Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth†is not a true translation of the Hebrew. She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world — and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals. Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had 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. She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “baraâ€, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create†but to “spatially separateâ€. The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth†According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing. Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration. She said: “It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself.†She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts. According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said. She said technically “bara†does mean “create†but added: “Something was wrong with the verb. “God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?†She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground. “There was already water,†she said. “There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding.†God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness. She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark “a robust debateâ€, since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people. She said: “Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust.†A spokesman for the Radboud University said: “The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it.†Prof Van Wolde added: “The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.â€
Who do you believe, God or man? We always have a choice. Why should you believe God? Why should you believe man? You choose!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html It's like a bunch of religious nuts arguing over who is more nuttier, in fact it is.
Exactly. But anyway, The verb "bara" ×‘Ö¼Ö¸×¨Ö¸× is used in modern and ancient Hebrew for creation, and has biblical meaning. I suggest that the dear dutch lady focus on the dutch language and not teach the Hebrews about the Hebrew language.
~ Shouldn't that read, the great book written for us by God* - Of course, that one was with the ten commandments that somehow were lost....Or maybe, something such as the Garden itself is what is the writings of God read through ones own uncertain soul seeking a final solution or finding truth hasn't a literature but is presented through visions....and of course only in Hebrew.
Scientists tend to deal exclusively in the realm of reality. For the record, they also don't know what colour socks frodo wears.
watch this one "Home" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU Of course, there're still many questions to be answered, but this video is one of the best to start with.
Correct. And me. Scientist deal in what can be tested and measured. Not necessarily, a subset of reality. For the record, Frodo's socks are green.
No they aren't - you're just not seeing it like I am. They're teal. And thus, the first war of the socks began... suicide bombing follows... all over the belief that one green is better than the other.
Things that can be tested and measured are real, and thus reality. If you can give me one thing which science deals with which isn't baed on reality then id love to hear it.
Are you on drugs? You didn't actually just claim consciousness isn't real, did you? Ooops, i think you have mistaken "real" with "tangible". perhaps next time you should learn what words mean before using them, theres a good lad.
Wow!!! You're still so easy. Why don't you think things out to their logical conclusion(s). . .or at least learn how to properly word your very own affirmations. . .so that the replies/responses to them don't come back and pimp slap you. Here's my point to you: You believe consciousness (and "Science") to be real, yet you. . .and most of Science, deny its SOURCE; interesting. . .do/did you ever stop and think, WHO/what verifies and/or lends credence to "Science"? And BTW, GOD can be tested. . .according to HIS terms.
No, science doesn't deny the existance of a brain, which is the source of consciousness... though in your case we are willing to make an exception.
You're still easy. . .the "brain" has an origin, mmm, mmm, mmm!!! Why don't you try to dispense with the insults, and just let us debate/discuss that which/what you constantly show yourself incapable of discussing??? Can you debate and/or discuss, the issues on the table, nearly as well as as you attempt to insult, in order to deflect attention elsewhere??? No? I knew so before I even asked that rhetorical question. I only get "banned" on the latter. . .because you (and others of your ilk) run to the Moderators after yall have taken your best shots on the former, and I'm (always coming back) still standing. . .forcing yall into the 5%. BTW, What is THE SOURCE of a "brain", even if in my "case", you try. . .feebly, to "make an exception"...?