Evidence for God from Science

No offense, but most english translations horribly mangle this verse, if I may:
"and the earth had existed desolate and void of life and darkness over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters"
No offense taken, but I think your statement is . . . overstated. Even if we adopt your rendering, the English translations hardly "horribly mangle this verse." All you've done is to change the state of being verb to a pluperfect. In any case, from what I can tell, it's a simple qal preterite, and should be rendered "was" (see Keil) The LXX takes it the same way, rendering it en (cf. John 1:1, which uses the same verb).

So . . . at best, you could say you have a syntactically possible translation. It's hardly fair to say modern translations have mangled the verse.

I was referring to formless and empty as the mangling, but now that you bring up tense, according to that verse's sentence structure the verb should be rendered as pluperfect based on the waw+noun followed by a qal perfect verb, which will have an impact going into the next verse, but I'm not reading ahead either.

Sounds good so far. I'd be interested in hearing an OEC chime in now, though, on the issue of the "formlessness" and "void." Most commentators I've read take this is a major theme for Genesis; the initial creation had two deficiencies that God will begin to resolve. Would an OEC position accept that?

I'm not sure how two theologies up to this point could be much different. Please elaborate, enlighten, or otherwise define what is different between the YEC and what we have covered to this point.

I was referring to formless and empty as the mangling

From the TWOT

Regarding "formless"

• bohu: void, waste, emptiness - always occurring with tohu "waste" (q.v.), bohu describe the primordial condition of the earth, "void" at the beginning of creation (Gen 1:2) or "made empty" by God's judgment (Isa 34"11; Jer 4:23). It is probable that the descriptions in Isaiah of the desolations of Edom and those in Jeremiah of Israel borrow this phrase from the Genesis picture of primordial chaos.

Regarding "void"

• tohu: confusion, the empty place - nothing, nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness, without form (ASV similar; RSV renders "chaos" in Isa 24:10; 45:18f.). Since the word has no certain cognates in other languages, its meaning must be determined solely from its OT contexts. It refers to a desert wasteland in Deut 32:10; Job 6:18 (see ASV, RSV); 12:24b = Ps 107:40b; to a destroyed city in Isa 24:10 (see also 34:11); to moral and spiritual emptiness or confusion in I Sam 12:21 (twice) and several times in Isa (29:21; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 59:4); and to nothingness or unreality in Isa 40:17, 23; 49:4 (see also the Heb. text of Sir 41:10). In most (if not all) of these cases, tohu has a negative or pejorative sense.
  
  Two passages in particular call for more extended comment. The first is Job 26:7: "(God) stretches out the north over tohu; he hangs th earth upon nothing." The context of chap. 26 stresses not only the omnipotence and sovereignty of God in creation and providence but also the ease with which he does whatever he pleases. While it would be improper for us to rigidly impose our own contingent, twentieth-century cosmology on this chapter and insist on interpreting it literally throughout (see, e.g., the obvious metaphor in verse 11), it is nonetheless striking that 26:7 pictures the then-known world as suspended in space. In doing so, it anticipates (at the very least!) future scientific discovery.
  
