Land Before Time-- Genesis Revisited

[Mr E]

Have you ever paused to ponder the Creation Story simply on the basis of story-telling? It's a beautiful telling of origins as experienced, but not witnessed by the story teller. In fact, Genesis is the story about the story no one knows. The story we have and the story we know is attributed to Moses, but it is not some sort of play by play chronology of events, nor is it a literal depiction or 'as it happened' description of details that include the what, why, when and how. Rather it's Moses retelling a story he himself was taught, or something that came to him in dreams, while communing with the spiritual realm, or perhaps it was a widely known understanding at the time- a kind of legend passed down to him and everyone else, that he then put to parchment as it were-- and recorded for posterity, which we can now enjoy.

A story it is, and though it begins with "In the beginning" that is just the beginning of a story that truly begins before the beginning described. It hearkens to a time before, unknown and unmeasured where the spirit realm pre-existed as a metaphorical 'land before time' even though there was no land at all, nor anything "physical" that we can relate to. It was a "world" without form, 'the land' of the elohim and it's there, in this land before time, this spiritual world, where the story as told by Moses, begins--

In the beginning, elohim created the heavens and the earth.

This thread will be a conversational look at the story that has become so well known, yet so poorly understood. Genesis revisited.

[Mr E]

From a philosophical perspective, this thread asks the BIG question-- perhaps the biggest question-

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Or, to put it another common way-- What is the meaning (purpose) of life?

[Mr E]

Any serious student of scriptures must admit that the common reading of Genesis, and by virtue the common understanding is flawed. Immediately. In the very first line of text.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's how almost every English translation prints it, with few exceptions- but those exceptions* are distinctly more accurate and render the Hebrew as intended--

"In the beginning elohim created the heavens and the earth."

The difference is not insignificant or incidental. By ignoring this important distinction, you begin with error and that error has lasting consequences that are compounded and that impact your understanding of everything that follows that first line of text. It's like being taught 1+1= 3, and affirming that as fact--- it would affect every calculation there after.

First of all, it greatly impacts the story itself. Rather than having some singular beginning and individual Creator/God we begin instead with elohim-- plural and generic, spiritual in nature and loosely defined only as divine beings. Rather than "God" that most Christians might equate to meaning the Father, or perhaps Yahweh (the god of Israel) or Jehovah, or some other Hebrew name, we have specific reference to none of these-- instead, the text points directly at a group of creator-- elohim. Spiritual beings, who then proceed to create the heavens and the earth.


* of note, the TS2009 (The Scriptures 2009 edition) and the Tree of Life Version (messianic Bible) do include the proper Hebrew "elohim" rather than the errant inequivalent "God" replacement.

[Mr E]

What is the significance? Why does it matter?

Well, it does. For instance, it matters if there was a number, a group of creators, each endowed by the Father with the ability to create, and each there... with Him.... in a time before land as well as in a land before time, as it were. These creators, were given to create. And so they did. --That's what the text actually says and for all the literalists among us, just read it as written. The elohim created the heavens and the earth.

This stipulates that the elohim existed before anything and everything else that was to be created, was created.

And it suggests that the elohim were given the ability, capacity and desire to create. The begging question is who-- and/or what are the elohim?

[Mr E]

Have you ever considered the actual Hebrew text???

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Mr E in post #3]

Rather than having some singular beginning and individual Creator/God we begin instead with elohim-- plural and generic, spiritual in nature and loosely defined only as divine beings. Rather than "God" that most Christians might equate to meaning the Father, or perhaps Yahweh (the god of Israel) or Jehovah, or some other Hebrew name, we have specific reference to none of these-- instead, the text points directly at a group of creator-- elohim. Spiritual beings, who then proceed to create the heavens and the earth.

It's my understanding that in Hebrew we get singular/plural primarily from the verb rather than the noun. The verb 'create' here is in the singular.

[Mr E]

[Replying to Mr E in post #3]

Rather than having some singular beginning and individual Creator/God we begin instead with elohim-- plural and generic, spiritual in nature and loosely defined only as divine beings. Rather than "God" that most Christians might equate to meaning the Father, or perhaps Yahweh (the god of Israel) or Jehovah, or some other Hebrew name, we have specific reference to none of these-- instead, the text points directly at a group of creator-- elohim. Spiritual beings, who then proceed to create the heavens and the earth.

It's my understanding that in Hebrew we get singular/plural primarily from the verb rather than the noun. The verb 'create' here is in the singular.

Thanks for commenting. Yes, you are right in pointing this out, and from a strictly grammatical analysis the arguments of most biblical scholars agree with the orthodox understanding--- which insists that we simply ignore the plurality as if it was never there nor intended. (not shocked that as a group they would agree to avoid upsetting anyone's apple cart) Yet, the plurality is there, and later in the text, by the time you get to verse 27, it's glaringly included and cannot be easily explained away.

I'll revisit this later in the text as well, but since you pointed out the intricacy of the noun vs verb argument- let's look at it briefly now. The case goes something like this.... Even though the "im" in elohim definitely points to a group, or collection, or number of spiritual beings-- it's not what is meant.... so say the orthodox scholars. They will say that instead the plural verb is used to convey mucho majesty, as if to magnify the greatness of God, rather than pointing to the fact that there are any spiritual beings in existence besides this one, lonely God. The argument falls flat in the light of other scriptures that mention the sons of God (ben elohim) as divine beings present at the time of creation and that through the spirit(s) the earth was created. For example, God rhetorically asks Job-- "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? ... On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God (bənê ’ĕlōhîm) shouted for joy?"

