Genesis 1:1–3a "Again, for the First Time"

 What do I see when I read Genesis 1:1–3a “again, for the first time?”

1.     Note various translations

a.     Friedman: “In the beginning of God’s creating, the skies and the earth––when the earth was shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God’s spirit was hovering on the face of the water—God said, “Let there be light.”

b.     Alter: “When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.”

c.     NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

2.     What I see in the opening words to Genesis is that before God began creating the “earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep.” In other words, when God said, “Let there be light,” there wasn’t “nothing” but rather the “earth” existed in a state of chaos. This is not creatio ex nihilo (i.e., creation from nothing), but rather creation from something, the watery chaos that was the formless and shapeless earth!

a.     Note, please 2 Peter 3:4b–5, “For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.”

b.     The author of 2 Peter wrote that “earth was formed out of water…”! That’s exactly what Gen 1:1–3a says.

3.     But what about Hebrews 11:3, doesn’t it say that the universe was created out of nothing? Actually, no it doesn’t.

a.     Hebrews 11:3 reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

b.     This verse does not teach that “the worlds” were created out of nothing, but that which is visible was created out of that which was not visible. Since “darkness was over the face of the deep” and there was no light yet, obviously the formless and shapeless earth was not visible.

c.     What can you see, when there is absolutely no light? Nothing…absolutely nothing. But just because you cannot see anything does not mean that something does not exist.

4.     Bottom line, the beginning of the creation story in Genesis 1, is consistent with all other ancient Near East creation stories, where the gods (or a god) does not create the world out of nothing, but rather he creates by turning what exists in chaos (usually immersed in water) into that which is ordered and structured. For the ancients, the seas represented chaos, so taming/defeated/stilling the seas demonstrated the power of the god/gods.

5.     The authors/editors of Genesis wanted its readers to know that it was Elohim (God) who created order out of chaos. Compare Job 26:12–13.

6.     https://peteenns.com/petes-bible-trivia-bonanza-11-2-peter-was-clearly-written-by-a-godless-liberal-but-i-mean-that-in-a-good-way/

"God Will Protect Us." Really?!

Before reading my thoughts, check out this article from the Toronto Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/08/17/god-will-protect-us-alberta-prayer-event-now-linked-to-at-least-17-covid-19-cases.html

I have been a Christian for more than 43 years now. I spent 35 plus years working in the full-time ministry. My life and career has been about meeting together with other Christians face to face, individually and in groups, small and large. We would greet one another with hugs. We would have conversations together, pray together, sing to one another, instruct and encourage one another. None of these things have we been able to do for more than five months now. I am starving for human connection that is real life, not virtual. Virtual meeting together is like being incredibly thirsty and yet all I can do is see a glass of cold, pure water, but can not touch it.

But I, and a number of my closest friends have underlying, chronic health conditions. So meeting together is out of the question, for now and the foreseeable future. 

Yet I see video after video of groups of Christians meeting together without any regard for physical distancing, not wearing masks, singing, etc. Now, that is their personal choice...I get that, even if they are choosing to disregard their health officials’ regulations and guidelines. But what about their family and friends who are physically compromised? Are they choosing to stay away from those people or, at the very least, staying physically distant and/or masking when they are together?

I get that some believe the pandemic is a hoax/conspiracy, that it doesn’t exist, or that it is no worse than the flu and that the health authorities and governments have either overreacted or are purposely trying to misrepresent the reality of this ‘minor’ virus. Others believe that even if the virus is real, they have the right to live as they choose and run the risk of contracting the virus and thus passing it on to others. Or maybe they believe that the COVID virus is part of God’s plan to test us and see whether we will "obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Since God is in control, and thus he has either caused or allowed this virus to impact the lives of billions, there is no sense trying to resist him (Acts 5:39). And anyway, as Christians, true believers on the only narrow path, God will protect us as we stand for our democratic right to meet together (Psalm 91). So it should be “church” as normal. And those who call themselves Christians but choose to live in self-protective separation, they are living in fear and not by faith.

But I don’t accept any of that. However, according to the COVID conspiracy theorists and the COVID minimalists, the millions who are like me are simply weak-minded, weak-willed, weak of faith, and/or intellectually challenged and thus we are being deceived into believing the far-left socialist propaganda. As one of the world’s most prominent conspiracy theorists recently said, the far left is trying to, “Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible. Hurt God.” And after all, there are those who regard this person as a true believer and follower of Jesus. So he, and others like him, must be speaking the truth.

Maybe those who say they care about the Bible should listen more closely to what the Bible says about those who claim to speak for God.

“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

The Bible – Try Reading It Again for the First Time.

In the late 80s and early 90s one of the leading cereal companies, Kelloggs, initiated a new marketing approach to revive sales of its oldest flake cereal, Corn Flakes. The tag line was this: Kelloggs’ Corn Flakes. Taste them again for the first time! 

Click on this link and watch their 30 second spot that aired during the 1992 Super Bowl: https://adage.com/videos/kelloggs-corn-flakes-taste-corn-flakes/1090

 

The 30 second spots in this ad campaign follow the same script regardless of the actor. They comment on how boring the cereal looks because “it’s just flakes”. There are no nuts, no fruit, no marshmallows, nothing but simple flakes. But then they taste the cereal and are immediately impressed with its simplicity.

