DIE DIREKTE VERTALING (2020-vertaling): Wat was die ‘Ou Testamentiese wêreldbeeld’?

DIREKTE VERTALING (2020 VERTALING):

WAT WAS DIE OU TESTAMENTIESE WERELDBEELD?

” ‘n Lewens- en wêreldbeskouing is “die geheel van antwoorde op fundamentele vrae aangaande God (of wie of wat ook al afvallig in die plek van God gestel word), mens en wêreld en hul onderlinge verhoudinge.” (Prof.dr. HG Stoker, Oorsprong en Rigting, band 1, Kaapstad, Tafelberg-Uitgewers: 1967, p.15)

Volgens prof. Gerrit Smit, was bogenoemde kaartprentjie die wêreldbeeld van die mense van OT tyd, hy skryf:

“In die tyd van die Ou Testament was die wêreldbeeld van die mense, in die figuur hier bo uitgedruk, dat die aarde gegrondves is op pilare, met water onder die dieptes van die aarde (onpeilbare diepte in die figuur). Wat die 2020-vertaling dus in gedagte het, is dat die oerwater verwys na hierdie ”onpeilbare diepte” van die wêreldbeeld van die tyd.”

Maar was dit die bybelse skrywers, Moses, die profete, die apostels, ens. se wêreldbeeld ‘letterlik’?

As die 2020-vertaling spreek van die ‘OT wêreldbeeld’ en prof. Smit spreek van ‘die wêreldbeeld van die tyd’, verwys dit na twee verskillende wêreldbeelde, of is dit een en dieselfde saak, dit is nie presies duidelik vir my nie?

Ek as Christen, het bv. vandag ‘n heel ander wêreldbeeld as ‘n ateïstiese evolusionis, terwyl ons met dieselfde feite om ons werk, dieselfde wêrklikheid om ons beleef en sien, maar ons verklaar ‘die dinge’ om ons anders vanweë ons verskillende ‘wêreldbeelde’? Dit is seker ook so deur die ganse geskiedenis, vanaf die eerste man en vrou, Adam en Eva, tot vandag toe, soveel te meer ook so met die geinspireerde bybelse skrywers in hulle tye ook, of hoe?

So dit is nie vir my seker of die 2020-vertaling se prent presies dieselfde sê as wat prof. Smit bedoel met ‘die wêreldbeeld van die tyd’ nie. Maar dit daar gelaat vir eers.

Verder, as ons vandag praat van die ‘sonsonder of die son kom op of gaan af’, beweer ons daardeur die aarde is plat? Nee natuurlik nie, maar hoekom dink ons die bybelse skrywers bedoel met alles wat hul skryf, noodwendig dit moet ‘letterlik’ verstaan word, of alles ‘geestelik/simbolies’?

As die bybelse skrywers, simboliese taal gebruik vir letterlike werlikhede, gebeure, ens., is dit noodwendig dat dit letterlik bedoel word? Natuurlik glo ek self in die ‘letterlike’ skepping in 6 dae, omdat die Teks dit self openbaar en daar geen aanduiding uit die Teks is, van Genesis tot Openbaring, dat Gen. 1-3 bv. net ‘simbolies en/of mities’ verstaan moet word nie. Maar dit is nie die fokus van my artikel nie, maar wel om te vra, wat is die bybelse skrywers se ‘wêreldbeeld’, en, was dit enigsins of presies dieselfde as die ‘nabye oosterse’ wêreld om hulle, hetsy oor watter onderwerpe ookal, ook die kosmologie?

En ja, ons ken die eeuelange debat oor wat alles ‘letterlik’ en/of ‘geestelik/simbolies’ bedoel word, of dat alles ‘letterkundig’ (grammaties-histories en openbaringshistories, ens.) verstaan moet word, d.w.s. volgens die bedoeling van ‘n bepaalde literatuursoort, bv. geskiedenis, poësie, evangelie, apokaliptiese literatuur, ens.

As Johannes deur die hele Openbaringsboek van simboliese taal gebruik maak, kan die bybelse skrywers orals, ook daarvan gebruik maak, of hoe? ‘n Mens sal dus elke teks binne sy (grammaties-historiese en openbaringshistoriese) konteks moet versigtig bestudeer om die betekenis daarvan te bepaal, as ‘letterlik en/of geestelik/simbolies’ ens.

Ons moet daarom baie versigtig wees om ‘n sekere wêreldbeeld aan die bybelse skrywers toe te dig of by hul in te lees, asof hul presies netso gedink het as die (heidense) wêreld om hulle, soos die vyande van die Bybel natuurlik deur die eeue probeer doen het, om die Bybel te probeer bespotlik en ‘outyds’ te maak, dat die ‘moderne wetenskap’ moet die Bybel red en die bybelse wêreldbeeld ‘reghelp’, onder andere deur moderne evolusionisties-ideologiese wêreldbeeld wat nou ‘van beter’ weet.

