Comments on: Creation: Good or Beautiful?

By: matthew r malcolm

matthew r malcolm — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:49:40 +0000

Interesting thoughts… I guess that when we greet someone with ‘boqr tov’/'good morning’ we are not intending any moral/ethical element, but rather wishing that it will be pleasurable for the person we are greeting.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:14:18 +0000

Ah, but there is the rub. καλός also means beautiful. Though I agree, the context of 1 Timothy 4:4 seems to point to an ethical value. Though, I can see it being beautiful there as well. It’s a huge stretch though.

The problem is, I think Brueggemann is wrong not because he says it means “beautiful,” but because he limits the idea to aesthetics only. I think its a case of both/and. Certainly, creation was orginally both good and beautiful, and there may even be overlap here.

As far as I know, no english translation has it as “beautiful.”

By: Alex S. Leung

Alex S. Leung — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:47:25 +0000

Is there a Bible translation that translates it as “beautiful” instead of good?! This is very interesting… While I currently do not know Heb, it would be understandable that beautiful would be in its semantic range.

However, letting Scripture inform Scripture, 1 Tim 4:4-5 does not contain any implication of aesthetic value in the passage or the context. The reference is rather to moral/ethical “good”:

4 For everything created by God is good (καλόν), and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Thus, I cannot see how there is a reference to aesthetic value in Gen 1:31 or 1 Tim 4:4; I do not understand how the context can allow this :S