Dependent Clause Translations and the Age of the Earth

Conversation
,
1

Regarding the “debate” over the age of the earth, has anyone gotten a response from young earth creationism on the dependent clause translations of Genesis 1:1?

Genesis, 1-2 NRSV

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Genesis, 1-2 NRSVue

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Translations that suggest that the earth was formless before God began to create it? Kind of like how Adam was formless before God began to create Adam?

It seems pretty straightforward, in addition to God speaking in verse 1:3 and not 1:1, God speaking at the beginning of each creation day, but not in 1:1, and simple observation that the earth is created on day 3 and not day 1.

The syntax also matches Genesis 2. Where the world is formless:

Genesis 2:4 (Genesis 1:1), Your bookend.

Genesis 2:5-6 (Genesis 1:2), the formless state

Genesis 2:7 (Genesis 1:3), God begins to create.

Not that ex nihilo creation over 6-days ever made sense to begin with. Ex nihilo creation is instantaneous, so why would it be over 6 days? And if God created everything in Genesis 1:1, then what is going on in the rest of the 6 days?

And if so many translations have pre existing material before Genesis 1:1, then are young earth creationists denying the legitimacy of several Bible translations such as the CEB, NRSVue, NJPS, or even hybrid translations like the NABRE, YLT, or the NRSV?

1 Like
2

I think it’s pretty clear - at least to anyone informed about the worldviews of the Ancient Near East - that the beginning state is the Primordial Ocean. It’s a common view of that time and place, and we have the “deep” and “waters” explicitly mentioned.

1 Like
3

Yes.

It’s interesting that so much time, effort, and money, is spent by people nationwide to address this topic. People have these deep and detailed discussions about microbiology and physics, and radiometric dating, chemistry, the fossil record etc.

And yet, in not even a minute, we see that the topic is resolved merely by just reading the Bible.

And I can’t imagine young earth ministries would just reject a dozen translations of the Bible. Wouldn’t that just undermine the idea that God has protected the message?

It just seems like a lot of the discussions being held at a high level with PhD scientists are overlooking some of the most basic details of the subject.

1 Like
4

I think that a lot of people are hung up on their ideas about the Bible. Some, for instance, try to read modern scientific views into Genesis 1, because that’s what they think should be there. But no, it’s pretty clearly describing creation in terms that the original audience would recognise and understand.

1 Like
5

Young Earth Creationists have always objected to the dependent clause translation. (You can probably find lots of articles about it at AIG, CRI, CMI, etc) And being traditionalists, they favor the non-dependent-clause rendering of the KJV as well as all major modern translations: NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, etc. So I may not be fully understanding your question.

Young Earth Creationists for the most part reject the RSV & NRSV as liberal translations.

Absolutely.

CEB: “liberal” (uses inclusive language)

NRSVue: ditto—but much more severely liberal!

NJPS: a Jewish Bible (Most YECs will not know what NJPS stands for.)

NABRE: a Roman Catholic Bible. No. Not popular with YECs except among the few YECs who are RC.

YLT: old and traditional but done by an untrained, non-scholar publisher.

NRSV: “liberal”

Meanwhile, another reasons some YECs (the most educated) will reject the “when” translation is that it doesn’t appear to comply with the LXX (Septuagint.)

I’m not wild about the “when” dependent clause translation myself—though I will acknowledge that it can be found in rabbinical sources (yet doesn’t seem to be reflected in the LXX.)

Fascinating topic!

2 Likes
6

Many Young Earth Creationists consider Genesis 1:1 like a “chapter title”. And the Hebrew idiom itself can be considered appropriate for the entire section that begs a title like: “God Created Everything”—and then Genesis 1:2 is the beginning of the text per se, where the details of creation are described. (You will find this interpretation common among many bible readers, not just YECs.)

Not necessarily. ERETZ in Hebrew typically means LAND, not “planet earth” (The same is true of “earth” at the time of the KJV translation in 1611. And most modern translations have followed that precedent—many would say out of respect for tradition and what most Bible readers expect to see in their Bibles.)

Thus, an ERETZ (land) can be “unformed” (as in undeveloped) before plants and animals are added, for example.

3 Likes
7

Interesting! I suppose that would make sense that culture wars and perception of what is “liberal” vs “conservative” might trump hebrew grammar. I’ll see if I can find articles on this by AiG or others.

8

Many people try to read modern theological views too, like the idea that God is omnipotent and therefore creates ex nihilo.

9

Most Young Earth Creationists are very dogmatic about what they consider to be “liberal” and thereby “tainted.”

However, in their defense, there are quite a few scholars who still reject the dependent clause view (although, to my knowledge, I would say that they are probably in the minority today when you go outside of evangelical graduate schools and seminaries.) I do recall some published articles basing their rejection of the dependent clause interpretation on grammatical concording (for the same grammatical construction) for other similar OT passages.

I worked far more in Koine Greek grammar than in Hebrew grammar—and I’ve been retired for a very long time—but I would have to say that I still personally favor “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. (However, if pressed, I actually prefer “the sky and the land” or even “the universe.”)

I’m neither YEC nor necessarily a “traditionalist”, but I still think the grammar doesn’t support the “when”. (Of course, a lot of major Bible translations agree with me on that one: NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.) And, yes, I’m heavily influenced by the LXX. I think the rabbis of around the 3rd century BCE are quite reliable on this matter. And their Greek translation is unambiguous and speaks loudly for “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

As I said, most scholars (at major universities and rabbinical schools) probably support the “when” due to rabbinical tradition—but I find the LXX compelling. And I’m convinced by the grammatical construction and BARASHIT parallels.

3 Likes
10

Thanks. So it sounds like we have two logical directions to go. The dependent clause translations could be either legitimate or illegitimate, based on Hebrew grammar. Traditions aside.

And it sounds like today, many, or perhaps most, Hebrew scholars seem to acknowledge dependent clause translations as legitimate, at least outside of evangelical circles.

If the dependent clause translations of Genesis 1:1 are grammatically legitimate, and grammatically possible, then rejecting them outright (beyond just having a preference based on the LXX Greek translation) could raise some serious questions, especially for Christians who affirm the authority of Scripture.

It’s hard to imagine anyone going this route. But I suppose it’s possible.

To remove ambiguity in the topic, if I’m playing a devils advocate, I would almost have to double down in suggesting that dependent clause translations are essentially corrupted and not grammatically possible, in order to nail down the independent clause translations as true, or the only possible truth. Ambiguity just doesn’t work well with hard-line positions. But can this route even be successfully done? Especially with so many hebrew scholars affirming their grammatical legitimacy?

Here is a video that brought the subject to my attention, I’ll try showing the link and image:

https://youtu.be/KmFE-qjoksc?si=3U0kRVKk00Wrcv6x.

1 Like
11

Tomorrow, to make this even more fun, I will proceed to shred my own position— or parts of it rather—now that I’ve thought about it a bit more. I’m not changing my position but as I thought about it I realize I know longer think the LXX argument is strong and I will explain why.

(I didn’t have time to watch the video tonight but I knew of Mike Heiser’s position—and I think I remember him from long ago. I think Heiser did his PhD work under Ron Troxel, although it might have been Michael Fox, at University of Wisconsin.)

1 Like
12

That’s true, But it seems pretty clear to me that the chaos of the Primordial Ocean is meant. Dry land is created in verse 9, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason to think that there was any before. If that’s the case “world” might be a better translation here.

13

I’m not sure it much matters. The major theological question, especially as concerns YEC, is whether anything material was already present prior to the subsequent days of creation. In this regard, the ensuing clause stating that earth was void and without form tells that the creation week unfolded in context of an existing, well, something.

It is the translation void that might inject an anachronistic conception of space and abstract nothingness that may be foreign to the thought here. Everywhere else in the OT the translation is along the lines of uninhabited and desolate, like a deserted ruin in the desert. Void, in the sense of absolute nothingness, is nowhere else found in the Hebrew Scripture, and I am not sure of the justification for using it here unless some philosophical or theological conception has worked its way in. If the days of creation began with a desolate landscape, that has obvious implications for the YEC conception of ex nihilo creation. This is not a gap, but a continuity.

Having said that, I personally do not subscribe any sort of concordant interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, which is more about search for meaning given the human condition and the world we live in, than a scientific account of origins. A recent literal week does not work in any event.

2 Likes
14

There are other scholarly interviews of the topic online, if you enjoy this content. Their explanations make sense to me, but like 99% of people am not a Hebrew speaker.

But here are a couple of you’re interested:

Dr. Henry Sun:

https://youtu.be/n0cIFCqOgqk?si=NrIheRaJuylWUnl3

And Dr. Holmstedt:

https://www.youtube.com/live/Hx0VfwQdzZo?si=-SPkS79EB5OMAjDc

But one thing that stuck out to me are that other creation texts of the ancient near east have similar introductions.

This is from Hebrew scholar Ben Stanhope in his book (Mis)Interpreting Genesis, pages 61-77.

Genesis 2:

Dependent temporal clause 4bWhen the Lord God made earth and heaven—

Parenthetical information 5Now no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet to grow, since the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the ground 6(but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground)—

Main clause 7The Lord God formed man from dust of the ground….

Kar 4

Dependent temporal clause When heaven had been separated from the earth, the distant trusty twin,

Parenthetical information (And) the mother of the goddesses had been brought into being; When the earth had been brought forth (and) the earth had been fashioned; When the destinies of heaven and earth had been fixed; (When) trench and canal had been given (their) right courses, (And) the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates had been established

Main clause (Then) Anu, Enlil, Šamaš, (and) Ea, the great gods, (And) the Anunnaki, the great gods, Seated themselves in the exalted sanctuary and recounted among themselves what had been created.