  The other passage requiring discussion is, of course, Gen 1:2a: "The earth was tohu wabohu." The meaning of bohu itself is uncertain (it appears elsewhere only in Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both times in context with tohu), although it apparently signifies "emptiness" (cf. the possible Arabic cognate bahiya "was empty"). Therefore, the phrase tohu wabohu in Gen 1:2a has been variously understood as a hendiadys meaning "a formless waste" (E. A. Spesier, Genesis, p. 5), "absolutely nothing whatever (H. Renckens, Israel's Concept of the Beginning, p. 84), "void and vacancy" (H. E. Ryle, The Book of Genesis, p. 4--though without complete conviction). But the traditional rendering, "without form and void" (or "unformed and unfilled," to preserve something of the euphony of the Hebrew phrase), is ably defended by W. H. Griffith Thomas in Genesis--A Devotional Commentary, p. 29, where he writes that "the adjectives 'formless' and 'empty' seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter. The record of the first three days to refers to the heaven and earth receiving their 'form,' and the record of the last three days to the filling-up of their 'emptiness.'" See further R. Youngblood in JETS 16:219-21. The "gap" or "interval" theory, which posits a millennia-long period of time implied by or in Gen 1:2 and which usually translates Gen 1:2a by the less likely "but the earth became without form and void," has come into increasing disfavor in recent years. Its main exegetical support, Isa 45:18, reads "(God) did not create (the earth) tohu," and has been interpreted to mean that therefore an original creation (described briefly in Gen 1:1) was destroyed; that the geologic ages ensued (during the "gap"); and that the new creation portrayed in Gen 1:3ff. was built on the wreckage of the old. But Isa 45:18, after the phrase quoted, goes on to say that God "formed (the earth) to be inhabited," thereby assuring the reader that tohu was not his ultimate purpose in creation. (For extended critiques of the "gap" theory, see especially O. T. Allis, God Spake by Moses pp. 153-159; B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 195-210).The word tohu in Gen 1:2, likewise, refers not to the result of a supposed catastrophe (for which there is no clear biblical evidence) but to the formlessness of the earth before God's creative hand began the majestic acts described in the following verses. As Jer 4:23 indicates, the earth always has the potential of returning to tohu wabohu if God decides to judge it.
  
  But as difficult as tohu is to define, it is even more difficult for us to conceptualize it. Augustine, in his Confessions (Book XII, 6), admitted his failure to grasp it visually; Haydn, in the "Representation of Chas" overture to his oratorio, The Creation, was much more successful in expressing it musically. [On the other hand, since "create" in Gen 1:1 is a summary statement epexegeted in the remainder of the chapter (cf. concluding summary in Gen 2:1-3), it may be that Isaiah designates by "create" all of God's works during the six days. he did not "create" chaos but a cosmos (cf. Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Chas (Portland, Oregon: Western Baptist Theological Seminary, 1974). B. K. W.]

Given the above, I'd hardly even take "formless and empty" as "mangled." It may actually be rather accurate! It does raise an issue that I let slide before, but namely, what kind of verse exactly is 1:1? Is it a completed action, or is it, rather, a summary statement that the rest of the chapter explains (which, by the way, is common in Heb. prose)?

but now that you bring up tense, according to that verse's sentence structure the verb should be rendered as pluperfect based on the waw+noun followed by a qal perfect verb, which will have an impact going into the next verse, but I'm not reading ahead either.

Reference, please? I'm not denying that, as I've only just started my formal Hebrew studies. However, when no modern translation takes it that way, and when the LXX, likewise, does not, and when commentators highly dispute that, I'm strongly inclined to reject the notion that it is that simple. If it were, then everyone would agree with you on this; as it stands, the VAST majority of scholars, both ancient and modern, take this as a simple past tense.

I'm not sure how two theologies up to this point could be much different. Please elaborate, enlighten, or otherwise define what is different between the YEC and what we have covered to this point.

I told you before that I'm not interested in a YEC reading of the text. I'm not even interested in a NEUTRAL reading of the text! I'm strictly and totally interested in an OEC interpretation of the text. That's the entire reason I started the thread.

It should be obvious, then, why I bring it up. As noted in the TWOT above, the phrase tohu vabohu seems to set out the literary structure of the passage. But it is a hallmark of OEC interpretation to try to make things "fit" with science. As I'm interested in an OEC interpretation, I'd curious as to whether or not an OEC interpretation would allow this, for I wonder in what sense the primordial earth (as it existed some four billion years ago) could be said to be "formless and void." If that interpretation is rejected as incompatible with science, I'm curious, then, as to what they would allow from an exegetical perspective. How would they read it? Perhaps they read it just the same? I don't know. I've never asked.

jac wrote:It should be obvious, then, why I bring it up. As noted in the TWOT above, the phrase tohu vabohu seems to set out the literary structure of the passage. But it is a hallmark of OEC interpretation to try to make things "fit" with science. As I'm interested in an OEC interpretation, I'd curious as to whether or not an OEC interpretation would allow this, for I wonder in what sense the primordial earth (as it existed some four billion years ago) could be said to be "formless and void."

