- Status
C
Crumpy
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation account of Adam and Eve is symbolic but based on real events.
I’m reading a commentary on Genesis that explains the two versions of creation this way, that they are written from two different points of view and with two different purposes.
It is not surprising to find this and not hard to accept this if you start to dig into the book of Genesis itself.
From studying the original Hebrew text, scholars have noted that it appears to be many pieces of stories that were eventually put together into the final product that we have today.
The commentary that I’m using points out the literary structure and various literary devices that are used in Genesis and the book has been very carefully constructed. To illustrate the question here, notice that in chapter one, the first verse uses the phrase “heavens and earth” but that starting in Chapter 2, verse 4, the order has been reversed and the text says “earth and heavens.” This is not sloppy exposition, but it shows the account of creation from a different point of view, the order of things is mixed up, but the essentials are still there, that God is the creator and that things are being done according to his plan.
So, the supposed second account is talking about a different point of view of the same event. Notice, that the structure of the first day, second day, etc. has been dropped in the second account.
The first account is much more focused on explaining such things as: God is the independent sovereign Creator; trees are not god, the ocean is not god, animals are not god, humanity is not god(s), etc., that there is one God who created everything according to HIs order, His design, etc. When God creates something and says that it is “good” this is not displaying His pride over what He has created, this is displaying the quality of God that He is a Judge, and He is actually “ruling” that a, b, c,…etc. are “good.” So, this is teaching something very important about who God is.
The second account is focusing much more on humanity, in the garden of Eden. As you read it, you notice the style has greatly changed, and the format of “God said…” and “and it was so” and He saw that it was “good” this has all changed. The second account is telling much more about humanity and its free will, and its use of free will, and the consequences of when Adam and Eve rebelled against God.
So, the two accounts are just different. It’s like having an NFL football game with different cameras to pickup different aspects of the plays on the field.
The use of “seven” is very important in the first account of creation. This is much more obvious in the original Hebrew. Seven days as a unit of time was popular in other writings of that era, and so the readers or listeners of Genesis would be able to contrast this radically different, monotheistic, demythologized account of creation with neighboring accounts that they were familiar with. Seven as a number is used in scripture elsewhere to signify the design and plan of God, perfection, and completeness. There’s not reason to feel lacking that it does not have the scientific meaning that people attribute to it. It simply meant something different, that we are not familiar with today.
The seven day unit of time is significant, because it was one that was not dependent on the Sun or the Moon. And, the seventh day “ceasing” from creation and later from work was absolutely unique in the Old Testament world. In the seven day units of time of other pagan systems, the biggest event occurred on the seventh day, whereas Genesis emphases that the work was completed in six, and the seventh day was holy and dedicated to God. It just blows away the whole preoccupation with the obsession of a scientific thinking about creation in seven days. That was simply a way of saying how important and unique it was. And, it was to replace the other seven-day units of time that people may have been familiar with.
If we accept that God did all this in seven days, we could just as easily accept that it was done all in an instant – not that God couldn’t do that – but there was a meaning to this seven days that we don’t culturally understand in our day and age.
Whew.
I’m reading a commentary on Genesis that explains the two versions of creation this way, that they are written from two different points of view and with two different purposes.
It is not surprising to find this and not hard to accept this if you start to dig into the book of Genesis itself.
From studying the original Hebrew text, scholars have noted that it appears to be many pieces of stories that were eventually put together into the final product that we have today.
The commentary that I’m using points out the literary structure and various literary devices that are used in Genesis and the book has been very carefully constructed. To illustrate the question here, notice that in chapter one, the first verse uses the phrase “heavens and earth” but that starting in Chapter 2, verse 4, the order has been reversed and the text says “earth and heavens.” This is not sloppy exposition, but it shows the account of creation from a different point of view, the order of things is mixed up, but the essentials are still there, that God is the creator and that things are being done according to his plan.
