Some choose to interpret the universe and matter into the first two verses of Genesis 1. If they choose this route they are tasked with convincing the reader that God and the sacred author used figurative language in this context, e.g. Earth figuratively alludes to matter. They are also tasked with defining the key words universe and matter in no uncertain terms. Then they are tasked with convincing the reader that their definitions of the key words universe and matter is what God and the sacred author directly intended to communicate to the reader via the figures they chose. For example you will have to explain how the sacred author knew your definition of matter's creation ex nihilo well enough to describe it using figures of speech. Did the sacred author see matter, figure it as the Earth, and then describe it as a tohu wabohu? Did the sacred author go to school in Greece, learn Aristotle's concepts of matter and decide to put it in his own words? Is it even possible that the sacred author referred to matter via the word 'Earth'???
Similar with those commentators who wish to adopt models of modern physics and assume them to the Sacred Text. Convince me, that the sacred author saw the Big-Bang or studied general and special relativity as well as quantum mechanics at Oxford. Convince me that the sacred author saw the Higg's Boson field and particle and decided to represent it with the words Earth and tōhû wābōhû.
History of Matter Interpretations
In his survey of Genesis 1 translations and interpretations through the ages Jaki begins with the ancient Jewish sages who lived after the Hellenistic invasion of the Middle East. He mentions:
Some took the tohu and bohu as the prime matter from which light and darkness were respectively created. (Jaki, Stanley J. Genesis Through the Ages, Chapter 1: Genesis 1 and Jewish Sages, p. 37)Some Jewish sages were likely influenced by Grecian notions of matter perhaps Aristotle's. Aristotle's vague matter concept was linked to his change of substance and form concepts. These terms were used rather ambiguously. But the problem with this line of interpretation of that the concept 'matter' was not something the ancient Hebrew author conceived of. He lived well before Aristotle and the Grecian philosophers. This alone should rule out the matter interpretation of Gen 1:2. Do you really think the ancient Hebrew sacred author and possible prophet knew of the Greek concepts of matter? If so which Greek philosopher did he follow? Aristotle or Democritus? Is it even possible to retain intellectual honesty when travelling down this foreign interpretive path?
Through history the matter interpretation continues to appear. Some Christians have adopted the matter interpretation. Saint Basil, a Church Father from the 4th century was up in arms concerning the matter interpretation:
But the corrupters of the truth, who, incapable of submitting their reason to Holy Scripture, distort at will the meaning of the Holy Scriptures, pretend that these words mean matter. For it is matter, they say, which from its nature is without form and invisible,—being by the conditions of its existence without quality and without form and figure. (Basil Hexaemeron, Homily II)My favorite example of the sloppy matter interpretation is taken from the drunken-opium induced proto-god of modern cosmology also known as Edgar Allan Poe. After his wife died Poe entered into a severe depression and penned a delusional book called Eureka: A Prose Poem. In this book he used a sloppy translation of Gen 1:2, in particular tōhû wābōhû to help him dream up a primitive version of the Big-Bang model:
We have attained a point where only Intuition can aid us: — but now let me recur to the idea which I have already suggested as that alone which we can properly entertain of intuition. It is but the conviction arising from those inductions or deductions of which the processes are so shadowy as to escape our consciousness, elude our reason, or defy our capacity of expression. With this understanding, I now assert — that an intuition altogether irresistible, although inexpressible, forces me to the conclusion that what God originally created — that that Matter which, by dint of his Volition, he first made from his Spirit, or from Nihility, could have been nothing but Matter in its utmost conceivable state of — what? — of Simplicity?
Let us now endeavor to conceive what Matter must be, when, or if, in its absolute extreme of Simplicity. Here the Reason flies at once to Imparticularity — to a particle — to one particle — a particle of one kind — of one character — of one nature — of one size — of one form — a particle, therefore, “without form and void” — a particle positively a particle at all points — a particle absolutely unique, individual, undivided, and not indivisible only because He who created it, by dint of his Will, can by an infinitely less energetic exercise of the same Will, as a matter of course, divide it. (Taken from Section 02)It is good to note that Poe preceded LeMaitre's primeval atom hypothesis by about eighty years. But notice how ridiculously Poe contradicts himself in the same sentence. He speculates a discrete particle of one form and yet magically 'without form and void'! An object cannot both have a form and not have a form. By definition an object has form. All types of matter, whether the fundamental objects constituting as well as interconnecting all atoms and the atoms themselves this primal quality called FORM. And void refers to that which lacks form. So then did God disintegrate and then annihilate whatever it was that Earth refers to?
