God is not the Creator, claims academic

[Ol' Fartsy]

God is not the Creator, claims academic. What do you think?

[Sasquatch]

I highly doubt it.

Seriously, if that's the honest translation of the book of Genesis, why did it take a semi-religious scholar to figure it out, instead of the thousands (if not millions) of scholars who have spent their lives poring over original Hebrew texts since they were written? How could something so significant not have been found yet? Thousands upon thousands of people have studied original Bible texts, or copies of them, to preach or prove them -- thousands more have studied them to disprove them. And none of them, not one, has "discovered" this would-be severe mistranslation until a year and a half ago?

If other scholars come out and support this "finding", then it'll gain some credit. But until then, it's the word of one person against the well-established translation of thousands, or millions, of others.

[Robbo]

That theory is less rational than the actual creationist theory, it states that the world was one thing before God came and that he seperated the birds plus the sea monsters and things. For a start i believe more in Evolution than anything but anyway all the birds would have drowned or all the sea monsters would have died from being out of water with this new theory there would've been no species for God to seperate plus it contradicts itself. by saying that he created Humans and animals later and yet Birds and sea monsters, animals were already there.

Although even if this theory is somehow proven to be true, it will take nothing away from the image of God apart from the Design argument will not be valid at all.

[GypsyElder]

I'm no scholar, but from what I understand, the Bible already uses a Hebrew root for "separation" (to distinguish/ to separate) in more than one place. Why would it suddenly be different for that specific portion of text?

Unless to "spatially separate" needed to be that specific.

Also, what Sasquatch said.

I find it mind blowing that magically, it means the complete opposite of what everyone else up until now had believed.

[Illusion]

Whatever happens with this argument, I think it at least helps us to remember to question our creation and origins, or simply our existance if you don't believe in religion. If God exists (and I am a believer in God), where did God came from? Why where we created?

[Diamond Dust]

Maybe we're all just sat in some other universe's Large Hadron Collider, and in that universe it be inside another universe's Large Hadron Collider and so on.

Something like an artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture of an artist painting a picture of an artist... in an infinite loop.

Then think that ultimately none of it actually exists.

I just broke my brain.

[Hyzenthlay]

Either way he had enough power to seperate particles and create life. I don't know many dudes that can do that. The fact that he didn't create the earth itself is irrelivant. The fact still remains that he created man, life and everything that surrounds it. Earths 'flesh' as it were.

Personally I think it's a scholar doing what scholars do best... Reading too far into things. Then again I've never claimed to be a devout catholic or anything. I was born to faith and threw it aside when I could make up my own mind. I still 'believe' in part and if a woman wants to pick apart each word "in context" then good for her. It's good to question. I'll take every word with a pinch of salt the same as I do everything else.

I would say ditto on Sasquatch but I just don't care enough...

Doctor Manhattan would beast them all anyway. /Jokes.

Hyz.

[OnOneRyder]

^ It's not fact, don't claim it to be.

I have to agree with sasquatch and say that it's highly unlikely that such a huge translational error was made and never caught until now.

[Hyzenthlay]

Calm down, blunt boy. I'm not getting into a theist debate about facts. I don't care.

True that it is unlikely, very unlikely but you never know. Stranger things have happened, as they say. Translations from ancient texts can be complicated. I do agree that it's suspicious that she finds the word is one near contradiction the old meaning. She is respected in this field so you never know...

Hyz.

[Unknown Entity]

It doesn't really matter what the translation is because people will always believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear. Whether or not if her translation is the correct one, you can't expect one of the foundations of a few centuries year old religion to just shift overnight.

Religion is something that should be questioned instead of blindly followed. How many people who put faith into Christianity or Catholicism have actually read the Bible cover to cover? It contradicts itself over and over, and there's no clear message in it besides some magically inspiring stories that could be used to teach morals.

What I mean to say is that it wouldn't surprise me if there were some translational errors in it. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just being discovered. A picture or painting can speak a thousand words, yet someone will always notice something in it sooner or later, whether it be the artist the day he or she finishes it, or a tourist or scientist half a century later. A change of brush strokes, change of colour, a hidden painting underneath the top layer of paint, a shape, a signature, etc. You can watch a film over and over again, but will always discover something new about it.

Unfortunately, unlike movies, the Bible will take longer than two hours to finish reading.

[daelythm]

Is there a God who created everything? Don't get bogged down by organized religion yet. Yes, religion can be cool, but let's use our imaginations first. If there was no God mankind would just continue evolving with our technology. One day we'll be as far beyond ourselves as we are beyond one celled organisms. Especially due to technology, just not the technology the way we know it today. Then one day we'll use time travel to exist outside of time. That's where God would be. And outside of time God that someone evolves into will go back and save the souls of everything right after the point of death... even the animals... and take them to the places where they'll be happiest.
Did God evolve from our planet? IDK. Don't think we'll make it that far? That's one of the things in life to fight for. Stands to reason that if we can stay alive on this rock, then other planets also have the ability to produce God one day. And once outside of time God creates everything that happens backwards in time and at the same time protects all time lines everywhere. That's how the time travel thing doesn't get too screwy. If anyone can handle the space time continuum, God can.
And God looks like us because this is the time when what intelligent creatures think and feel matters. Because we do have the technology to direct our evolution. We will soon stop allowing the evolution of our bodies to change very much, but our minds will keep evolving in dramatic ways.