Did God create order out of disorder when He formed the stars, the elements, the planets? THe matter in the universe was certainly filling the void, he creation of the planets created order as the coalesced.

Was there a void before the beginning? Was there a void before the animals? Was there a void before the....

Again, other than the "days" argument, why in the world would our theology be different here?!?

Whether thevoid was 4 billion years ago before the first cell, or 15 billion or 20 billion before the universe, before each creative act (day), the status *was* unfulfilled, confusion.

jac wrote: If that interpretation is rejected as incompatible with science, I'm curious, then, as to what they would allow from an exegetical perspective. How would they read it? Perhaps they read it just the same? I don't know. I've never asked.

Yes, we do!!

I was more thinking about the formlessness than the empty part, zoe, as far as something that you might take exception to. If bohu means "emptiness" then it's pretty easy, and everybody will probably have the same idea. But tohu? I don't know. Augustine claimed he couldn't conceptualize it. Really, how can you conceptualize "formlessness"?

I guess all I'm saying is that OECers will have to have a more concrete idea of tohu than YECers are necessarily bound to. That's not to say that YECers can't come to the same concrete idea, or that the concrete idea is right or wrong. I'm pretty sure you would believe that the earth, four billion years ago, was roughly the same shape it is now, no? So, I would guess that you would take tohu to refer to its state of being uninhabitable and inhospitable to life, and in that sense, chaotic. I take it that you would read it as if there was no order to the earth in the same sense there is today--a defined water cycle, progression of seasons, weather patterns, etc. I don't know about you, but I could see that as an acceptable meaning for the word. It wasn't, apparently, what Augustine had in mind (after all, it isn't too hard to conceptualize that!). But what if we take tohu more literally as chaotic, rather than simply describing it in a relational sense (chaotic with reference to life), we take it in an absolute sense? Now, I flat confess I'm at odds with myself here, because I agree with Augustine that such an idea cannot be conceptualized. What would that mean? But at the same time, there is something attractive about it, from a 14th century B.C. perspective. The idea that the creation was originally a formless chaos certainly seems to be an idea the ancient Hebrews would have had little trouble accepting. I could defend the notion philosophically if I were allowed to get a bit into Aristotelean metaphysics . . .

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit now. I think I've answered my own question. I don't really see how OEC could take tohu in an absolute sense, but certainly it could do so--and do so very well--in a sense relative to life. Whether a YECer takes one or the other position doesn't really affect what I'm trying to find out here. Agree, disagree?

jac wrote:But what if we take tohu more literally as chaotic, rather than simply describing it in a relational sense (chaotic with reference to life), we take it in an absolute sense?

jac wrote:guess all I'm saying is that OECers will have to have a more concrete idea of tohu than YECers are necessarily bound to.

I think we already have....mopst of the imagers I here from the YEC models are of the "poofing" into existence. I think the actual process invoke a much more evocative and concrete image of formlessness.

Form the beginning (whether the bIg Bang or something resembling it), we have the chaos of the molecules, the reactions, the energy that slowly begins to form into small particles, larger particles that attract larger particles, that attract even larger particles that become planets, asteroids, and develop into ordered planetary systems. The reactions that produce the stars, the suns, and the galaxies.

The development of the waters, the layers of the earth...