Poe got drunk, inhaled opium and fed off of bad translations. Poe's folly illustrates the faultiness of the 'formless', 'without form', 'shapeless', 'without shape' and 'void' translations of the Hebrew tōhû wābōhû. These translations are heavily influenced by outdated Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophical notions. Philosophic notions such as matter and form and substance have no place in Genesis 1.
In our times commentators continue to read space and matter into the first verses of the great Genesis 1. Some examples include:
Rev. John F. McCarthy: On the plain and superficial level, the earth (haarets) in verse 1 means the land inhabited by man, whether it be thought of as a globe, a disk, or just a territory with as yet unknown borders. On the technical literal level it seems to mean primal matter as the ground of all future corporeal beings.
in another place
Taking, then, a model of modern physics, we can interpret the text as saying that, on the most elementary subatomic level, the "earth" spoken of here is the primal matter which was created as the "ground" of all more organized matter and which was infinitesimal, unstructured, minimally informed, and in a totally fluid state. (see his page:http://www.rtforum.org/)
McCarthy supports the concordist school of interpretation and it seems that he manipulates words like a magician. In one verse we are shifting from Earth to ground to matter to the subatomic level. Similarly some misguided interpreters are packing into a single word from Earth to clay to homonids to male and female gametes in their desperation to make Genesis 2 conform to modern theories of evolution.
Next,
Pastor Bill Randles: The first verse of the Bible, is a summation of all that exists, for there is only Creator and creation. The infinite, personal, almighty, and Holy God made the heavens, (Space) and the Earth, (Matter) in the beginning, (Time). [...] The text simply tells us that when God created matter, it was originally in a formless state, waiting for his creative hand to give shape to it. Our physical world was created first in a formless state, and also in a state of darkness, for it pleased God to shape , and energize the world in later stages of Creation. (see his page:http://billrandles.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/creation-ex-nihilo-genesis-1-pt-2/)
So Heaven refers to space and Earth to matter. Space and matter are concepts. God doesn't create concepts, He creates objects. Created objects relate via objects (mediators) and we conceptualize their relations.
Lakeside Ministries: "WITHOUT FORM AND VOID" [. . .] THE ESSENTIAL MEANING, THEREFORE, IS: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (or SPACE and MATTER), and the matter so created was at first unformed and uninhabited." [. . .] The created cosmos, as discussed earlier, was a tri-universe of TIME, SPACE, and MATTER. Initially there were no stars or planets, only the basic matter component of the space-matter-time continuum. The elements that were to be formed into the planet Earth were at first only elements, not yet formed but nevertheless comprising the basic matter- the "DUST" of the earth. (reference:http://lakesideministries.com/1stCovenant/Genesis/04_GenSect0102_Creation_Itself.htm)
So the Middle Eastern Hebrew author conveniently conceived of a tri-universe of Time, Space and Matter---all Western concepts.
Some few have even tried to fit the Big-Bang into the first three verses (e.g. Gerald Schroeder). The Earth refers to the universe or prime matter (whatever that is), tohu and bohu refers to the state of prime matter, the darkness over faces of waters refers to space-time, the Spirit is moving over space-time and then Bang! Flash! There is light. Out go the discrete photon particles which miraculously stretch as waves. About 13.8 billion years later the scientists detect them with their grand technology and some interpreters proclaim to the world that Genesis 1 was always right after all!!! We have proof in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. And so on. Apparently the sacred author studied mathematical physics and knew that relativity breaks down at the quantum level. He was a follower of Lemaitre, Einstein, Hubble, and the gang. Maybe he built a satellite. Or perhaps he had a vision of the Big-Bang. What do you think?