So there is good reason to use the plural verb form IF you are referring to a group. I've never encountered a good argument for using the plural form if you are speaking individually about one God.

Secondly-- Moses is the writer and Moses knows God (Yahweh) by name. If he meant it in an individual sense he would have written Yahweh (english LORD) in this case as he does a thousand times in other mentions, where he says specifically LORD elohim-- to point to one specific divine being. He does not do that in this case, nor later in the text where he confirms his intent of a group, quoting them as saying "Let us make man in our image." Please don't even mention the idea of God talking to Himself and self-consulting or as the Trinitarians insist-- God talking to other aspects of Himself. Non-starters.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Mr E in post #7]

Thanks for commenting. Yes, you are right in pointing this out, and from a strictly grammatical analysis the arguments of most biblical scholars agree with the orthodox understanding--- which insists that we simply ignore the plurality as if it was never there nor intended.

They don't ignore the plurality, though, as you even go on to show when talking about what they say about the plural of majesty/intensity (or sometimes called the honorific plural).

The argument falls flat in the light of other scriptures that mention the sons of God (ben elohim) as divine beings present at the time of creation and that through the spirit(s) the earth was created.

How does that make their argument fall flat? They argue that (1) if the verb or adjective is singular and the noun plural, it's referring to a singular entity and (2) if the plural noun is paired with plural verbs/adjectives, then it's referring to plural entities and in Genesis 1:1, we have an example of (1). That other scriptures are examples of 2 does not make that argument fall flat.

So there is good reason to use the plural verb form IF you are referring to a group. I've never encountered a good argument for using the plural form if you are speaking individually about one God.

But the point is that Genesis 1:1 doesn't use the plural verb form, it uses the singular verb form.

Secondly-- Moses is the writer and Moses knows God (Yahweh) by name. If he meant it in an individual sense he would have written Yahweh (english LORD) in this case as he does a thousand times in other mentions, where he says specifically LORD elohim-- to point to one specific divine being. He does not do that in this case, nor later in the text where he confirms his intent of a group, quoting them as saying "Let us make man in our image." Please don't even mention the idea of God talking to Himself and self-consulting or as the Trinitarians insist-- God talking to other aspects of Himself. Non-starters.

That assumes Moses will only ever write things one way and that's just not the case with him or authors in general.

As to the verses, in Genesis 1:26 we have singular nouns "image" and "likeness" modified by a plural preposition "our". Using your logic with 1:1, you should be interpreting that as singular since the noun is singular. Then, in verse 27, when the actual creation happens we have a singular noun "image" coupled with a singular preposition ("His") followed by the same singular noun coupled with a plural preposition ("of God") and then ends with a singular "He" creating them.

[Mr E]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8]

What we have is plural-- elohim. Not in dispute, is it?

Then we have one particular elohim (one, of a kind) that is to say, one in particular of a bunch, who is a creator of the heavens and the earth.

What those later passages do is affirm that there is indeed a bunch, of elohim (divine/spiritual beings) and not only one God, though there is one particular God who is almighty, supreme among the bunch.

[Mr E]

Moving on from semantics to philosophical interests here.

I'm saying Moses wrote the way he wrote with intent. He was no witness to any of the events he wrote about, so his purpose was to convey an idea and introduce a universal principle through his story telling. He imagines, or dreams of a time before land, as well as a land before time mattered and what he is pointing to is another realm that exists beyond the earthly realm. Not a 'place' per se, but another dimension and it is the spiritual realm where these elohim (spiritual beings) exist. It's this spiritual realm where God (big G) and all of the other elohim (beings of divine spirit) are in their element-- spirits in the spiritual realm. It has no physical parameters, and it can only be considered invisible, unfamiliar and beyond comprehension for our story teller. To describe the spiritual realm would be akin to describing energy, or dark matter, or the subatomic force that we know exists but have so little understanding of, but Moses does his best.

He describes a dark, shapeless, watery space, where the spirit of the elohim was blowing overtop, like one might sigh-- exhaling forcefully in the darkness, and "this" is the beginning of Moses' story. This was the condition or environment, or circumstance BEFORE creation, where the elohim are by nature spirits-- in a spiritual realm that included dark, undeveloped, empty space. Everything changed in an instant with the bringing of light. And just as Moses certainly did, I'll take some measure of poetic license to illuminate the scene. Imagine yourself in a dark forest, or a deep cave absent of light-- if you've ever experienced it, you never forget it. You can't tell if you are about to bump into a wall, or fall off a cliff, or if you are in the middle of nowhere with nothing near at all. The darkness even has a weight to it, that instantly evaporates with the coming of light. The light creates an instantaneous division between itself and all it illuminates and the darkness that existed beforehand.

The light means discovery. What was unknown to exist, invisible and hidden becomes seen. And this is the beginning of the creative process, with the discovery of things unknown, the examination of those things and the sharp focus of investigation as if the elohim who brought the light are explorers embarking on an adventure-- and that is exactly what they were. A duality was discovered, a polarity of opposites demarking a difference between darkness and light, between the hidden unknown and the newly exposed visible.