Certainly if we take the current ideas of the chaos of the "primordial" conditions, I can certianly see that as chaotic and formless. When we look at the potential events of the creation of life, I think the image of oceans teeming with the materials for life that are in disorder and disarray (the mixture of improper chemicals that wouldn't create life),the harsh conditions that prevent life....and then the image of God working amongst the chaos of early earth to construct the the organic molecules, the early cells, ....that isn't formless and void?!? From a boggling mixture comes a reproducing, orderly, precise cell....

YEah, GOd is great, God is a God that creates order from chaos, that filled and declared the purposes of this universe....that is our theology from this passage.

Again, don't now why this passage has been declared more meanigful for the YEC wih respect to the thology tha can be estblished fom it.

jac wrote:But what if we take tohu more literally as chaotic, rather than simply describing it in a relational sense (chaotic with reference to life), we take it in an absolute sense?

jac wrote:guess all I'm saying is that OECers will have to have a more concrete idea of tohu than YECers are necessarily bound to.

I think we already have....mopst of the imagers I here from the YEC models are of the "poofing" into existence. I think the actual process invoke a much more evocative and concrete image of formlessness.

Form the beginning (whether the bIg Bang or something resembling it), we have the chaos of the molecules, the reactions, the energy that slowly begins to form into small particles, larger particles that attract larger particles, that attract even larger particles that become planets, asteroids, and develop into ordered planetary systems. The reactions that produce the stars, the suns, and the galaxies.

The development of the waters, the layers of the earth...

Certainly if we take the current ideas of the chaos of the "primordial" conditions, I can certianly see that as chaotic and formless. When we look at the potential events of the creation of life, I think the image of oceans teeming with the materials for life that are in disorder and disarray (the mixture of improper chemicals that wouldn't create life),the harsh conditions that prevent life....and then the image of God working amongst the chaos of early earth to construct the the organic molecules, the early cells, ....that isn't formless and void?!? From a boggling mixture comes a reproducing, orderly, precise cell....

YEah, GOd is great, God is a God that creates order from chaos, that filled and declared the purposes of this universe....that is our theology from this passage.

Again, don't now why this passage has been declared more meanigful for the YEC wih respect to the thology tha can be estblished fom it.

Again, don't now why this passage has been declared more meanigful for the YEC wih respect to the thology tha can be estblished fom it.

Can you quote me where I said or implied it was??

May I suggest listening to John Walton's (Professor at Wheaton College) lecture on the subject (just about an hour long). It may not be exactly what you're looking for Jac (a line by line exegesis from an OEC perspective) but I believe it answers your question in an indirect manner, one which I was trying to do initially but failed. Namely, that to interpret the creation account from any perspective other than the historical/contextual one (from not only the Israelites' point of view but that of the ancient Near East in general) is a faulty premise.

To summarize, Walton makes quite a compelling point that Genesis has absolutely nothing to do with creation of matter (structure) per se and certainly nothing on how long it took to accomplish creation ex nihilo (on which Genesis is silent). He argues that if Genesis is looked at from the cultural understanding of the time, Genesis has everything to do with the creation of function and order (from existing material), rather than structure. Looked at from that perspective, YEC/OEC arguments simply become nonsensical.

Thanks, Byblos. I'll be sure to check it out.

Jac3510 wrote:

Again, don't now why this passage has been declared more meanigful for the YEC wih respect to the thology tha can be estblished fom it.

Can you quote me where I said or implied it was??

jc wrote:guess all I'm saying is that OECers will have to have a more concrete idea of tohu than YECers are necessarily bound to.

My apologie if I have taken more form this, but this cetainly seems to imply that the "tohu* argument tends to be more YEC theology than OEC. I am certainly not convincced gven what has been presented.

Gladly pull back from this.

Well, forgive my lack of qualification. I meant exactly what was said, not what it might have implied. It does seem that OEC is bound to a more concrete take on tohu (which, I already noted, I agreed with in any case) than a YEC necessarily would. I only mean that a YEC has more options to choose from, but that, of course, does not make his position more right. What is important is not the number of choices, but whether the proper choice is available. If the proper view is the more concrete notion, which I think it does, then neither OEC nor YEC has anything to boast in the matter.