So, the supposed second account is talking about a different point of view of the same event. Notice, that the structure of the first day, second day, etc. has been dropped in the second account.
The first account is much more focused on explaining such things as: God is the independent sovereign Creator; trees are not god, the ocean is not god, animals are not god, humanity is not god(s), etc., that there is one God who created everything according to HIs order, His design, etc. When God creates something and says that it is “good” this is not displaying His pride over what He has created, this is displaying the quality of God that He is a Judge, and He is actually “ruling” that a, b, c,…etc. are “good.” So, this is teaching something very important about who God is.
The second account is focusing much more on humanity, in the garden of Eden. As you read it, you notice the style has greatly changed, and the format of “God said…” and “and it was so” and He saw that it was “good” this has all changed. The second account is telling much more about humanity and its free will, and its use of free will, and the consequences of when Adam and Eve rebelled against God.
So, the two accounts are just different. It’s like having an NFL football game with different cameras to pickup different aspects of the plays on the field.
The use of “seven” is very important in the first account of creation. This is much more obvious in the original Hebrew. Seven days as a unit of time was popular in other writings of that era, and so the readers or listeners of Genesis would be able to contrast this radically different, monotheistic, demythologized account of creation with neighboring accounts that they were familiar with. Seven as a number is used in scripture elsewhere to signify the design and plan of God, perfection, and completeness. There’s not reason to feel lacking that it does not have the scientific meaning that people attribute to it. It simply meant something different, that we are not familiar with today.
The seven day unit of time is significant, because it was one that was not dependent on the Sun or the Moon. And, the seventh day “ceasing” from creation and later from work was absolutely unique in the Old Testament world. In the seven day units of time of other pagan systems, the biggest event occurred on the seventh day, whereas Genesis emphases that the work was completed in six, and the seventh day was holy and dedicated to God. It just blows away the whole preoccupation with the obsession of a scientific thinking about creation in seven days. That was simply a way of saying how important and unique it was. And, it was to replace the other seven-day units of time that people may have been familiar with.
If we accept that God did all this in seven days, we could just as easily accept that it was done all in an instant – not that God couldn’t do that – but there was a meaning to this seven days that we don’t culturally understand in our day and age.
Whew.
C
Crumpy
Guest
I didn’t address the subject of Lilith in my previous post. I don’t have anything to say about such a woman, at least from reading the commentary that I am most familiar with.
But, this commentary does point out that there are things in Genesis that assume that the readers or listeners are already familiar with what it speaks about. For example, after Adam and Eve sin, they are expelled from the garden of Eden. A cherubim and a swirling flaming sword are put there to block the path of return to the garden.
The point is, the listeners must already have been familiar with the idea of cherubim and the sword, or those images would have had no meaning to them.
Likewise, Genesis does not comment on the language skills of Adam and Eve, and it does not explain how God was interacting, particularly in conversations, with them. So, there are a lot of details left out. another example is how those early people lived for hundreds of years, but gradually the life span was shortened to that which we are familiar with. People can speculate that was the result of sin or the effect of increasing pollution or something like that. But, those are modern interpretations and it’s not really clear what was going on or signified by all that.
But, this commentary does point out that there are things in Genesis that assume that the readers or listeners are already familiar with what it speaks about. For example, after Adam and Eve sin, they are expelled from the garden of Eden. A cherubim and a swirling flaming sword are put there to block the path of return to the garden.
The point is, the listeners must already have been familiar with the idea of cherubim and the sword, or those images would have had no meaning to them.
Likewise, Genesis does not comment on the language skills of Adam and Eve, and it does not explain how God was interacting, particularly in conversations, with them. So, there are a lot of details left out. another example is how those early people lived for hundreds of years, but gradually the life span was shortened to that which we are familiar with. People can speculate that was the result of sin or the effect of increasing pollution or something like that. But, those are modern interpretations and it’s not really clear what was going on or signified by all that.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, Kathy.
