Have we misunderstood Genesis 1:1?

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

This is a quasi tie-in with Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

That thread is a discussion of the Holy Bible and in some cases it's relationship with God the Father...

There had been a comment or two regarding translations and the possible error in some or as I would call it misunderstanding of the translator's understanding that would seem to direct or redirect meanings.

There I even used 3 translations of a scripture that seemingly offer 3 options to one verse.

I am not here to debate, comment or slug it out But I ran into an article from my many that I have and want to post it for comment or silence. Due to count this will be in a couple of parts as needed so no one need hit the link, except for verification.

Titled.

Have We Misunderstood Genesis 1:1?​

Have We Misunderstood Genesis 1:1?

The purpose of this section is to define some of the interpretive schemes that have arisen since the idea of vast ages became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

answersingenesis.org

Abstract​

Arguing that the Hebrew does not support the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1, a growing number of scholars are proposing a retranslation of the verse that undercuts the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe and a creation out of nothing. Dr. Wilson shows that this retranslation is unwarranted and unworkable.

Introduction​

The traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 is well known, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It is called the traditional translation because it has been the dominant rendering of Genesis 1:1 since the Greek Septuagint, the first major translation of the Hebrew Bible (into Greek), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC. Does the traditional translation describe the absolute beginning of the universe? Does it communicate the idea that the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing? Throughout history, Jews and Christians have overwhelmingly said, “Yes!”

However, a growing number of Hebrew scholars are now saying, “No!” For many of them, their reason for doing so is not based upon their interpretation of this verse, but their retranslation of it. Considering the historical weight of the traditional translation, what is the compelling evidence for this change? Did earlier translators misunderstand the Hebrew text? Have there been new developments in the understanding of Hebrew grammar that would cause modern scholars to reject what past scholars and translators affirmed?

The Other Translation​

In order to answer these questions, let us first lay out this retranslation of Genesis 1:1, the “dependent-clause” translation. It renders Genesis 1:1, along with 1:2 and 1:3a, in a manner similar to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985, “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”1 According to this dependent-clause translation, it is not possible to interpret the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe or a creation out of nothing since the rendering treats the earth in Genesis 1:2 as being in existence before God’s first act of creation, light. This change in translation produces a change in interpretation. No longer is Genesis 1:1 the first act of creation. Rather, in this rendering Genesis 1:1, along with Genesis 1:2, describe the context in which the first act of creation takes place: the creation of light in Genesis 1:3
Proponents of the dependent-clause translation argue that according to the grammar of the Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 should be understood as a type of substantival clause.2 In both English and Hebrew, a substantival clause is an entire clause that functions like a noun. For instance, in the sentence, “I know you are watching me,” the clause “you are watching me” is functioning as a direct object of the main verb “know,” a function usually reserved for nouns and pronouns. These proponents contend that the clause “God created the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 can function like an object of a preposition if we take the first part of the verse to be “In the beginning of.” This treatment of the passage could in a sense be rendered as “In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth . . . ,” or “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth . . . .” Employing this same grammatical principle, the JPS renders the verse with a dependent clause, “When God began to create heaven and earth . . . .” What makes the dependent-clause translation more preferable to the traditional translation with its historical preponderance? Is this type of substantival clause a grammatical construction that was unfamiliar to the ancient translators?
The most recent editions of the respected Hebrew grammars by Gesenius and Joüon together list over 200 examples of these types of substantival clauses in Biblical Hebrew,3 which tells us that they are not a minor nuance of the language. Not surprisingly, the ancient translators of the Septuagint (Greek), the Vulgate (Latin), and the Targums (Aramaic), amongst others, recognized these types of grammatical constructions and frequently translated them as relative clauses. Yet, none of these translations recognized Genesis 1:1 as one of these constructions. Instead they rendered the verse in the traditional manner, as an independent clause.

