Jump to content

Genesis 1:1 vs. Brigham Young


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

Found this post on another board. Thought some people here might be interested:

Hello Friends,

As many here know, one of the fundamental tenets of Mormon theology includes a belief in human existence prior to the creation of the world. This idea shocks many other Christian groups who interpret the creation account in Genesis 1 as evidence against any existence prior to

Link to comment
One such article includes a fascinating study of the passage by Daniel M. Berry published in 2003 in the Jewish Bible Quarterly. Berry presents a careful analysis of the opening words of the Bible from a translator's perspective. His study clearly shows that rather than the King James translation,
Link to comment

David, correct me of I'm wrong but doesn't ??????????? make more sense as "at the summit, at the pinaccle" as in a mountain or Egyptian benben stone? I forget where I heard this.

Hey Pedro! I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with this argument. I would love to learn more though.

BTW, how do you type a post using Hebrew font?

Link to comment

Very interesting stuff David. I'm glad you shared it with us. I'm always impressed that we Mormons do not shy away from higher scholarship, even if it isn't always theologically comfortable. It is fun to note the many places, however, where such scholarship makes our theology even more comfortable.

David, are you familiar with the recent book by John Walton entitled, "The Lost World of Genesis One"? From what little I've read about it it seems to present a useful perspective for Latter-day Saints....and Walton is apparently an Evangelical!

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259794742&sr=8-1

Thanks.

Sargon

Link to comment

It could be consistent with multiple universes, multiple big bangs, the "new heaven and earth" of the millennium, or even an evolutionary view that we live in a "new world" after Adam. There's no end to what the implications of this could be.

Thanks David!

Link to comment

David, I think Pedro cut-n-pasted from Mechon Mamre.

Personally, bereishit makes little sense as being on top of a summit, as it means the beggining, front, or chiefest. The mountain top would be rosh hahar.

Anyway, I recall a conver ssation with my high school vice-principal- a religious Jew who knew the OT by heart- where he stated pretty much the same thing about bereishit that your source does. He also said that he had no problem with dinosaurs because who knows what went on outside the garden or for how long!

Link to comment

But even in English we talk about the "top of the ninth (inning)"? It seems conceptually linked regardless. I of course know absolutely no Hebrew, so I don't have a clue, I will be the first to admit.

Link to comment

"In a Beginning" or for those English speakers among us... "Once upon a time".

Or, "To start with...". This point can be an apex (represented by the top of a mountain), from where God condescends to perform His creative works, and, where once finished and brought to/arrived at the same place, men in turn initiate a new beginning of more creative works--and so this point is referred to as the plural "beginnings".

Link to comment

Hey Pedro! I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with this argument. I would love to learn more though.

BTW, how do you type a post using Hebrew font?

Hey, like Volgo said, I did cut and paste from Mechon Mamre. There has to be a Hebrew font program you can get for free because I know they have it for Chinese. There has to be one for Hebrew as well.

I dont remember where I heard the idea. The connection to the benben stone was from moi. It's probably wrong. haha.

Link to comment

But even in English we talk about the "top of the ninth (inning)"? It seems conceptually linked regardless. I of course know absolutely no Hebrew, so I don't have a clue, I will be the first to admit.

Were I to say reshit of the mountain, I would probably be refering to its base, not its summit.

Link to comment

Given the fact that the earth wasn't created until several verses into Genesis 1, I prefer the construct reading of ?????? ???.

???

Huh?

Would you please translate for those of us in the peanut gallery?

Link to comment

???

Huh?

Would you please translate for those of us in the peanut gallery?

The earth isn't actually created until v.

"When God began to created the heavens and earth, the earth was formless and shapeless-" No earth created yet, just chaotic matter. We don't actually get any land until v. 9.

Link to comment

The earth isn't actually created until v.

"When God began to created the heavens and earth, the earth was formless and shapeless-" No earth created yet, just chaotic matter. We don't actually get any land until v. 9.

This reading seems to have become the consensus, if I remember correctly. It also doesn't present any absolute beginning, which I think is correct.

Link to comment

The earth isn't actually created until v.

"When God began to created the heavens and earth, the earth was formless and shapeless-" No earth created yet, just chaotic matter. We don't actually get any land until v. 9.

Thanks.

That makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment

Pertinent to the OP about the endless first day is the belief that the first day relates to a timeless period wherein the heavenly host themselves were created. Neh 9:6 gives us a creation context that includes the heavenly host, Jubilees 2:2 tells us angels were created on the first day, etc. Barker cites sources to the effect that when Moses receives the pattern for the tabernacle on Sinai (Ex 25), he sees a vision of the creation and is told to pattern the tabernacle after the creation. Thus day one, pertains to the Holy of Holies and the heavenly timeless realm beyond the veil.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...