Personal intentions aside, I think that those who read in prime matter or Big-Bang in the second verse of Genesis join the ranks of drunks, charlatans and frauds. There is no justification for reading the creation of matter into the first sequence of Genesis 1 period. This is an unsound interpretation. Sober faith-filled minds snub their noses at these ridiculous interpretations. They betray a lack of humility and respect for the Sacred Script which implies respect for God and the sacred author who worked together in a mystical relationship as joint authors.
For whatever reason, from time immemorial, probably out of misguided pride or weakness of mind, men try to wed Genesis 1 to the physics and/or philosophy of the day. Or they get delusional. Instead of coming up with creative solutions with what has been given in the Text they get delusions of grandeur. Of course there are also those at the other end of the spectrum who sell out completely on Faith.
Conclusion of the Above
Throughout history matter has been ill-defined. It is a joke of a word. People, including scientists, use it for anything and everything. The sacred author could have cared less about matter. To imagine the sacred author thought of or saw the creation of what would have been to him unknown material and then describe it using figures is an unacceptable stretch of the imagination.
Instead, what is clear is that an astronomical object called Earth is the important object to the sacred author since this is the location where all the supernatural events that he relates take place. And it is important to us since we are conceived and born on Earth, live on Earth and will certainly die on Earth. Christians also believe that God will create a New Earth after the Resurrection and Last Judgment.
A central theme of Genesis 1 is the Earth. Earth is elect, chosen by God. This does not imply that the Earth is the center of the universe. This was read into the Text by the Greek influenced ancients. Genesis 1 has nothing to do with physics or philosophy, Greeks or ANE myths, moderns or ancients, believers or atheists, medievals or post-Moderns, rabbis or priests, Popes or gurus, creation ex nihilo or an eternal universe, Big-Bang or the cosmological principle. Genesis 1 has everything to do with a miraculous course of events that God, in the past, wrought in relation to Earth and showed to the sacred author who in-errantly recorded them in the third person. That is all.
The Definition of Universe and Matter
I now want to share a clear definition of universe and matter that I have inherited in order to confirm that there is no possible way the sacred author could be referring to these in the first and second verse of the Bible.
Universe is a concept, to be more precise an abstract concept. Concept refers to a relation between two or more objects worked out by the brain. Modify concept to a higher order mode and one has a nest of objects and/or concepts together in abstraction. Universe is an abstract binary conceptual system that relates space and matter. Matter is quite simply a conceptual nest of all existing objects, i.e. all that which has form. For example, atoms, stars, trees, and so on. Space relates lack of form, in other words a static distance between all existing objects. I would guess that an ancient got sick of saying, "All the trees, and all the hills and the seas, and all the men, women, and children, and all the stars, and space and the aether, etc." So he came up with the bright idea now called Universe or Cosmos. Universe lacks From, this name resolves to a high order abstraction.
Again, space is a sheer concept that refers to nothing in existence. It is all 'where' and no 'what'. Space is distance. Space does not have form and neither does time. Objects do not occupy space or time. We imagine space and time, and then hopefully define these words but objects are just there, they cannot be defined.
Earth
The events of Genesis 1 are frames of the Universal Movie. And yet they were not a result of Mother Nature, but of God emitting His Spirit and supernaturally transforming the face of the Earth in what I simply call the light-event. And he initiated an exclusive relationship with the Earth that is not found among all the stars of the universe. God accomplished the impossible.
The subject of Gen 1:2 is planet Earth. The Earth of the second verse is not a figure referring to matter or anything else other than the ancient astronomical object under our feet. The second verse picks up with the Earth of the first verse. She is the new subject and the sacred author adds additional information and modification concerning her.
My loose speculation is that the Earth of the first verse and second verse is an old dark star that naturally transitioned up to the time when the Spirit was emitted. The assumption that the Earth is the cinder of what was once a star has rarely been suggested through history but it is much more reasonable than the solar nebular assumption. Perhaps it is even suggested in this lofty sequence from the Book of Job. God speaks to Job:
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?
Tell me, if you possess understanding!
