be like the splitting of the letter "yud"

    which constitutes the essence of God's name "yud - hei -vav - hei"

    The name that doesn't occur in the first story of creation except for in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" , the last two words of Genesis 1:31, and the first two words of Genesis 2:1.


    "vay'chulu" is from the verb "kalah" put to end, finish - from which does stemm English "to kill" -

    Creation was only complete with man being created.

    Without man being created there wouldn't have been no creation at all.

    Last word of Jesus according to John 19:30 Τετέλεσται = it is finished

    which seems to be after the first word of Genesis 2:1 LXX και συνετελεσθησαν

    LXX Exodus 21:14 has for "vayibak'u hamayim" (and the waters split) και εσχισθη το υδωρ

    after which seems to be Mark 15:28, Καὶ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη εἰς δύο ἀπ' ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω.

    which seems to be about the curtain of the holy of holies -- name of which was "d'vir" (1 Kings 6) with gematria 216, coniciding the 216 letters with which Exodus 14:19-21 is written ( each verse with 72 letters)

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I think Rushing Jaws' cite from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament is about as good as you're going to get. So it appears that Kreeft is correct.
    You are probably correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    I think Rushing Jaws' cite from the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament is about as good as you're going to get. So it appears that Kreeft is correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    The above is what I meant when I said:

    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Just another question, is bara' an exclusively Hebrew word? I hope any of you can answer at least that.
    IOW, is there any independent way to confirm what Kreeft has claimed in the quoted section of the previous post, with official Hebrew language sources (such as dictionaries, etc)?
    Last edited by Seeker; 10-03-2019, 04:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    From the book The Philosophy of Jesus:

    The idea of creation, in the proper sense, is a uniquely Jewish idea. It is expressed by a uniquely Jewish word: bara’. It is a word that has no equivalent in any other ancient language. It is a verb that never has any subject besides God. Only God can create. For to create means to make out of nothing, not out of something. It means to make the very existence of something, not just its form, meaning, structure, order, or destiny. Creating is not just making new form in old matter; it is making the very existence of the matter. Not once in history did this idea, the idea of a single God creating the very existence of everything else out of nothing at all, ever enter any human mind except that of the Jews and those who learned from them (mainly Christians and Muslims).
    Last edited by Seeker; 10-03-2019, 04:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    I now remember. I got this idea (the 'bara one) from Peter Kreeft's The Philosophy of Jesus. I will post the relevant sections when I have the time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Just another question, is bara' an exclusively Hebrew word? I hope any of you can answer at least that.
    According to the article on *bara’* in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2 page 245: “As yet, the root br’ has not been found in the older Semitic languages outside the OT.” The quotation is from the 1999 reprint by Eerdmans of the 1977 revised edition of TDOT.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    Just another question, is bara' an exclusively Hebrew word? I hope any of you can answer at least that.
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether or not it's a Semitic loan word that was incorporated into Hebrew, for example? John Walton has this to say about it in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,
    "One can argue that the Hebrew verb bara' ("create") carries the same functional meaning as other ancient Near Eastern verbs for "create," though it has not generally been recognized.

    Other than that, I can't really find etymological origins for it. How would it be relevant to the OP?

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    A friend has claimed that there is no textual evidence that the ''waters'' mentioned in Genesis 1 were created. That they formed some sort of ''chaos'' from which the demiurge (or God) made the world. However, in a review of the book Creation out of Nothing by W. L. Craig and Paul Copan, it is written: ''The authors also understand the toledots in Genesis as introducing a new section of the narrative rather than being colophons, and rightly point out that although ברא (bārā) does not inherently refer to creation ex nihilo, the context clearly implies this. They subscribe to the traditional view of a two step creation process: that God first created the raw materials ex nihilo, and then formed these materials into the universe in which we now live. The days of creation, however, are not discussed''. This comes from CMI: https://creation.com/argumentum-ad-n...ing-to-nothing.

    I interpret this quote as saying that the ''waters'', were, in fact, created. Does anyone here agree?
    I've mentioned it many times before, but OT scholar John Sailhamer had a view (since labeled Historical Creationism) that suggested that just about everything was created at some undetermined time in verse 1. He suggested that "heavens and earth" in verse 1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is a figure of speech called a merism, and that was the Hebrew equivalent of saying "all of the cosmos." He then argued that the rest of the "creation" events in the Genesis narrative only applied to the Garden/Promised Land, not the entirety of the earth.

    It's been relatively influential with folks like John Piper and Matt Chandler. Dr. Seth Postell, a student of Sailhamer, has been developing it a bit since Sailhamer's death a couple years ago. I think there's a few things that need a bit of work, but could compliment something like Derek Kidner's views on pre-Adamic people groups, and the special creation of Adam and Eve.

    Here's a summary of Historical Creationism on Piper's website: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land

    And Kidner's exploration of pre-Adamites http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...735#post664735

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    replied
    Just another question, is bara' an exclusively Hebrew word? I hope any of you can answer at least that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seeker
    started a topic The ''Waters'' at the beginning of Genesis

    The ''Waters'' at the beginning of Genesis

    A friend has claimed that there is no textual evidence that the ''waters'' mentioned in Genesis 1 were created. That they formed some sort of ''chaos'' from which the demiurge (or God) made the world. However, in a review of the book Creation out of Nothing by W. L. Craig and Paul Copan, it is written: ''The authors also understand the toledots in Genesis as introducing a new section of the narrative rather than being colophons, and rightly point out that although ברא (bārā) does not inherently refer to creation ex nihilo, the context clearly implies this. They subscribe to the traditional view of a two step creation process: that God first created the raw materials ex nihilo, and then formed these materials into the universe in which we now live. The days of creation, however, are not discussed''. This comes from CMI: https://creation.com/argumentum-ad-n...ing-to-nothing.

    I interpret this quote as saying that the ''waters'', were, in fact, created. Does anyone here agree?
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X