Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory by Weston Fields

Author:Weston Fields
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Tags: Bible, Philosophy & Social Aspects, Science, Creation, General, Religion, Religion & Science, Christianity, Beginning, Christian Theology, Creationism
ISBN: 9780890514238
Publisher: New Leaf Publishing Group
Published: 1976-01-02T06:00:00+00:00

Explanation of the Dependent Clause View

Rashi

Rashi (d. 1105), a well-known Jewish scholar, was apparently one of the first to propose this sort of a translation.

Among those who view 1:1 dependently, there are at least two main differences in interpretation. First, there are those who follow Rashi in considering verse 1 to be the protasis: “When God began to create (or In the beginning of God’s creation/creating).” Then, verse 2 is the parenthesis: “the earth being/was ...” Finally, verse 3 is the apodosis: “God said, let there be light.” Adherents to this position have included Ewald, Albright, Eissfeldt, Orlinsky, Speiser, and Bauer.166 Let us allow Rashi to speak for himself on this translation:

This verse calls out to be explained in the same way that the sages have expounded it, viz.: “For the sake of the Torah which is called reshit, i.e., “the ‘beginning’ ” (Jer. 2:3). But if you want to explain it according to its obvious meaning, then translate it thus: At the beginning of Creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was desolate and void and there was darkness, then God said “let there be light.” The verse does not appear in order to show the order of Creation and tell us that the heaven and earth were created first. Because whenever the word reshit appears in Scripture, it is in the construct; so too here, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” should be translated as “In the beginning of God’s creating of the heaven and the earth.” There are several Biblical examples which support this translation. Should you insist, however, that the verse does intend to give the actual order of Creation, and that the meaning is that in the beginning of everything God created the heaven and the earth, then you should be surprised to find that the waters were really created first, since it is written that “The spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters,” (1:2) and that this appears before Scripture had yet stated when the waters were created—or that anything else had yet been created. Consequently, you are compelled to conclude that the verse teaches nothing about the sequence of creation.167

Rashi’s argument about the water is, of course, no more a problem than any one of the other elements which would be included in the term “the earth.” When God created the earth in Genesis 1:1, one of the things the earth had upon it was water, and so when this newly-created earth is described in Genesis 1:2, it is described as something covered with water. We find no problem with the sequence of creation here upon the basis of the water.

Ibn Ezra

A slightly different translation, but still based upon the construct state of bere’sit, is that proposed by another Jewish scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra (d. 1167).168 In contrast to Rashi, who considered 1:3 to be the main clause, Ibn Ezra considered 1:2 to contain the main clause. This would give the verses the following form:

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.