Who set its measurements – if you know –
or who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its bases set,
or who laid its cornerstone –
when the morning stars sang in chorus,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (NET)
The formation of the Earth seems to be associated with a time of morning stars perhaps referring to the first stars.
Some modern philosophers and physicists, one of whom is Anthony J. Abruzzo have gone as far as to suggest that the Earth is an old dark star that has existed for billions of years, longer than the supposed age of the Universe in modern physical cosmology. This idea makes more sense to me, and fits in better with an interpretation of Genesis 1. Even G.K. Chesterton made a strange and somewhat mystical allusion to this idea that Earth is a star:
If we once realize all this earth as it is, we should find ourselves in a land of miracles: we shall discover a new planet at the moment that we discover our own. Among all the strange things that men have forgotten, the most universal and catastrophic lapse of memory is that by which they have forgotten that they are living on a star.
---G.K. Chesterton, From The Defendent
In any case sacred author sets up his story perhaps countless years after creation ex nihilo at the previously stated object, the Earth. He did not necessarily have to know anything about Earth's prior history. It was just there in his vision, and he was left to describe it in the Script, generally, as it was just prior to the light-event.
This is my basic interpretive theory to help shed light on the first and second verses of Genesis 1. In the second verse the sacred author speaks of the Earth as an evident object of anterior creation. What he knew of the Earth's history prior to what he was shown is a moot point. All he stated was that God had created a definite object he traced as Earth. I think the sacred author saw the Earth in a vision from a bird's eye view as if orbiting her like a satellite. He saw her face like we see the face of the Moon from Earth, only he had a closer view. The word he chose to describe the full view of her face was the mystic tōhû wābōhû.
Informal Intro to Genesis 1:2
There are all sorts of talk about the grammar of the second verse and how it fits into sequence of the first three verses e.g. disjunctive clause, circumstantial clause, parenthetical clause. Perhaps the insight that circumscribes all the grammar talk is the suggestion by Westermann that the second verse is a ‘this and not yet that’ description. The Earth is described as she appeared just prior to the main event or the light-event as I call it.
The sacred author was not given a prophetic movie of the Earth's entire history from when she first formed, I assume like all stars do, gravitation-ally from an interstellar cloud with perhaps some trigger event. Instead he was given a some frames of the Earth just prior to God entering the movie. God was about to manifest Himself by transfiguring the Earth via the missive Spirit. The Spirit was primed to receive God's commands and work the Earth in the cold darkness of interstellar space. It was a very exciting time, and the prophet was fortunate to have been given sight of this great miracle, a miracle so great that only little children of the Holy Father can believe it.
The Earth was at that time not unlike other planets or moons. An old dark star metamorphosed from its younger phase of fusion, compression, crystallization and chemical reaction. She probably passed through several dense interstellar clouds by which atomic elements and molecules diversified her makeup. The elements of her essence synthesized and solidified. As she cooled she probably synthesized H2O helping form her crust or perhaps assimilated some of her H2O from a dense interstellar medium for water is abundant between stars.
Earth was a wandering star. In its latter stages of development the Earth may have even orbited a younger star besides the Sun. But when God initiated the first described event of our Genesis 1 story the Earth was moving about halfway out from the galactic core in the vicinity of a newer star called by the sacred author the "greater light", the Sun. After God forms the atmosphere, He will move the Earth in a gravitational lock with the Sun later in the story, on the fourth Divine day. He will also place the lesser light, the moon and the other planets of our solar system which he calls stars in close relation to Earth so they can be seen by us and used to keep times, on the same day.
But when God was about to initiate the light-event the Earth had some sort of core, mantle, crust, a water supply and either no atmosphere or a thin atmosphere. And she was not a ball of chaos. She was slumbering in the cold darkness of space. Some of her surface froze over and she appeared as an astonishing-desert or wasteland. Perhaps she was an ice planet. Not a lot of activity was happening on her surface. There were no living entities. She was waiting to receive the stimulation of the Spirit and glow in the dark!
The seer saw her full face in a prophecy, was mystified and came up with a playful word to first describe her, namely: tōhû wābōhû. There are some excellent scholarly studies of this gem of a Hebrew word.
No comments:
Post a Comment