As to how all this relates to the argument, please remember that I'm only interested in this thread in trying to get at the exegetical theology of OEC as it pertains to this passage. Whether or not it is right or wrong is irrelevant to my question, still less how it relates to YEC's superiority (or lackthereof).

I did explainh how I think tohu relates to an OEC perspctive

Where did I say or imply that you didn't, zoe? Sheesh . . . I realize this is an OEC board, but I cannot understand the assumptions--since the very beginning, I'm having to go back and restate over and over again that I'm not mounting any attacks on OEC/. I don't understand the defensive posture.

Jac,

I wans't getting on you that time. I know you're not attacking it. I just wondered, since you hadn;t commeted on my comment, that you might have missed it. Simple as that.

I was simply saying that I was attempting to do the thing you anted us to do...explain our theology. YOu had pointed out the word tohu and was merely saying that we would draw the same conclusion about the formless and void issue.

No, good grief, w have come to grips before and believe me, tha wassn't me being snippety and I apologize if it came of as such. That was merely a "did you see it? and "what did you think?"

Zoe,

Forgive me, I did to you what I thought you were doing to me--assuming something of an attack in your post that wasn't there. You did offer your view on tohu, which I am broadly inclined to accept. I think it's interesting that it's very concrete (as I noted any OEC interpretation would have to be!); it's even more concrete than I would probably be inclined to take it. I only originally thought in terms of an inhospitable earth, whatever else that may be. In any case, despite our perhaps overly cautious dance that we've been having, I think we're more in sync than not. I just need to be a bit more careful to avoid unnecessarily stepping on toes again.

Byblos,

Thanks very much for the link. I just finished the lecture, and it was very interesting. I can't agree with his conclusions as I think he took a few of his observations further than they are warranted, but it's impossible to deny that he hasn't gotten to some very important theological themes in the passage (which is very much what I'm looking for here). I'll definitely be picking up his commentary in the near future, and he's reignited my interest in looking at pagan cosmogony; but whereas he seems a bit more interested in Babylonian myths, I'm more convinced that Egyptian parallels are going to be far more important. It just seems to follow, since Moses was highly educated in Egyptian learning and Israel had just spend 400 years there!

But he mentioned a point in his lecture that I want to highlight for the simple reason that it makes me feel better about the existence of this thread. At the end, he was saying that the reason he likes his view is that it exalts Genesis to being something more than dealing with just the mundane questions of structural creation; it is, in fact, a distinctly theological interpretation (not to say fictional, of course) that deals with far grander issues. In that context, he said that perhaps the reason we have difficulty connecting with the theology of Genesis 1 (he is speaking of exegetical theology here, not systematics!) is that we've been so busy with a structural view.

Now, for my part, I've never had much difficulty connecting the exegetical theology of Genesis 1, but the fact that he recognizes that many people do lends credence, I think, to my original point. There must be an exegetical--not systematic--point of Genesis 1 beyond the mundane question of structural origins. What, then, is it? Those holding to the classical view have long had a strong answer (or answers) to this question. OEC--specifically of the day-age brand--is a relatively new interpretation, so I am not surprised to find that its adherents haven't gotten around to doing this part of their work yet. Walton's work is certainly something that should be looked at, although, again, one would have to be careful about how far they are willing follow him as, ultimately, his model disallows OEC just as much as it does YEC. But, again, the fundamental observations about the worldview of the time is interesting and certainly needs to be taken into account, and OEC advocates would, I think, do well to start thinking along those lines.

The bottom line for me in all this is that it seems to validate my original question. Whether Walton's interpretation is correct, which I don't think it is ultimately for methodological reasons, it does appear that OEC needs a stronger--or at least more visible--exegetical theology. Perhaps some of you here on this board could help in that regard.