I know it sounds far fetched and you might see the error of my ideas, but I'm just a mortal right? You have to have something to dream about. Dream of good things to come. One day I think we'll get to know all the answers.

[Judge Magistrate]

Is there a God who created everything? Don't get bogged down by organized religion yet. Yes, religion can be cool, but let's use our imaginations first. If there was no God mankind would just continue evolving with our technology. One day we'll be as far beyond ourselves as we are beyond one celled organisms. Especially due to technology, just not the technology the way we know it today. Then one day we'll use time travel to exist outside of time. That's where God would be. And outside of time God that someone evolves into will go back and save the souls of everything right after the point of death... even the animals... and take them to the places where they'll be happiest.
Did God evolve from our planet? IDK. Don't think we'll make it that far? That's one of the things in life to fight for. Stands to reason that if we can stay alive on this rock, then other planets also have the ability to produce God one day. And once outside of time God creates everything that happens backwards in time and at the same time protects all time lines everywhere. That's how the time travel thing doesn't get too screwy. If anyone can handle the space time continuum, God can.
And God looks like us because this is the time when what intelligent creatures think and feel matters. Because we do have the technology to direct our evolution. We will soon stop allowing the evolution of our bodies to change very much, but our minds will keep evolving in dramatic ways.

I know it sounds far fetched and you might see the error of my ideas, but I'm just a mortal right? You have to have something to dream about. Dream of good things to come. One day I think we'll get to know all the answers.

I think every time you've posted it's been this statement. I'm not saying it's a bad thing I just find it weird.

[MrShiva]

I believed in god and i believed that he created everything.

[fragdemon]

Originally posted by Sasquatch
Seriously, if that's the honest translation of the book of Genesis, why did it take a semi-religious scholar to figure it out, instead of the thousands (if not millions) of scholars who have spent their lives poring over original Hebrew texts since they were written? How could something so significant not have been found yet?

Kind of old news, actually...

In more than one of my theology courses in college, professors have talked about the flexibility of the translation. Also worth investigating is the fact that all of the rest of creation after that first line is not Elohim creating things but simply manipulating the existence. He separates the light from the dark in what is often depicted as this cloudy vortex to create day/night, he calls animals forth, etc.

But don't think any war of interpretation is so new. Modern religions were built out of wars of interpretation, and just like some young scholar right now has to prove God wasn't a creator, St. Augustine had to work to prove almost 1500 years ago that God did do the whole creatio ex nihilo. It was an encapsulation of an active debate that began in 100s.

So it took about 300 or so years for the then Catholic church to lock in that God was a creator god. (And Jews independently codified to that decision as well beginning a bit before them and ending a bit after as far as we can tell). We mainly only have the arguments at present day that consider YHWH as some sort of ABSOLUTE god because both Christianity and Judaism preserve texts that they believe are correct and let the losing side of an argument slip away in time (or, in the Christians case: Actively destroy texts describing the losing side of an argument). But these folks wouldn't have been arguing so damn hard unless there was significant opposition in their time arguing against the creation reading of the gospel.

But to these scholars, it seemed just like it was a more "logical" god (whatever that means), and it made more sense to misread Genesis than to have a god who wasn't the ultimate power in the universe.
____________

And that's important here. Scriptural authority is a relatively new thing, beginning with the protestant reformation and only getting serious with the Calvinists.

It would have been okay up until the last 500 years (Martin Luther, basically) for the Church's description of something and the actual religious text to be at odds. Who the hell cared: No common believer is going to read the actual bible anyways. And even most of the educated class wasn't going to be reading it in Hebrew/Greek, but in Latin. In Judaism, Talmud controlled interpretation, in Catholicism, Church Doctrine controlled interpretation.

But then all of those back-to-the-text religions forced people into a conundrum: Either you dump the belief, or you actually teach people to misread a word.

So over the last 500 years, rabbis and priests have to lean over the Hebrew student's shoulder when they read the first phrase and helpfully coach them: "Well, that word is actually kind of flexible: I know it looks like separation, but here it means..." when maybe it's not.
____________

Anyways, long winded explanation to say that none of this is new, and all of this is active. This scholar's work is not about beginning something, but about adding weight to one side of what has been a very active debate.

If God can't create out of nothing, then we shouldn't angrily accuse our researchers of creating ex nihilo either...

Further reading:

St. Augustine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(St._Augustine)
- Argues that before creation, there was no such thing as time/existence.

Philo:
Philo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- I actually never read any Philo. I only know of him.

History of the Debate:
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- They talk about importing Greek philosophy into the Judaism and early Christianity.

Aquinas:
Summa Theologica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Kinda the highest example of exploration of things beyond what the text directly says. Aquinas basically goes through all of Catholic doctrine with minimal use of gospel texts and mainly by logical PROOF. Hardcore to consider, pretty exhausting to read.


