 |
| Fig. 1 Wikipedia |
One really doesn't have to read more than one chapter of that book (Fig. 1) to get deep into deep controversy.
As a matter of fact the translation/nomenclature of only the first two verses, will suffice.
In fact one word located in one of those two verses can radically change concepts of the universe, the Earth, and concepts about the nature of God.
In short, how that one word is translated can deliver a 'beyond the beyond' difference to one's concept of reality, depending on the translation of that one word.
Following the "King James Version" published in 1611 religious doctrines have differed depending on the translation of that word from Hebrew into "the kings English of that time"; furthermore, those differences are still with us as "the young Earth" theology (Earth is ~7,000 years old) vs. "the old Earth" theology (Age of Earth).
Even though science is in line with the old Earth theology, or vice versa, the age of the Earth which scientists have used has differed over the years (ibid).
That One Word
Let's take a look at 'that book' and 'that one word' in it, by using a tiny bit of the fundamentals of exegesis, not to determine which hypothesis is correct, but to contemplate what the internals of the various "old Earth" and "young Earth" hypotheses are composed of.
That one word is in the second verse of the Book of Genesis: it is the Hebrew word "הָיָה", "hâyâh / haw-yaw", Strongs# "H1961" translated "was".
The controversy begins with the fact that the Hebrew word "H1961" is translated "became" in other places:
"... Hebrew - English Dictionary
H1961 - Became ..."
But more than that, when a language's nomenclature has been blurred by the practice of giving one word many meanings, the results can be disastrous (Good Nomenclature: A Matter of Life and Death).
The young Earth theology holds to the "was" translation together with the idea that 'was' means the Earth had been created disastrously: "... the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
The old Earth theology holds to the idea of an original improper verb tense translation of "H1961" which should have been translated 'became': "... the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
A main detail of that old Earth theology is the notion of a 'war in heaven' which took place when an archangel turned from good to bad (Wikipedia).
The results of that war are said to be indicated by the craters on our solar system's planets and moons, and even the 'missing planet' between Mars and Jupiter which is now the rubble called "the asteroid belt" (cf. EPH, Vesta, Ceres).
The Science of words: Nomenclature
This controversy among scientists and religionists shows how incoherent nomenclature can cause verbal disagreements in any realm, even to the point the necessity of hush, hush situations (How religious scientists balance work and faith).
Other examples could be the "quantum soul" of quantum physicists (Small Brains Considered - 6) and the scientist Albert Einstein's reactions to a priest's big bang hypothesis (Small Brains Considered - 7).
So, some religionists believe that 'their God' created a worthless universe then remodeled it, yet others believe that 'their God' created a beautiful universe then an evil subgroup of fallen angels heaped destruction on it for some amount of time before it was built back better (ibid).
Some scientists believe that the 'innertubes' of the tiniest parts of matter are where the 'quantum soul' is, while other scientists poo poo that hypothesis (ibid).
Concluding Comments
Good nomenclature would go a long way toward spreading clarity while shrinking many useless controversies which drove some very competent folks insane (1st video below).
The previous post in this series is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment