Christopher Heard commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Thank you for this post, John. I always appreciate your contributions to interesting conversations like this. I have shared my own initial reaction here.
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
As often, Chris, we find ourselves on the same page.
View ArticleDr. Dale Beckett commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
I went to a moral philosophy workshop once, where one of the speakers said the phrase "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" had been mistranslated from the...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Dr. Beckett,That would be from the Greek, since you are quoting from the Gospel of John. The Greek word in question is "logos," a word with great semantic depth which, in context, certainly requires a...
View ArticleSiward commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Thanks for the post. Makes sense to me that the word create is a plausible translation. I always have red this for myself as that God responded to the darkness & chaos by creating light. Can it be...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Siward,It's true that God expresses a judgment, moral and aesthetic at the same time perhaps, in declaring the light "good," something God does not say about the darkness, the earth in a disorganized...
View ArticleHLS commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Perhaps the word בְּרֵאשִׁית means "with" REISHIS, referring to the 5 letters which follow the letter BEIS ("Reish", "Aleph", "Shin", "Yud", "Thof") did אֱלֹהִים make what follows. Notice how the words...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
HLS,I would just point out that games with letters in the Talmud co-occur with less playful and more analytic modes of interpretation. I'm not interested in changing your mind, but I will reveal my...
View ArticleHLS commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Thank you. On another sentence- We have the physical science observation that darkness is the absence of light, i.e., there is a continuum of total light to zero light. Darkness does not "exist", so to...
View ArticleDave Jewell commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
My immediate reaction was that if the verb 'bara' was intended to communicate "spatially separate" (as Prof van Wolde suggests) then why didn't the writer use the verb badal? You can see badal being...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
I do not of course question the validity of the physical science explanation of light and darkness, but would note that biblical passages which speak of creation do not assume that explanation. Note...
View Articlemichael adare commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
On the subject of the Greek word logos,logos translates to "word",The word of God as in God spoke,in Greek logos is Gods word.Logos is Gods logic,Hes word.
View ArticleHebrew Scholar commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
As you correctly point out, generations of Bible scholars of all faiths and angles (Jewish, Christian, etc.), including Jews whose first language was Hebrew and Aramaic, have always understood the verb...
View Articlenon-believer commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Dear scholars, I am as humbled by your profound knowledge and deep thinking as amazed by your desperate belief in this amazing storybook called the bible. There is no such thing as an expert on the...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Non-believer,I'm not sure about your beliefs, but mine are more hopeful than desperate. May God's providence continue to uphold you.
View ArticleACM commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
As I understand it, Prof. van Wolde's book is not yet out, and the news reports that I have seen do not give the details of her argument. How can someone "respond" to her without knowing what she will...
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Hi ACM,I responded to the professor's public statements made to the press, readily available in both Dutch and English. The statements are detailed enough to allow for carefully qualified criticism,...
View Articlerbryant commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Has Professor Ellen van Wolde Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew at the Tilburg University resorted to prerelease sensationalism to promote a book, and a thesis? I'm not buying either....
View ArticleJohnFH commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Dear Rbryant,That's just it. I'm not interested in a revolutionary take on Gen 1:1 or any other biblical text. I'm interested in the most reasonable take, whether revolutionary, traditional, or...
View ArticleKendrick commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
Thank you very much for the article, and for all of the responses above. Got a link to this article earlier today, and sometimes wonder if people try to come up with these "revolutionary" views just to...
View ArticleOleg commented on 'A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1'
This discovery was made as early as 1993 in his book "What is motion" which was published in Russian. Enlarged English edition of the book "What is motion" can be downloaded here...
View Article