A “lilith” is a variety of demon. You can see it in Isaiah 34:14. (The KJV translates the Hebrew term to read “screech owl” in English. That translation is wrong.) Your son is referring to the Lilith demon myth.
C
CWBetts
Guest
The KJV? Wrong???
:bigyikes: (Note my sarcasm)
C
Cachonga
Guest
This is a good reason to use more than one version of the Bible (unless you happen to be able to read the original Hebrew and Greek). The RSV translates it as “night hag”; the ASV uses “night-monster”; the YLT says “night-owl”; the NAS translates it as “night monster”; the Geneva Bible of 1587 calls it “shricheowle”; The Standard Version reads “night bird”; the Basic version is translated as “evil spirits”; the Literal Translation reads “screech owl”; the Douay Rheims has it as “hairy ones”; the Hebrew verse reads, “מציל נפשׁות עד אמת ויפח כזבים מרמה׃” (hope this copies over correctly). The Hebrew word is pronounce leel leeth (Strong’s #3917). It does translate as night specter or screech owl.
C
CWBetts
Guest
i actually have an app with something like 10 translations
J
juliamajor
Guest
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
You mean tha God didn’t give it to King James to bring down from the mountain on slabs of stone?The KJV? Wrong???
C
catholicsuffer
Guest
You do some good research Crumpy, I might add that Scott Hahn also has a free lesson on his website which deals with the same issues. I thought it was very well done.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Cachonga,
“Night Specter” and “Screech Owl” have absolutely nothing in common.
The majority of the “translations” you cite are not only Protestant translations, but (especially the Geneva Bible) Protestant translations with a pre-conceived bias.
Have you studied the Greek and the Hebrew? I have! I was a Protestant clergyman who converted to Catholicism – largely on the basis of my studies of both the Scriptures – and of the history of Christianity.
Blessings,
C
Cachonga
Guest
David Zampino:
You missed the point. I was just pointing out that there are several ways this is translated (BTW - I did include the Douay Rheims, which says “hairy ones”). Just out of curiosity, what is the difference in translation of the original word between a “Protestant” and a “Catholic”? I am just beginning serious study in Greek, and plan to study Hebrew as well.
C
CWBetts
Guest
protestants tend to get ahem creative adding a word here, taking one out there, ignoring several books in the OT, that kind of thing
C
Cachonga
Guest
Debatable, but the question was about translating a specific word (pronounced leel leeth (Strong’s #3917)).
F
firstmode
Guest
The reason he brought this up is because he watched Banned from the Bible II on the discovery channel which they played the day before Easter (as secular people need to attack Christian holidays, usually on the eve of the holiday).
The show was actually quite good and a great explanation of many apocryphal texts with re-enactments, etc.
But they did a whole section on Lilith and did not go about explaining it as truth, but as a legend. He just took this info and tried to use it against you because he is bitter against Christianity.
The show was actually quite good and a great explanation of many apocryphal texts with re-enactments, etc.
But they did a whole section on Lilith and did not go about explaining it as truth, but as a legend. He just took this info and tried to use it against you because he is bitter against Christianity.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
No, actually, it is not debatable!
Protestant Bibles removed 7 books from the Old Testament.
Luther (and subsequent Lutheran scholars) attempted to remove 4 books from the New Testament as well. For 100 years, German Lutheran Bibles segregated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to “Apocrypha”. A few early English Protestant translations did as well.
This ain’t “Catholic bias” speaking – this is historical fact.
F
firstmode
Guest
In reference to Daniel…I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ…I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 33).
The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 34).
