Comments on Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Devastating News for Traditional Believers

I just found your blog, and was curious about your...

2010-06-08T23:02:31.625-05:00

I just found your blog, and was curious about your creation postings. This one really caught my attention!

A few years ago, I noticed that every creation day was an act of separation. Every day was creation through separation. Day 1: Separation of light from dark. Day 2: Waters from waters. Day 3: Land from Seas. Day 4: Night from day. Day 5: No explicit separation... hence separating Days 1-4 from 6-7. Day 6: Mankind from all other living things. Day 7: The Sabbath from all other days.

So, to read that verse 1 says God separated the heavens from the earth seems okay to me. After all, when the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago (by science's reckoning), God separated it for His purposes. Therefore, to find out that the word translated "created" really means "separated" is just a change in perspective, but not a change in the facts.

You can find the lecture from prof. dr van Wolde o...

2009-10-09T09:47:31.830-05:00

You can find the lecture from prof. dr van Wolde on my blog: http://bijbelaantekeningen.blogspot.com/2009/10/god-scheidde-de-wereld-2.html (see "oratie", it's in Dutch)

Claude, Van Wolde expands on some of this in her ...

2009-10-09T09:38:44.506-05:00

Claude,

Van Wolde expands on some of this in her forthcoming book from Eisenbrauns:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WOLREFRAM

We should have page proofs at SBL

James

This theory puts the Biblical story of creation on...

2009-10-09T07:10:25.386-05:00

This theory puts the Biblical story of creation on the same level as the big bang theory - a redistribution of an already existing universe, not an explanation of how the universe came into existence.

It's not a new heresy. The Mormons have been t...

2009-10-08T16:49:40.241-05:00

It's not a new heresy. The Mormons have been teaching the same for a long time.

The reported assertions of van Wolde above are fil...

2009-10-08T16:47:14.518-05:00

The reported assertions of van Wolde above are filled with overstatements and logical non sequiturs. For example, even if Genesis 1:1 has been mistranslated, it does not follow that the “Opening sentence of the bible is incorrect.” All that can be said is that the opening sentence of the Bible has been mistranslated and therefore misunderstood. Similarly, even if bara means separate rather than create, it is a logical leap to state that, “The traditional image of God the Creator is untenable. God did not create.” A case for God as Creator can be made biblically, theologically, and philosophically without Genesis 1:1. And although I am not a prophet, nor a son of a prophet, I think it unlikely that the publication of van Wolde's work "will be devastating to traditional believers."

If an Evangelical had made assertions like this he would be castigated (and rightly so). It will be interesting if any of the bibliobloggers out there who are so quick to jump on unfounded statements like this from Evangelicals will do the same in this case.