Atrahasis:

Dependent temporal clause, When the gods like men Bore the work and suffered the toil—

Parenthetical information, The toil of the gods was great, The work was heavy, the distress was much—

Main clause The Seven great Anunaki [gods] were making the Igigi [lower gods] suffer the work….

Enuma Elish:

Dependent temporal clause When on high heaven was not named, and the earth[121] beneath a name did not bear –

Parenthetical information primeval Apsu [fresh water] was their progenitor, life-giving Tiamat [salt water], the bearer of all; their waters together they mingled, no canebrake yet formed, no marsh discoverable – when of the gods none had appeared, names were not borne, destinies not decided,

Main clause the gods were given shape within them, Lah̬mu and Lah̬amu made to appear, names they bore.

“Looking at this passage (Genesis 2), the respected Hebraist Bill T. Arnold agrees in the New Cambridge Bible Commentary, “The syntax of 2:4b-7 is not unlike that of 1:1-3.”[129] So, the dependent clause opening of Genesis is indeed odd and cumbersome when we compare it across the syntax of the Bible as a whole, but it is typical in a generic sense when we compare it to other creation narratives from Genesis 1’s ancient Mesopotamian literary context and the “second creation account” occurring in the immediately following chapter. This correspondence seems so unlikely to be a mere coincidence (since its literary formula is so unusual) that the Hebraist Jack M. Sasson at Vanderbilt Divinity School cites it as part of the reason he believes the dependent clause translation is now “beyond dispute.” ”

Ben Stanhope’s book is interesting if you hadn’t read it yet.

But if the dependent clause translation were grammatically possible, as hebrew scholars are saying, then what does it mean that young earth ministries suggest that their view is the only one possible?

I would imagine the only thing it could mean, is that they might deny the original Hebrew scripture.

15

One thing that I think is also interesting is that, from my understanding, ex nihilo creation itself is anachronistic with respect to the age and time in which Genesis was written. Which means that if both options were grammatically plausible, in addition to observations noted:

  1. God speaking in verse 3, not in verse 1,
  2. the syntax aligning with Genesis 2 and other ANE texts,
  3. the Hebrew word bara not meaning ex nihilo (see Ezekiel 21:19),
  4. the earth actually being created on day 3 rather than in verse 1 , etc.,

It wouldn’t be a fair shakedown and the dependent clause view would easily become the more feasible of the two options.

But even still, even if we accepted complete and full ambiguity in that both translations were possible, just the ambiguity alone would completely remove the purpose of people debating the age of the earth. If Genesis never said anything about the timing of ex nihilo creation, then why would anyone waste their time debating the topic?

I’m not a concordist, but just making an observation: since many Hebrew scholars say both translations are possible, how should we understand young earth ministries rejecting one of these legitimate options? Are they rejecting the Hebrew text itself, or is there another way to look at this?

16

I can’t give you a scholarly opinion, but it’s often said that YEC ministries are reading things into the Bible that simply aren’t there.

1 Like
17

One of the reasons is that Young Earth Creationists Bible scholars and pastors attended and/or are associated with schools and churches/denominations with very rigid doctrinal statements. And in the majority of cases, the professors and pastors can lose their jobs if they deviate from the associated standard interpretation.

In contrast, most graduate schools (like the one I attended) require you to learn the pros and cons of basically all of the major views on each Bible passage. And that’s one of many reasons why I happen to think what “when” better fits the grammar of Genesis 1:1, for example, but I have no problem changing my opinion via additional evidence—and I do NOT “go to war” with someone with a different opinion. (It is a VERY complicated topic. And I also freely admit that many others are far better trained than I am on this topic.)

GENESIS 1:1 IN THE SEPTUAGINT

As I think about it, the Torah was translated in to Greek (the LXX) in Alexandria in probably the 3rd century BCE. The fact they rendered it as “In the beginning” {in Greek} and not “when” is not something to be immediately dismissed—BUT I do think they were mainly Greek speakers (as native language) who were translating from their second language (Hebrew). So they could definitely be wrong. (Unintentionally, of course.)

3 Likes
18

By the way, @AdrianB, it a tradition on Peaceful Science—if he/she so wishes—that the newcomer tells us a bit about themselves. I know I would be curious to know more about your work and training as a geologist. (As someone from a Young Earth Creationist background long ago, geology played a part in my “learning my way out” of YECism, though biology, physics, and exegesis played major roles also.)

19

Why did YECism become so dogmatic and explode in popularity in the 1960s?

The primary answer is Morris & Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood. It is largely responsible for the “YEC fortress” mentality.

I knew John Whitcomb Jr. (and lived just down the road from him for a while.) I did a lot of work with one of his faculty colleagues and got to know John from that. He was a nice fellow,but hard-headed. In fact, he got MORE conservative as he got older and turned against his own seminary as if they were “too liberal” (despite their fundamentalist theology and culture.)

Ken Ham and others have built financial empires from the Morris/Whitcomb and Duane Gish roots. Financial incentives and dogged fundamentalism led them to create virtual cults of “Only we are right.”

3 Likes
20

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.