LOL....ok, so if God only "separated" heaven and earth, why isnt it possible for him to have created it in the first place? so, she's saying that these existed pre-God and when He came along he merely separated them? lol...makes me even more sure that these "scientists" are grasping at ridiculous straws to disprove what they can't even prove. God created the world, that's all. Maybe she can spend more time coming up with something useful- like cures for AIDS or swine flu.

By Karen | October 8, 2009 2:03 PM

I'm quite sure she is not trying to make any point about the existence or non-existence of god. It's all about the interpretation of biblical texts.

Also, experts in exegesis are typically not the best qualified people to deal with biology problems, so I don't understand why even to suggest that.

By José Pedro Magalhães | October 8, 2009 2:32 PM

Karen, you may scoff at this article but first read it properly. Firstly, this is clearly not a science phd as no scientist would waste their time reinterpreting a holy book. It's more likely to be a theological or language study. Secondly, if the original writings (ie not the translations you're used to) said god separated rather than created heaven and earth then the translations are not accurate and what people believe is possibly not what they should believe.

By Mark | October 8, 2009 2:35 PM

I wonder what kind of "professor" or University can support this kind of "studies"... is not really anything better to investigate than this laughable stuff???

Please keep gods out of my university and I will keep science out of your churchs.

By dulaman | October 8, 2009 4:02 PM

i think god is a pretty cool guy. eh seperates heaven from earth and doesnt afraid of anything

By Joseph Fritzl | October 8, 2009 4:04 PM

Whoa Karen! First off she isn't a scientist. She is clearly a Historian who studies the old testament. She isn't out to prove God doesn't exist or that God didn't create the world. She is a researcher. A world that you so eloquently want where everyone despite their specialty focuses on curing sickness and disease is so small minded. Please go back to your hole you came out of. Your ignorance makes me tremble.

By jj blood | October 8, 2009 4:34 PM

Spending any time interpreting or re-interpreting the bible is time ill spent - the problem with the bible is that people take it too seriously. It should be appreciated for what it is: fiction

By Buzzer | October 8, 2009 4:38 PM

So God created the world?
Thanks for clearing that up Karen, I wondered where it came from.

By Steve | October 8, 2009 4:45 PM

Hey Karen, these "scientists" you mention are experts on the Old Testament, or theologians i.e. not scientists. Go ahead and be as smug as you want, but science is not trying to prove that God did not create the Universe, only to explain how it works.

By dan | October 8, 2009 5:55 PM

I don't think this woman is a scientist, Karen. Her expertise is in Literature which falls under the banner 'Arts' rather than 'Science'. Her thesis is based on translation error - these things happen, or can the original translation of Sanskrit (or whichever language the original stories were written on) be the only accurate one? Or perhaps only the version your parents or preacher use? Maybe the Catholic (Latin) translation is better or worse than the more recent ones in English.

It's ok for you to be Christian, Karen, but half reading a story, assuming you are more expert than someone who's studied it extensively, and denying there can only be one translation - when it's already translated (and bits lost) in every language - is not exactly smart, is it?

By osita | October 8, 2009 6:54 PM

Sorry to burst the bubble but...

God was created by man in order to reinvent himself, to give himself purpose for being & subdue his fears of death, by conjuring up an afterlife.

An open & shut case of solipsism, animals have that.

There is no point on making any further comment about God, why? Because one has to be superstitious & have blind faith in the supernatural, and I do not thank goodness!!!

By stevie | October 8, 2009 9:18 PM

Sounds like a case of heresy to me.

By Justin | October 8, 2009 9:52 PM

if the abrahamic god was capable of separating heaven from earth why is it possible that he could have created all of it? and further if he had created all of it in the first place if this god were truly an imperfect being (which speaks of a truly prodigious vanity) why would he have need to separate the heavens and this earth? the exodus from eden took place later so it could not have been the punishment of adam and eve. further it is not the professor Van Wolde merely saying this and 'grasping at ridiculous straws' but revealing what had been lost in translation. as for what can and cannot be proved through the empirical scientific method the existence of the abrahamic god cannot at this point be either proved or disproved which says neither that he doesn't exist or that he does. further how is it known that this particular deity was the or a creator of this our earth in origin? the findings depicted here undermine the very keystone of this belief. and lastly I find it difficult to believe that a professor of theology without extra training would be of much aid in finding an antibody for any virus. in all this is a truly fascinating find.

By Kaiel | October 8, 2009 10:54 PM

She is a Professor of Biblical Studies and Hebrew, not a scientist... Might as well go ask *YOU* to make a cure for AIDS, Karen!