En, watter rol speel die Goddelike inspirasie deur sy Gees, of word dit vergeet en word die geinspireerde skrywers (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Petrus 1:21) gesien as bloot slagoffers van hul tye se ‘heidense wêreldbeelde en denke’? Of is dit weer die valse dualistiese Skrifbeskouing wat meen die Bybel is onfeilbaar in ‘geestelike sake’, maar nie in geskiedenis, kosmologiese en ander hier-en-nou, tyd, plek en werklikheid openbaringshistoriese uitsprake nie?

Prof. Smit wys heeltemal tereg op die ‘Skrifritiese kringe’ wat ‘n sekere Babiloniese wêreldbeed teruglees in Genesis 1, as hy skryf:

“Uit Skrifkritiese kringe word beweer dat Genesis 1:2 verstaan moet word vanuit die invloed wat die ou Babiloniese wêreldbeeld op die skrywers van die Ou Testament gehad het en dat die skrywer van Genesis téénoor die Babiloniese wêreldbeeld wil verduidelik dat dit God is wat geskep het. Ons sien hierdie aanname ook in die inleiding van die 2020-vertaling op Genesis waar gemeld word dat die boek in die tyd van die Babiloniese ballingskap sou ontstaan het. Dit is egter hoogs te betwyfel of die Skrifkritiese aanname dat Moses nie die outeur van Genesis was nie, en of die boek in die tyd van die Ballingskap ontstaan het, korrek is, aangesien die Rabbynse verklaarders asook die vroeë kerk geen twyfel gehad het oor die herkoms en outeurskap van die boek nie. Sonder om in ‘n lang debat daaroor te gaan, kan ons nie aanvaar dat Genesis uit die ballingskap-tyd dateer nie.”

In aansluiting hierby, wil ek lesers wys op verskillende bronne om te bestudeer oor hierdie Skrifkritiese aannames wat baiemaal deur regsinniges ook oorgeneem word, bv. dat die Genesis-geskiedenis (en wêreldbeeld) gebaseer is op die ‘Babilon Nabye Ooste’ wêreldbeeld, en nie uniek op Godsopenbaring nie (sien veral die artikel van dr. John Byl, ‘Genesis and Ancient Cosmology‘, om te sien waar die ‘OT wêreldbeeld’ kaartprentjie heel waarskynlik vandaan kom):

1. BYLOGOS: Biblical Cosmology

(The purpose of this blog is to promote a Christian worldview, based on the Bible as God’s inerrrant and fully authoritative Word, in accordance with the Confessions)

Genesis and Ancient Cosmology

“Does Genesis 1 reflect ancient cosmology, which we now believe to be erroneous? Many Christians scholars argue this to be the case. …

A similar view of Genesis cosmology (nota: die ‘OT wêreldbeeld kaart van die 2020-vertaling) can be found in John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One. Walton thinks the Israelites so dim-witted that they did not even know that the Sun was further away than flying birds (p.16). Much of the recent promotion of this can be traced to various articles by Paul Seely. Seely contends that the Hebrews were scientifically naive and thus would be influenced by their Babylonian and Egyptian backgrounds to believe that the raqia of Genesis was solid (p.235).

The implications are far-reaching. Enns concludes that God accommodates Himself to the limited scientific knowledge of the time, presumably to convey theological truths. Seely extends such accommodation to many other historical events in Gen.1-11 (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60 (2008):44-47). He contends that the message of Gen.1-11 is theological, not history or science as such. This clearly limits the range of biblical authority. It also raises the obvious problem of how to discern the divine kernel from the accommodated chaff. Does Genesis 1 in fact reflect ancient cosmology? ….

In sum, I conclude that the Bible says very little about the details of physical cosmology beyond the creation of the sky, sun, moon and stars. However, it does point to the existence of  a heavenly realm beyond the 3 usual physical dimensions.

It seems to me that the current attempt to read Genesis as accommodation to erroneous ancient pagan cosmology is motivated primarily by the desire to constrain biblical authority so as not to contradict modern secular science. This itself is just another form of accommodation, whereby God’s word is tailored to fit human reason.”

Cosmology and Heaven

“For those who start with the naturalist assumption that the physical world is all that exists, Biblical cosmology will make little sense. If, on the contrary, we start with God as the prime reality then the physical universe is reduced to a mere subspace of a much larger reality. The acknowledgment of heaven, with its intimate interactions with the physical world, renders very plausible the existence of angelic and other supernatural influences in our earthly realm. In sum, modern cosmology is a shallow materialist reduction of reality. Modern man may have gained in knowledge of material things but has impoverished his wider knowledge of reality as a whole.”