​

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Part 2

The False Dilemma​

However, proponents of the dependent-clause translation also point out that in Genesis 1:1 the article the in the phrase “in the beginning” is not explicit in the Masoretic pointing of rē⁾šît, the Hebrew word for “beginning.” (The original Hebrew text had only consonants, which was perfectly understandable to Jewish readers. The Masoretes were the Jewish scribes working roughly from AD 400–1000 who preserved the oral reading of the Hebrew text by adding vowels points, accents, and other markings to it.) Their argument then follows that given the absence of the article, the, the only other option for understanding Genesis 1:1 is that it is the type of substantival clause just described. Again, is this a grammatical clue that the ancient translators missed? Did they not know that the article the is not in the Hebrew?
According to the historical evidence, the answer to both questions is, “No.” Consider the Septuagint, again the very first translation of the Hebrew Bible. It preserved the same reading as the Masoretic text by not including the article “the” in its translation of the verse. However, if the only other option for understanding Genesis 1:1 is that it is a type of substantival clause, why didn’t the Septuagint translators render the verse accordingly? We have already mentioned that they were very familiar with these types of grammatical constructions and frequently rendered them as relative clauses. Perhaps there does not have to be an explicitly marked “the” in the pointing of rē⁾šît for us to understand Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause starting with “In the beginning.” In fact, there are good reasons to conclude just that.
In both English and Hebrew, the word beginning is not a typical noun. It is a relator noun, which means it needs extra information to complete its meaning. Think about other English relator nouns like front, back, middle, left (side), right (side), and end. By themselves, these words don’t communicate much. The front of what? The middle of what? The beginning of what? Usually these relator nouns are joined to other nouns to give them that needed, extra information: the end of the couch, the left (side) of the couch, the back of the couch, etc. However, there are instances in both English and Hebrew where relator nouns stand alone with clear meaning, that is without another noun like “couch” connected to it grammatically. In such cases, the relator nouns get their extra information from their contexts. For instance, at the conclusion of a movie, the phrase “the end” stands alone and is contextually related to the event of watching the movie. We don’t need the words “of the movie” to be added to words “the end” to know what is being communicated on the screen. In Hebrew, the word rē⁾šît (“beginning”) stands alone in Genesis 1:1 and Isaiah 46:10 as does the similar word rō⁾š (“beginning”) in Proverbs 8:23 and Isaiah 40:21, where it refers to the beginning of creation. The context of these passages gives us that extra information.4
In Hebrew, when relator nouns stand by themselves, they are frequently found with or without the article the. Consider the following prose verses from the NAS using the Hebrew relator nouns right (side), yāmîn, and left (side), sǝmō⁾l,5 where [the] indicates a missing “the” in the Hebrew.

2 Samuel 2:19 Asahel pursued Abner and did not turn to the right or to the left from following Abner.
Numbers 20:17b We will go along the king's highway, not turning to [the] right or [the] left, until we pass through your territory.
2 Chronicles 3:17a He erected the pillars in front of the temple, one on [the] right and the other on the left,

In 2 Samuel 2:19 the words “right” and “left,” standing by themselves, are explicitly marked with the article “the” in the Hebrew. However, in Number 20:17b, the words “right” and “left,” standing by themselves, are not marked with the article even though they are used in the same manner as “right” and “left” in 2 Samuel 2:19. The article “the” is implied from the context.
In 2 Chronicles 3:17a the word “right” is not marked with the article “the” in the Hebrew, but the word “left” is! Again, the first “the” is implied from the context. Interestingly, the Septuagint, following the literal Hebrew, does not render the first “the” even though it is implied from the context, but does render the second “the” because it is clearly marked in the Hebrew.6 Often the Septuagint is very literal in its translations, as it is with 2 Chronicles 3:17a, so it is not surprising that its literal translation of Genesis 1:1 does not include an article with “beginning.”
These verses help to demonstrate that when relator nouns stand alone, their contexts still communicate an implied “the” even though such nouns are not marked with an explicit article. Thus, just because the article “the” is not reflected in the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text, it does not mean that we cannot or should not translate the Hebrew relator noun rē⁾šît, with its prefixed preposition, as “In the beginning,” nor does it mean that we cannot translate Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause as the most popular English translations all do (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, ESV, HCSB, Geneva, NLT, RSV).

The Awkward Grammar​

The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is grammatically easy, and the most basic principle for understanding any language is to follow the ease of the grammar.