By Elle | October 9, 2009 12:32 AM

She's a Professor of Biblical Studies, not a "scientist," except by a very loose definition that would also include people like professors of Music Theory, Linguistics, Philosophy, etc. To label her such (not that being a scientist is at all a bad thing) is either very dishonest, or very ignorant.

Suggesting that she come up with a cure for AIDS or Swine Flu is as ridiculous as suggesting that your lawyer perform open heart surgery. Medicine is not her area of expertise, religion is. To make such a demand demonstrates either insanity, or stupidity.

By Dan | October 9, 2009 12:43 AM

@karen: Because based on thermal dynamics, something can not come from nothing.

And it's theists who say God exist, but is unable to prove it.

By xen | October 9, 2009 4:55 AM

LOL...ok, so if "Got created the world, that's all" who created the rest?
Maybe these religious people can spend more time coming up with ways to help people than to criticize and cause trouble.

By Darren | October 9, 2009 7:42 AM

What the researcher has found is nothing new. read this from wikipeadia-
"In the beginning..."
The first word of Genesis 1 in Hebrew, "in the beginning" (Heb. berēšît בְּרֵאשִׁית), provides the traditional Jewish title for the book. The inherent ambiguity of the Hebrew grammar in this verse gives rise to two alternative translations, the first implying that God's initial act of creation was ab nihilo (out of nothing),[23] the second that "the heavens and the earth" (i.e., everything) already existed in a "formless and empty" state, to which God brings form and order:[24]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void…. God said, Let there be light!" (King James Version).
"At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was (or the earth being) unformed and void . . . God said, Let there be light!" (Rashi, and with variations Ibn Ezra and Bereshith Rabba).

By Cyril | October 9, 2009 11:01 AM

Seeing that god's don't exist this is more nonsense by whacky religious idolaters. In the near future religions will be nonexistent for humans will realize they have been lied to. Until then the world will suffer from religious wars. "My god's better than your god"

By Paul Martin | October 9, 2009 12:14 PM

Now, kids at schools like more books about fantasy, adventure and mystery than scientific ones. Apparently, the students at Radboud University still keep that trend.

Another 'book of books' with a similar universe is Star Wars. This one is 30 years old and we do not have yet problems with translations.

By Benito Camelas | October 9, 2009 2:26 PM

Just a couple of clarifications...

This universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, while the solar system was created from the remnants of a supernova 5 billion year ago. Earth was created around 4.5 billion years ago. Modern humans formed in Africa 200,000 years ago, while the happenings of the Exodus occurred 4,000 years ago... so as the bible.

Ancient Greeks, while still being polytheists, lay the foundations of natural study, science, and philosophy. Early bible prophets lay foundations for pff., let me see, nothing really, but they suggested people devotion for a powerful being, otherwise he will punish them.

If the bible were written today it will for sure have a similar disclaimer:

Although inspired by actual events, the following story is fictional and not intended to depict any actual person or event.

By Benito Camelas | October 9, 2009 2:34 PM

This is not a theological theory, and does not require "belief" of any kind, just a knowledge of ancient languages.

I'm an atheist and find this interesting...But then it doesn't challenge any beliefs I hold...

By CW | October 9, 2009 2:37 PM

wouldn't a simple interpretation be this : God has always existed - He is eternal and can be viewed as "spatial", i.e. transcends time. Hence, there is no sense in speaking about a "beginning",i.e. that is a human construct as well...this is merely delving into the constraints of language, in my view...im no biblical scholar but i do feel trying to extract meaning from translation(hebrew, i take it, has evolved over history) is a little shakey.....for instance, it might have meant something slightly different to the translators...it's a chicken and egg question, i think...the bible does say God is "eternal" and, so, presumably infinite...so is there any sense speaking about a beginning..indeed, He would need something there "to create"..I'm curious but remian skeptical

By Spinoza87 | October 10, 2009 4:39 PM

Good grief, the article is about translation and interpretation of text by a historian and not a quesition about the existance of God at all.

Many historians study religious text for the purpose of understanding what made our reasoning, thoughts, morals and methods. A number of them are athiests and we have those from one religion studying the texts of others, but one thing stands out - the searching and need for originality and authenticity. In the case of religious texts, we can search out as best as possible originalty of text - the oldest examples of text (or in the case of the Qur'an, actual original copies), but of course in the end, the subject matter is a matter of faith.

Either way, believe or not, faith and religion forged, set morals and was the significant factor in the history of our world. Add to that, the vast majority of the people whom inhabit this plant are still religious.

By Solkhar | October 12, 2009 1:06 PM

"Bara" is Hebrew for "created" (past tense), not "create."

I know that no one will read this amidst the religious debate, but it's pretty disappointing to see a news publication make a factual error like that.

By K | October 23, 2009 6:57 AM