Hope this opens up the conversation some.

[daelythm]

Kind of old news, actually...

In more than one of my theology courses in college, professors have talked about the flexibility of the translation. Also worth investigating is the fact that all of the rest of creation after that first line is not Elohim creating things but simply manipulating the existence. He separates the light from the dark in what is often depicted as this cloudy vortex to create day/night, he calls animals forth, etc.

But don't think any war of interpretation is so new. Modern religions were built out of wars of interpretation, and just like some young scholar right now has to prove God wasn't a creator, St. Augustine had to work to prove almost 1500 years ago that God did do the whole creatio ex nihilo. It was an encapsulation of an active debate that began in 100s.

So it took about 300 or so years for the then Catholic church to lock in that God was a creator god. (And Jews independently codified to that decision as well beginning a bit before them and ending a bit after as far as we can tell). We mainly only have the arguments at present day that consider YHWH as some sort of ABSOLUTE god because both Christianity and Judaism preserve texts that they believe are correct and let the losing side of an argument slip away in time (or, in the Christians case: Actively destroy texts describing the losing side of an argument). But these folks wouldn't have been arguing so damn hard unless there was significant opposition in their time arguing against the creation reading of the gospel.

But to these scholars, it seemed just like it was a more "logical" god (whatever that means), and it made more sense to misread Genesis than to have a god who wasn't the ultimate power in the universe.
____________

And that's important here. Scriptural authority is a relatively new thing, beginning with the protestant reformation and only getting serious with the Calvinists.

It would have been okay up until the last 500 years (Martin Luther, basically) for the Church's description of something and the actual religious text to be at odds. Who the hell cared: No common believer is going to read the actual bible anyways. And even most of the educated class wasn't going to be reading it in Hebrew/Greek, but in Latin. In Judaism, Talmud controlled interpretation, in Catholicism, Church Doctrine controlled interpretation.

But then all of those back-to-the-text religions forced people into a conundrum: Either you dump the belief, or you actually teach people to misread a word.

So over the last 500 years, rabbis and priests have to lean over the Hebrew student's shoulder when they read the first phrase and helpfully coach them: "Well, that word is actually kind of flexible: I know it looks like separation, but here it means..." when maybe it's not.
____________

Anyways, long winded explanation to say that none of this is new, and all of this is active. This scholar's work is not about beginning something, but about adding weight to one side of what has been a very active debate.

If God can't create out of nothing, then we shouldn't angrily accuse our researchers of creating ex nihilo either...

Further reading:

St. Augustine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_(St._Augustine)
- Argues that before creation, there was no such thing as time/existence.

Philo:
Philo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- I actually never read any Philo. I only know of him.

History of the Debate:
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- They talk about importing Greek philosophy into the Judaism and early Christianity.

Aquinas:
Summa Theologica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Kinda the highest example of exploration of things beyond what the text directly says. Aquinas basically goes through all of Catholic doctrine with minimal use of gospel texts and mainly by logical PROOF. Hardcore to consider, pretty exhausting to read.


Hope this opens up the conversation some.

I think that's really brilliant. I'm glad we have some actual theology students involved.

What was said... I wonder if that gives more credence to evolution/creationism hybridized theories suggesting that God even allowed evolution to run its course to create life on this world. Definitely not saying that's all that He did, but if He is, I'd say the way it all went down in the beginning is open to interpretation which is what people have been saying. I know the Bible says 7 days, but what are 7 days by God's reckoning?

I was thinking that it's usually just the status quo of religion and its specifics that limit our interpretation of who God is and what He does and doesn't do. Look at how we walk on egg shells to not say something against someone else's beliefs. How would you even describe God's power to do things? They say it's in His words, but how do His words become our reality? Does it involve some form of quantum physics? Electromagnetism? Extra-reality manipulation? I just think that if He's all powerful, and all knowing... already got the whole picture from beginning to end, then it's just like everything was preprogrammed, and yet that analogy still just seems inadequate. From there you could even get into why is there suffering, or why does it look like things were created imperfectly? Do God's means justify His ends? Does it depend on what He did actively, or what He allowed to happen passively?

I'd argue that it is all God's activeness, whether it appears to be passive or not. Because He has all the means to control everything, He is responsible for everything. I'd call Him the Creator of everything that exists by process of elimination. You could imagine that He first created matter, darkness and light, and then reorganized it for the purposes of this world. Of course, that's my interpretation. When we talk about things in theology, I bet none of our ideas are really new. I also think that He didn't make any mistakes. Chritianity justifies our imperfect world in so many ways. Whether people can accept this part of creation is another story. Under this theology it stands to reason that no man ever went through more pain than Christ, so that we would have much less to worry about. If there's an afterlife, I'd say there's plenty of time to see the benefit of anything that took place here... over the eternities. In the end, that which was created for us should have been enough to say, "...it was good."

[Alex]

I believe in "God"
To me, the word God can be anything.
It doesn't have to be a tall guy with beard. It can be something greater, that created us, earth and space.
I mean, who created us and why?
There has to be a purpose why we exist, we're not meant to born and then later to die! I believe something will happen after our death, something we cannot explain.