“7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.” Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373)
“The books that [Melito of Sardis ( 170 A.D.)] lists follow very closely to the Old Testament in contemporary Protestant Bibles. Today, we would call the “four books of Kings” 1 Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings and II Kings. “The Book of Wisdom” is undoubtedly in this case, the Book of Proverbs, and Esdras was commonly the heading for Nehemiah and Ezra. (not to be confused with the Apocryphal book “Esdras”). Lamentations was considered a part of Jeremiah. The only book missing from Melito’s list is Esther, which was held suspect by many Jews since it did not contain the Divine Name (YHWH). Esther, incidentally, also happens to be missing from the rolls of Qumran, amidst the “Dead Sea Scrolls”. Esther and Song of Solomon were two of the disputed books at the Council of Jamnia. More importantly, it should be noted that the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Esdras, I and II Maccabees, and Sirach) was still not accepted as Scripture”
F
firstmode
Guest
The fathers agree that the apocrypha is non-canonical and should not be included in the canon. Melito of Sardis, (Eusebius – Lib. IV. Cap. 26.) testifies he knew the OT canon. He took great pains in research, as we are told by Eusebius, and comes to the exact number of books as the protestants and Jews do. Origen (Eus. Lib. VI c. 25) acknowledges the same books as the protestants as canonical., and says that the number of them are two and twenty according to the Hebrew alphabet. (Remembering the combination of 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc.) Athanasius says “Our whole scripture is divinely inspired and hath books not infinite in number, but finite and comprehended in a certain canon.” There was, therefore a certain canon by the late 300’s. He then enumerates this, “The canonical books of the OT are two and twenty. Equal to the number as the Hebrew alphabet.” Then he says, “But besides these, there are also other non canonical books of the OT which are only read to the catechumens.” Then he lists the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit and the like. “These” he says “are the non-canonical books of the OT.” (Athanas. Opp. Ii. 126. sqq. Ed. Bened.) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, says, “The law of the OT is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond to the number of letters.” Nazianzen fixes the same number. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th catechetical discourse says much, “Do thou learn carefully from the church what are the books of the OT, Read the divine Scriptures, the two and twenty books. (Cyril. Hiersol. Catech. IV. 33. p. 67. ed Tuttei.) Epiphanius counts twenty seven, or by the Hebrew doubling, twenty two, “delivered by God to the Jews.” And he says of the apocryphal books, “They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in the ark of the covenant.” Ruffinus, in his exposition of the Apostle’s Creed, says “But I should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Macabees. These they would have to be read in the churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for the confirming the authority of faith.” (Symb. Apost. In Appendix ad Cyprian. Ed. Fell. P. 26). (As with any good book.) Jerome plainly rejects all the apocryphal books from the canon. In his Prologus Galeatus he says “As there are twenty and two letters, so there are counted twenty and two books. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon.” (See the introduction to the Vulgate in his own hand.) Gregory the Great, in his commentaries on Job, (Lib. XIX. Cap. 16.) expressly writes that the books of Macabees is not canonical, as well as the rest. Josephus also agrees. In his first book against Apion the grammaritan “We have not innumerable books, inconsistent and conflicting with each other, but two and twenty books alone, containing the series of our whole history, and justly deemed worthy of our highest credit.” (Contra Apion. L. I. C. 8.)
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, Cachonga.
“Hairy ones” in Douay Rheims is a proper English language rendering of Jerome’s Vulgate’s Greek-into-Latin rendering of the underlying Hebrew term sayirim, which refers to a hairy bigfoot-like demon. “Lamia” is the Douay Rheims transliteration into English of Jerome’s Vulgate’s Greek-into-Latin rendering of the underlying Hebrew term liyliyth. When Strong’s offers “screech owl” as an alternate reading, it is not saying that that is a correct guess. It is just saying that this was the King James translators’ guess.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I hope you aren’t talking about me. I never saw the program you are speaking of, I trnd to avoid them. It is an historical fact that the Canon was approved in the early 4th cwentury, and was not questioned by anyone until Luther took it upon himself to remove the Deuterocanonicals, Revelation, James and Jude (among others) and add the word “alone” to a verse in Romans to make the Bible fit his own flawed theology. Am I bitter aginst Christianity. Of course not. I am a Christian. I am, however tired of fundamentalists who use outright lies to dissuade people form becoming Catholic.
- Status