If, however, Genesis 1:1 is a specific type of substantival clause, as proponents of the dependent-clause translation argue, then it makes the reading of the Hebrew very difficult. As a substantival clause, Genesis 1:1 is not simply a dependent clause connected to Genesis 1:3, like the JPS translates it. It is actually a grammatical part of the main clause in Genesis 1:3. Such is the nature of substantival clauses in Biblical Hebrew; they are participating elements in their main clause. Genesis 1:1 would be a prepositional phrase modifying the main clause verb of Genesis 1:3. It would be like rendering the two verses as, “In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth, God said, ‘Let there be light’.” The main problem with this grammatical reading is Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 inserts three clauses between the supposed prepositional phrase of 1:1 and its supposed main clause in 1:3. In other words, an entire verse, marked as such by the Masoretes, separates a prepositional phrase from the main clause verb it modifies. Such a construction is grammatically awkward in Hebrew and in English!

Conclusion​

Here is the main take-away. The dependent-clause understanding of Genesis 1:1 is not grammatically easy; it is difficult and awkward. The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is grammatically easy, and the most basic principle for understanding any language is to follow the ease of the grammar. The ancient translators were just as familiar with the grammatical issues as we are today, and they followed the ease of the grammar by rendering the passage in its most normal, traditional sense. So the main question should not be, “Is there something in the Hebrew that the ancient translators missed?” That answer is clearly, “No.” The better, more humble question should be, “Is there something in the Hebrew we have missed?” The traditional understanding of Genesis 1:1 is trustworthy. In the absolute beginning God did indeed create the heavens and earth out of nothing, and as the rest of the chapter and Exodus 20:11 teach, He did it supernaturally by His word in six literal days.
* Josh Wilson is pastor of First Baptist Church in Park Hills, Missouri, and adjunct professor of Bible at Missouri Baptist University in St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he focused on this very issue with a dissertation entitled “A Case for the Traditional Translation and Interpretation of Genesis 1:1 based upon a Multi-Leveled Linguistic Analysis.” He and his wife Sarah live in Park Hills with their six children.

 

[ElieG12]

The re-translation you speak of is already used in Jewish translations.

If some "Christians" want to apply it, it is not a matter of translation but a matter of reinterpretation; Because the new age of biblical interpreters deny the Eden story and support the evolution of species, as well as new theories about an eternal and beginningless universe, they try to reinterpret the creation story...

The initial creation of heaven and earth, that is, of the universe before the earth was adapted for life, is not described only in Gen. 1:1.

Gen. 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Is. 40:26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing.

... 42:5 This is what the true God, Jehovah, says,
The Creator of the heavens and the Grand One who stretched them out,
The One who spread out the earth and its produce,
The One who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk on it...

... 45:18 For this is what Jehovah says,
The Creator of the heavens, the true God,
The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,
Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:
“I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
19 I did not speak in a concealed place, in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
‘Seek me simply for nothing.’
I am Jehovah, who speaks what is righteous and declares what is upright.
20 Gather together and come. (...)

 

[Wrangler]

Have we misunderstood Genesis 1:1?​

TLTR

I am not here to debate, comment or slug it out

Oh boy.

Could you simply articulate:
1. Baseline understanding.
2. Correct understanding.

And possibly.
3. Why 5,000 baseline understanding is incorrect.
4. Why new interpretation is correct.

(Again, in a simple and concise expression)

An increasing # of threads seem to not express a thesis statement. Like a stream of consciousness that goes no where in particular. A proto-thought.

Your friendly neighborhood thesis advisor.

 

[ElieG12]

The expression "in the beginning" (in Hebrew) without an article appears in several texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, in the same way that it appears in Gen. 1:1.

See: Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34; Hos. 9:10.

 

[JohnDB]

They will do literally ANYTHING to try and change the meaning of that verse.

And they can't.

It's bad enough that they make this a complete sentence when it isnt....but I'm used to that irregularity already. (There is an unstated material for the verb "bara" which needs a material for something to be made out of)

Next thing that you will find is that they try to remove "Elohim" out of the sentence.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

They will do literally ANYTHING to try and change the meaning of that verse.

And they can't.

It's bad enough that they make this a complete sentence when it isnt....but I'm used to that irregularity already. (There is an unstated material for the verb "bara" which needs a material for something to be made out of)

Next thing that you will find is that they try to remove "Elohim" out of the sentence.

