Hm...interesting. So someone flubbed on a translation way back in the day? But what does this really mean to people who believe in God? So, maybe he didn't *create* the world, but does that make him any less mighty or powerful to religious types?

Where did she find an original copy of the Bible?

Her interpretation makes a lot more sense. It's been proven that the earth has been around far longer than humans and animals.

Maybe Christians would be more apt to quit ignoring scientific fact if it wasn't directly contradicted by the Bible.

In transcribing the original hebrew to a new scroll in hebrew I would hope they could copy the right word down.

Actually I've heard this theory/translation a long time ago, that the world was once covered with water. The verse (Genesis 1:2) immediately following the one she is translating (1:1) states: 'And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.'

Many Native American legends begin with the earth covered in water, as well as Babylonian, Egyptian, Guatemalan, Philippines, and perhaps more.

See: for many variations.

That's Bad!

And by that I mean the 1980s 'bad' which was good and not the 1990's bad which had bad being actually bad.

Languages change. Although by current hebrew the verb could mean to separate by ancient hebrew the verb could have meant to create. There is also the literal versus the figurative to consider. Jesus said it is harder for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven... As a western culture we take this as literal. Big camel, small needle, impossible. As an eastern culture they took it as figurative. That and the eye of the needle was actually an arch in the center of town which a camel COULD go through if he got down on his knees.

What is written, what is meant, what actually happened. Most journalists will tell you that those are three completely different things.

If you believe in the Bible, and therefore the church, you believe that the translation was divinely guided and inspired. Thus what was written in Hebrew and translated to English could be worded differently and still mean the same thing.

If you don't believe in a divine translation, well.. what's the point anyway? 'Sure, God is there but he let us get the book wrong for a couple of thousand years until this scholar figured it out.'?

This is the part that makes me giggle every time.

You know, because King James didn't have a personal agenda...or a cadre of scribes and 'scholars' with agendas.

Y'know, I'll bet that the biblical scholar who has dedicated their entire life to studying the bible, the words it contains and the language it was written in has never, ever once considered that.

Yes, makes much more sense the way you put it.

You should probably give her a call and point out her mistake before she does anything silly.

this is a very interesting theory/ thesis. i wonder why it took someone so long to go back and look at the original hebrew version of the bible and double check the translations we use currently.

Or maybe it just took someone so long to get this bold and make a completely controversial idea. Forget the translation she just made. What about the oral tradition of the original people who told this story over and over? I refuse to believe they wouldn't know what they meant when they told the story over and over again. All the major Judeo-Christian religions wouldn't have God as the creator today if back then this was believed. Thus this translation cannot be right if it is new.

BTW, in seminary school everyone studies hebrew and whatnot in order to become a priest or pastor. Not all, mind you, but people are ENTRENCHED in this s**t.

For those who are wondering why this is a big deal, the idea of creation "ex nihilo" is one of the major distinguishing points between the Judeo-Christian scriptures and most pagan mythologies. The idea that God did not create, but instead reshaped, makes this story much more similar to other ancient religions.

As for why no one has examined this before, deedlezx, I assure you these texts, both in the original Hebrew and in various translations since, have been examined and dissected by theologians and scholars for well over 2,000 years. This theory isn't somehow a vast leap in scholarship, but one among thousands that just happens to tickle the modern, secular ear.

Yes. Of course it does.

Remember when it turned out that Milli Vanilli didn't sing on their hits?

It's like that, only about a bazillion times worse.

lol, are you a religious type who really believes in the bible though? Does this make you question some things or do you just chalk it up to another uncovered debunking?