 

Corn Flakes had been around a long time and probably almost every American had eaten them, but they were completing against a lot of cereals that specialized in adding nuts, fruit, marshmallows, frosting, etc. Kelloggs reverted to selling simplicity, honesty and integrity to convince people that Corn Flakes didn’t need to be dressed up. If people would taste them again, for the first time, they would be reminded of how good they were.

 

When it comes to the Bible, lots of ministries have tried to dress it up, spin it, add things to it because they perceive that people think the Bible is boring. It’s so old—in fact, it is ancient—and thus how could it possibly be interesting to the “average” member or seeker? Church leaders are convinced they have to add nuts, fruit, marshmallows and/or frosting to the Bible in order to awaken interest in it. They buy into the idea that people want to taste the flakes and are only interested in the creative additions. I’ve personally witnessed pastors apologizing for reading from the Bible anything longer than a verse or two and, at times, even stating that this will be boring. The presentation of biblical texts is often paraphrased passages used as prooftexts or as jumping off points from which to present more interesting, more relevant material. Members and guests alike at worship services are encouraged to repeat or memorize one-liners that summarize the preacher’s main point but are seldom encouraged to reread and further deliberate on the biblical text itself.

 

In contrast, I am convinced that those of us who teach the Bible, need to read more of the biblical text publicly as Timothy was encouraged to do: “Until I arrive, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhorting, to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13, emphasis is mine). And then we need to call people to actually read the biblical texts and to do so, as much as possible, from a fresh perspective—that is, as if they were reading them for the first time. I have heard many Christians state, in one way or another, that reading the biblical texts is “boring.” It has lost its freshness and its power to speak to our hearts and our lives. There are many reasons for that, but mainly I believe it is because our perspective on the biblical texts leads to a very restrictive interpretation that limits what the Bible teaches to things we already know.

 

Recently, I’ve been listening to the recorded lectures by Dr. Dale B. Martin of Yale University as he taught an introductory course to the New Testament. In the first lecture he challenges his students to “attempt to scrape our brains clean of what we think we know about the New Testament and try to approach it from the outside, as something new and strange.” But his challenge goes deeper than most Christians would agree to, as he explains how he approaches his teaching “from a self-consciously secular, non-confessional point of view. That means approaching the New Testament not as “scripture” but simply as ancient documents produced by the movement that eventually became Christianity.” In his accompanying textbook (published by Yale University in 2012), Martin writes, “Therefore, readers are urged to leave behind their preconceived notions of the New Testament and read it as if they had never heard of it before. This involves understanding the historical context of the New Testament and imagining how it might appear to an ancient person.” He champions the “historical-critical” approach to the New Testament which “anchors ‘the meaning’ of the text in its ancient context: what the original authors ‘intended’ or the original readers likely ‘understood.’” I truly am convinced that without an understanding of what the biblical texts meant in their original contexts, to their original hearers/readers, then we limit what we can learn from these amazing creative texts.

But to read the biblical texts from a fresh perspective, as if we are reading them for the first time, is quite a challenging task, for any and all of us who have been reading/hearing these texts for many years. I am convinced, as well, that the historical-critical method is the best way to get not only a fresh perspective but an accurate perspective. As one of my New Testament professors wrote, “The search for what the writings meant should be an indispensable part in the spiritual search for what they are taken to mean today” (Thomas R. Hatina). By going back to trying to understand what the original author’s intent might have been and what these writings would have meant to the original hearers/readers, one can gain many fresh perspectives and one’s excitement and enthusiasm for reading and reflecting on these texts can be reinitiated.

 

If you’ve read this far, then I’m thinking you are interested in reading the Bible again for the first time! To that end, I highly recommend Dr. Martin’s lectures and textbook. Here are the links you will need:

 

·      Audio: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introduction-to-new-testament-history-literature-audio/id341652017

·      Video: https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

·      Textbook: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B007R5DCF6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

 

 

There is NO "most accurate" version of the Bible

No One Version of the Bible is THE Most Accurate or THE Only True Version

 

When you are reading your favourite version of the New Testament (NT)—be it the NIV, the KVJ, the NRSV, the NASV, the ESV, etc.—do you know what you are reading? You are reading one version of the NT and not the true, the only, or even the most accurate (etc.) version of the NT. There are three reasons why your favourite version of the NT is not “the true, the only, or even the most accurate version of the NT.

 

1.     We do not possess any of the twenty-seven original writings that make up the New Testament—nothing that is really close to the originals.

2.     There are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts (mostly partial, and some just tiny fragments) of the books of the New Testament available which textual critics have spent their lives examining (down to the smallest letter and the least stroke of the pen) in order to produce what they think might be represent the original writings.

3.     Experts in first century Greek use these “reconstructed Greek texts” from which to translate Greek into English (or any other modern language), and there is no such thing as a “word-for-word” correspondence between Greek and any other language.