I am not trying to change the meaning of that verse... that came from a BAPTIST.. as most
controversial articles do.

The only reason I had that article was from a long ago debate, elsewhere, where there were 3 statements made

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

and one very errant statement ( that I can no longer find) In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I was curious as to what the original "correct" wording should be. Only because they do, or can, have a slight meaning difference . (Not getting into that now... nor why KJV says heaven ( singular) while most others say heavens (plural).

From online I Checked and have come to the conclusion it is an impossible task, therefore they ALL must be correct.

the Torah
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Sefer Bereshit
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. (AH, heaven ( single)... KJV is redeemed)
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

Sefaria Bereshit
When God began to create heaven and earth— (NOW, another entry)

Torah ( again)
Genesis 1 When Hashem began to create heaven and earth— (Yet Another)

The Mechanical Translation Project (They claim faithfully translates each Hebrew word)
in~SUMMIT (בְּרֵאשִׁית / bê'rey'shit)[1] he~did~SHAPE(V) (בָּרָא / ba'ra) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) AT (אֵת / eyt) the~SKY~s2 (הַשָּׁמַיִם / ha'sha'ma'yim) and~AT (וְאֵת / wê'eyt) the~LAND (הָאָרֶץ / ha'a'rets)

RMT: In the summit Elohiym shaped the skies and the land,

Codex Sinaiticus vs Codex Vaticanus .. I have yet to find translations on Genesis 1 for either of these.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

​

 

[ElieG12]

I am not trying to change the meaning of that verse... that came from a BAPTIST.. as most
controversial articles do.

The only reason I had that article was from a long ago debate, elsewhere, where there were 3 statements made

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

and one very errant statement ( that I can no longer find) In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ...

No article is needed to complete a translation with an article that expresses the same original idea.

You can check this by reviewing the texts I cited where the same phrase is used without an article and all the biblical versions I have consulted add the article without generating any discussion about it.

The expression "in the beginning" (in Hebrew) without an article appears in several texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, in the same way that it appears in Gen. 1:1.

See: Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34; Hos. 9:10.

It happens the same as in biblical Greek: many verbal complements with a preposition without a definite article have to be translated with an article to be understood correctly in modern languages.

Ancient grammars do not always work like modern languages grammars', so sometimes a word-for-word translation cannot be made or the same syntactic rules applied.

 

[JohnDB]

I am not trying to change the meaning of that verse... that came from a BAPTIST.. as most
controversial articles do.

The only reason I had that article was from a long ago debate, elsewhere, where there were 3 statements made

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

and one very errant statement ( that I can no longer find) In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I was curious as to what the original "correct" wording should be. Only because they do, or can, have a slight meaning difference . (Not getting into that now... nor why KJV says heaven ( singular) while most others say heavens (plural).

From online I Checked and have come to the conclusion it is an impossible task, therefore they ALL must be correct.

the Torah
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Sefer Bereshit
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. (AH, heaven ( single)... KJV is redeemed)
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

Sefaria Bereshit
When God began to create heaven and earth— (NOW, another entry)

Torah ( again)
Genesis 1 When Hashem began to create heaven and earth— (Yet Another)

The Mechanical Translation Project (They claim faithfully translates each Hebrew word)
in~SUMMIT (בְּרֵאשִׁית / bê'rey'shit)[1] he~did~SHAPE(V) (בָּרָא / ba'ra) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) AT (אֵת / eyt) the~SKY~s2 (הַשָּׁמַיִם / ha'sha'ma'yim) and~AT (וְאֵת / wê'eyt) the~LAND (הָאָרֶץ / ha'a'rets)

RMT: In the summit Elohiym shaped the skies and the land,

Codex Sinaiticus vs Codex Vaticanus .. I have yet to find translations on Genesis 1 for either of these.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

​

I wasn't suggesting that you were....just that some people miss the forest for the trees in the way.

The locus is "God created".

God didn't find the Earth or the heavens...God created them.

Also....God created the beginning is implied but not stated....because there wouldn't be a beginning without God.

Hebrew is a completely metaphoric language. You cannot get caught up in the grammar rules or exacting definitions for the words in how they are utilized.