Boeke, artikels en lesings deur dr. John Byl

Sien veral sy boeke:
– God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe
– The Divine Challenge: On Mind, Matter & Meaning

2. The Ambiguity of ‘Biblical Background’ (dr. Noel Weeks)

“The article at hand addresses the use of “background” material informing the study of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible describes God’s creating work, does it do so in ways that might be comparable to other “creation” accounts in the Ancient Near East? ….

A treasure trove of “background” information has become available in the last century. In the first half of the twentieth century this was used to show the reliability of the biblical text, but in the last fifty years it has been used in much the opposite way. Comparisons to other Ancient Near Eastern “creation” accounts, for instance, have lately led John Walton to argue that the church has misunderstood Genesis for millennia. He argues that the Genesis creation account only tells us about the function of the created things, not their origins. According to him, this view of Genesis 1 matches the Egyptian and Mesopotamian way of telling their creation stories.

Weeks’ article from 2010 was written before Walton’s books and arguments had really begun to gain traction. Yet Weeks’ arguments are pertinent: he points out that the use of this biblical background material to back up the biblical account opened up the likelihood that the same material would be used to break down the biblical account—the methodology was flawed. The Christian must first of all receive the text in faith. …

Weeks concludes that if scholars are going to read the text of Scripture as if it was locked into its own time and culture, then they need to realize that they themselves as scholars are also locked into their own time and culture (235). Yet scholars constantly act as if they have transcended this problem. This is illogical.”

3. Is it True that Biblical Background Changes Everything?

“In addition, one of the assumptions of comparative study is that the thought of the Bible is more similar to the thought of the ancient world than it is to present-day Christian thought. Noel Weeks notes that this methodology can have a negative effect on attempts to apply Scripture to the present: “If the Bible speaks in the time-bound concepts and ideas of its time, which are not applicable to our time, and if the Bible is to play any role on the contemporary scene, then there must be a complex process of translation.” The end result is that this approach will “undermine the effective authority of Scripture and the center of authority and certainty must shift to the church” [“Ambiguity of Biblical Background, 235].”

4. Columbus and the Flat Earth Myth

“The Columbus myth is another example of historical revisionism, the attempt by secularists to cast the Church in a negative light. Liberal historians relish the fact that schoolchildren all over the country are being taught that Christians are ignorant, flat-earth kooks who will not listen to reason and science. When the facts of history are accurately surveyed, however, we discover true science never conflicts with the Bible. Scientific misinformation is never promoted through an accurate understanding of the Bible. Instead, the manipulation of truth always occurs outside the biblical worldview.”

5. Kerk geloofd niet in platte aarde

“Het is een misvatting dat de kerk eeuwenlang geloofd heeft dat de aarde plat is, betoogt prof. Benno Zuiddam. De mythe van het geloof in een platte aarde is in de 19e eeuw bedacht door antichristelijke wetenschappers. …

Het wereldbeeld van een kerk die geloofde in een platte aarde is dus een misvatting. De hoogtijdagen van de mythe waren tussen 1870 en 1920, toen darwinisten deze leugen gebruikten in hun strijd tegen de kerk over de evolutietheorie. Scheppingsgeloof moest vereenzelvigd worden met een platte aarde en belachelijk gemaakt worden.

De atheïstische professor Dawkins in Oxford doet het nog steeds zo. Van hem kun je dat verwachten. Het is echter jammer dat deze mythe ook in Bijbelgetrouw Nederland als waarheid verspreid wordt.”

6. Six Modern Myths about Christianity and Western Civilization

“We also hear other “timeless tales,” stories that everyone knows through one source or another. We all know, for example, the story of the flat earth; in the Middle Ages, people believed that the earth was flat and those who went too close to the edge would fall off. Other familiar tales from the past could be added to this one, stories told so often and so widely that they attain the status of “myth.” …

Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization is bursting with the fruits of Sampson’s research. The book is a stimulating and exciting read, and Sampson clearly works from a perspective that values the historicity and authority of the Bible. Though he has much to say that is negative about modernity’s credos and their narrative expression, he also makes positive statements about the value of a truly Christian worldview, one that touches all of life and offers a proper approach to all we encounter.”

7. Biblical Science Institute

“The Biblical Science Institute fully embraces the presuppositional approach to apologetics.  This means that the Bible is the ultimate authority in all matters, including its own defense.  It means that we recognize that there is no external standard superior to God’s Word, and we refuse to pretend that there is.  If that doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry: we will explore this issue in great depth.  The presuppositional approach is the most powerful defense of the faith I have seen, and is quite easy to learn.  But it is also poorly understood by many Christians.  Some people have the misguided impression that the presuppositional approach means that you shouldn’t use external evidence (science, history, and so on) when defending the Christian faith.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  We will use a great deal of science in this ministry (hence the name).  But we will do it in a proper presuppositional (biblical) way.

Ask questions in the online forum and have them answered by Dr. Jason Lisle and other Ph.D. scientists.”