 

Further Explanation is Needed

 

Textual critics invest the majority of their adult lives making what they believe are the best decisions about which of the many options provided by the thousands of partial, and often fragmentary, Greek manuscripts, are most likely to best represent the original. But textual critics disagree, among themselves, all the time on which choices are the best ones. Thus, their recreated Greek texts are full of footnotes that explain why they made the decisions that they did in each and every case.

 

Translators then take these reconstructed Greek texts and attempt to translate them into a modern language. These translators usually work in teams (i.e., committees) and represent various denominations, so that there is less chance (but not zero chance) of doctrinal bias creeping into the translation. There are also different theories on how best to translate one language into another in a way that best represents what the original authors were trying to communicate. Translation always requires a level of interpretation, since the translators can’t ask the authors directly what their intent was. These scholars spend their lives learning and striving to improve their knowledge and skills.

 

Textual critics and translators are unknown (to most) and unsung heroes. If they did not choose to invest their lives in such scholarly pursuits and a lifetime of learning, we would not have any version of the Bible that we could read. Some of the earliest translators of the Bible were excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured and executed! To imply, that somehow these behind-the-scenes and unappreciated workers are somehow engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent or edit out portions of the biblical text, could not be further from the truth! Unless you and I could read Greek (and Hebrew and Aramaic) and had access to the ancient manuscripts of the biblical texts, we would have no biblical texts to read today. Think about it. You may prefer one version over another. You may not like how one version is too simplistically translated or how another is too academically worded. However, in the end you have not one version but many versions you, in your own language, that you can read, meditate on and study to your heart’s content!

 From this...                       

 To this...

 

My Opinion as to the Usefulness of Various Versions

 

So, if you don’t read first century Greek—and even if you do—which English versions of the NT might be considered the most trustworthy? From least trustworthy to most trustworthy, here is my opinion:

 

·      Denominationally created “translations” are often full of inaccuracies because the translator’s choices are not based on unbiased or collective scholarship but on doctrinal bias, with the unapologetic intention of promoting their denomination’s unique teaching. Probably the best example of this is the New World Translation completed in 1950 exclusively by and for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Where their translation disagrees with other versions, they claim that theirs is correct and the others are wrong.  Call me a skeptic—because I am—but I avoid any translation that is the result of one denomination’s efforts.

 

·      Paraphrases are the least useful for anything but casual reading because they are not translations of the Greek. A paraphrase is not the same thing as a translation. While a translation attempts to relate what the text of the NT says, a paraphrase attempts to explain the meaning of the translation. Therefore, the paraphrase is more like a commentary. Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text. E.g., The Living Bible, The Message, The Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, Easy-to-Read Version, the Amplified Bible, etc. My advice for anyone who uses one of these versions as your favourite, is to also read from at least one or two committee translations (below). Paraphrases attempt to make the very ancient biblical texts modern. But they aren’t modern, they are ancient and need to be appreciated in their ancient contexts before they can be applied in our modern culture.

 

·      Translations by one person lack the “check and balance” that is part of translations undertaken by multi-denominational committees. However, one-person translations are not necessarily inaccurate and sometimes are actually quite refreshing and eye-opening. Recently, I have enjoyed Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible. The preface to his translation and the footnotes within help explain both the principles and specifics of his translation choices. One-person translations, in my opinion, vary significantly depending on the knowledge, experience and integrity of the person who is translating.

 

·      Translations by committees of multi-denominational scholars are the safest bet, but at times accommodations that are made sometimes allow for the continuation of traditional translations, which are often not accurate (or even actual translations). My pet peeves include words like “baptism,” “angel,” and “deacon” which are not translations of Greek, but transliterations (see chart below). Examples of other accommodations include translating “ekklesia” as “church,” “doulos” as “servant” and representing the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH as “LORD.” There are many others, where non-translations by early English translators are maintained which actually obscure the meaning(s) of the original Greek.

 

Bottom line, my advice for those of us who cannot fluently read and grasp the full significance of first century Greek, (or in the case of the Old Testament biblical Hebrew) is to read from a variety of English translations. My personal suggestion is that everyone should have a copy of the NET Bible (with translator notes). I don’t think this translation is always the best, but it is transparent. There are over 60,000 translator notes that explain why the translators chose the word or phrase that they did and often have a more “literal” or “alternate” translation in the notes. This version is available in both digital and print versions. For more information, see https://netbible.com/

 

Appendix – Examples of Untranslated/Mistranslated Words

 

English Word	Greek/Hebrew Word	Meaning of Greek/Hebrew Word
Baptism	Baptisma – βάπτισμα	immersion, submersion
Angel	Angelos – ἄγγελος	a messenger, envoy, one who is sent
Deacon	Diakanos – διάκονος	minister, servant, one who executes the commands of another
Christ	Christos – Χριστός	anointed = Hebrew “Messiah” which also means “anointed”
Church	Ekklesia – ἐκκλησία	assembly, gathering of citizens
Servant	Doulos – δοῦλος	slave, one who serves in obedience to another’s will
LORD	Yahweh – יְהוָֹה	the proper name of the God of Israel, unpronounced by Jews, sometimes referred to as “the Name” or the tetragrammaton.