They are "slippery" for a reason. Also....English is the worst receptor language for Hebrew (the worst donor language)

 

[ElieG12]

The entire Universe has a beginning; Every single particle, visible or invisible, was part of the creation of God, who is Spirit and does not belong to the created world. Each single particle that exists in the entire Universe is a concentrate of energy produced by God Himself.

The Bible talks about God laying the foundations of the earth; That means that before the Earth was habitable, it had to be created along with the rest of the Universe that extends beyond what we can perceive.

Although scientists declared the Big Bang theory to be erroneous, the Universe still had a beginning, because it is the origin that Scripture says it had.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

The entire Universe has a beginning; Every single particle, visible or invisible, was part of the creation of God, who is Spirit and does not belong to the created world. Each single particle that exists in the entire Universe is a concentrate of energy produced by God Himself.

The Bible talks about God laying the foundations of the earth; That means that before the Earth was habitable, it had to be created along with the rest of the Universe that extends beyond what we can perceive.

Although scientists declared the Big Bang theory to be erroneous, the Universe still had a beginning, because it is the origin that Scripture says it had.

Which the obvious conclusion is that it was longer then 144 hours?

 

[ElieG12]

When Jehovah created the earth, he had already created his angelic sons.

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

So NO ... there is no way the Universe was created in 144 hours, no matter what you or others believe about how long each of the 6 days of the creation referred to this planet lasted.

 

[ElieG12]

A common mistake among many believers is thinking that the light that God is said to have created on the first day (Gen. 1:3) refers to the light of the entire Universe.

That is incorrect: that light refers to the clarity that was reaching the earth partially from the sky, since in its original condition the light from outside did not reach the surface. That's why earlier in verse 2 it says that the planet was "formless and desolate, and there was darkness.", so the first thing God did on this planet was somehow allowing some light to reach the surface of the earth to continue later with other productions.

In the external Universe, light already existed, because as the passage cited above (Job 38:4-7) says, the angels already occupied the celestial regions next to God so the Universe was NOT dark, but this planet.

That means that when the 1st day occurred here, the Universe was already existing. It's like when you reset a timer and start it again from zero. The first day of creation FOR THIS PLANET was not the first day of the rest of the Universe.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

When Jehovah created the earth, he had already created his angelic sons.

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you think you understand.
5 Who set its measurements, in case you know,
Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?

So NO ... there is no way the Universe was created in 144 hours, no matter what you or others believe about how long each of the 6 days of the creation referred to this planet lasted.

Oh, I agree with you....

 

[Davy]

I see no problem with the KJV of Genesis 1 except with Gen.1:2. The Hebrew of Gen.1:2 "without form, and void" is not the actual Hebrew tohu va bohu which actually means 'a waste and an undistinguishable ruin'.

Genesis 1:1 God created a Perfect creation and universe.

Genesis 1:2 God destroyed His original Perfect creation because of Lucifer's rebellion. Thus the state of the earth per Jeremiah 4:23-28, "without form, and void".

There is an unknown 'gap' of time between those 2 verses.

Hebrews 11:3 reveals just how God's creation happened.

Heb 11:3
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV

God spoke, and His creation came in existence.

But notice per the above verse that also reveals things seen were not made of things that appear. In other words, material matter did not create matter. This is one of the basic laws of thermodynamics, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change its state (liquid, solid, vapor, gas).

What that means is very profound, yet very simple. Since material matter did not create itself, nor can it be destroyed or created, then something OTHER THAN MATTER had to have created it. What else is there then? Spirit.

Apostle John said "God is a Spirit" (John 4). This means per God's Word, there exists TWO SEPARATE DIMENSIONS OF EXISTENCE; this earthly one of material matter that we live in, and the dimension of Spirit where God and the angels live, even though our flesh eyes cannot see it.

Therefore, ANY thinking that material matter had to come out of matter, is totally in disagreement with God's Word. Just like how Jesus healed the soldier's ear which Peter cut off, where did Jesus get the material to put back that soldier's ear? It came out of nothing? No. It came from The Spirit. And there is where God's creation came out of, from His Spirit.

It is sad that so many brethren still dwell on fleshy ideas about their existence with forgetting that other dimension of Spirit which is actually the more real, since from Spirit is how God made His creation, and that dimension of Spirit certainly is not 'nothingness'.