FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2001, 02:27 AM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ish
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:
TrueThinker was correct in pointing out the idiom "the heavens and the earth".

Gen. 1:1 cannot refer to Gods in the plural as Rodahi and JamesK think. If they were more familiar with the Hebrew, they would discover that thought the word used to represent God is in the plural form (not unlike the word used for water which is also in the plural form), it is nonetheless singular in sense. How do I know this? I know this because the verb, created (bara) that precedes elohim (God) is 3rd person singular. The literal translation is: "In the beginning created God..."

Please learn Hebrew before telling people what the words mean.

I have addressed this issue several times here, but I don't imagine this myth will ever completely go away.

Ish
</font>
The myth will never Go away because it is not a myth. God could have been one, But the Hebrews meant "many" You dont have to learn Hebrew to know what "Let us make man in our own image" means. That is English, not Hebrew. You could make things easier for yourself by stating clearly that the English versions of the bible are useless(and should therefore be discarded without trace) because they give the wrong meaning and people should all learn Hebrew and use Hebrew Bibles.

Are you saying that the Hebrew language has some words that cannot be translated to English?

Whoever was being addressed when he said "Let us make man in our own image" (I undestand Christians like to say that it was Jesus) - whatever it was -whether Jesus, the Holy spirit or whatever you think it is - was Gods equal - or at the very least his contemporary.

This may not be true (ie - may not be a fact), but its what the author(s) meant. Now of course, we can painfully contrive what we want out of that - to make it fit The NT and our selfish needs, but that is what was meant by whoever wrote that.
End of story.

You will call it a myth but its what they meant.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 02:42 AM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

rodahi
You said: The writer presumed the pre-existence of water, so the gods created only the sky and land. This is consistent with the most ancient semitic creation mythology which predates the Hebrew version.

I agree with this absolutely. I'd recommend Tercel, Truethinker to read the Sumerian creation story - Enuma Elish in the Astra Hasis text, The Epic of Gilgamesh - for the flood version, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Ethiopian Nebgrast(?),various Egyptian Papyri texts etc. There is an unmistakable parallel to be drawn between bible stories in the OT (especially Genesis and Exodus) the idea that Genesis is simply an occulted version will become clear.
From this discussion, Andrew has thrown in the Towel, Tercel has said he doesnt know and Freethinker is saying we should not discuss this because we do not understand Hebrew. Which is, to say the very least, escapist.
I think the best Christians can do is comprehend the bible thoroughly (after all they have a duty to) - and then maybe they can glean a few facts out of the myths in the OT. We can then compare these few facts with the other myths worldwide that have not been occulted and only then, do we have a hope of knowing how some things came to be.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 07:55 AM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
There is evidence that the ancient Hebrew writers were influenced by older creation epics. If Ish would read something besides Christian propaganda, he would know this.</font>
The only issue I addressed in my post was the twisting of Gen. 1:1 to read "Gods" instead of "God":

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rodahi:
Most likely, the original Hebrew text went like this: "When the gods began to create the sky and the land--the land being unformed and vacant, with darkness over the surface of the deep [water] and a wind from the gods sweeping over the water..."</font>
As I said, the associated Hebrew verb (created - bara) is in the 3rd person singular. This is not Christian propaganda. This is Hebrew grammar. Ask devnet if you don't believe me. Heck, get a good introduction to Hebrew book and learn it for yourself if you don't believe me. BTW, your translation is pretty "free", inserting articles and other words that aren't there.

I have admitted before when I was in error on things Rodahi. I don't think I've ever seen a concession on your part even when you were wrong... What keeps you from admitting your biased errors?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rodahi:
Ish should read some history before telling people what he thinks he knows.</font>
This coming from someone who repeatedly expresses incorrect opinions about things which he doesn't completely understand.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rodahi:
Ish is correct. The notion that Genesis contains ancient creation myths is here to stay.</font>
Man, can this guy twist things or what!

Sorry everyone, I'm simply growing tired of Rodahi's lack of accurate knowledge and his willingness to share it.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 13, 2001).]
 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:25 AM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Ish
If you want us to beleive there was a God, I think it would help a hell of a lot if you could respond to James Ks post which I paste below partly:
Ish, while it is true that when it was meant to say Yahweh alone, the writers used "Elohim" without the article ha (the) as well as the singular verb bara, this is not the case in all places of Genesis. In Exodus 12:12, the writers refer to the gods of Egypt, elohim is used with the article ha (ha-elohim, meaning "the gods"). Genesis 35:7 is similar. The Hebrew text states ha-elohim, meaning the gods were revealed (niglu) to Jacob. This verb form is plural.

There are numerous examples all over the Bible of Hebrew polytheism. A few examples:

Exodus 15:11 "Who is like unto you, O Yahweh, among the Gods (elohim)?"

Psalm 95:3 "Yahweh is a great god (El) and a great King above all gods (elohim)"

Psalm 86:8 "There is none like you among the gods (Elohim), O Yahweh"

Exodus 22:28 "Thou shalt not revile the gods (ha-elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people"

And how about Chemosh being the god of the Ammonites just as Yahweh was the god of the Israelites (Judges 11:24)?

So, the fact that the early Hebrews were polytheistic still stands, and there is evidence of it in the Bible.


Please just respond to this. This guy has quoted enough verses.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:28 AM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:
Truethinker
First,in your first response to my questions, you said :

"Actually verse 3 does not say God created light. Rather he calls the light he has already created to shine on the earth, since darkness enshrouds it."

Then later you said:

"The Bible doesn't say the universe is dark, it says the earth is dark. Apparently something is blocking the way and preventing the light of the sun from reaching its surface."

So is darkness enshrouding the earth - or is something else is "enshrouding" the earth?

Make up your mind
</font>
Darkness enshrouds the earth because something is preventing sunlight from reaching the earth. No light= darkness. There is nothing difficult about what I am saying.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:31 AM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Ish,

I have read that on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-16) the words used for God making the sun, moon and stars are in the "historic tense". The writer said that this is really saying that God had already made these items. Can you confirm/deny or clarify this please.
</font>
That is correct. Ancient Hebrew lacks past participle, so when the past tense is used that's what it means.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:35 AM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:
Please just respond to this. This guy has quoted enough verses.</font>
Enough verses for what exactly?

He seems to have confirmed my point about Genesis 1:1.

Allah is the God of Muslims. Vishnu is one of the Indian Gods. Doh! I must be polytheistic!

Ish

 
Old 06-13-2001, 08:39 AM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

However, here is Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 1:16:

And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;

No pluperfect tense, and not even a past tense. This "historic" past tense seems to be a figment of some apologist's imagination.

URL: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?pas...nguage=english
 
Old 06-13-2001, 10:14 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lpetrich:
However, here is Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 1:16:

And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;

No pluperfect tense, and not even a past tense. This "historic" past tense seems to be a figment of some apologist's imagination.

URL: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Genesis+1&version=YLT&showfn=y es&showxref=yes&language=english
</font>
It's not a figment of anyone's imagination. It's a stone cold fact of ancient Hebrew grammar. All traslations say make instead of create and there is a reason why. You seem bent on believing the sun was created on day 4. I guess you need a reason to reject the Genesis account.

 
Old 06-13-2001, 01:16 PM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ish:
Enough verses for what exactly?

He seems to have confirmed my point about Genesis 1:1.

Allah is the God of Muslims. Vishnu is one of the Indian Gods. Doh! I must be polytheistic!

Ish

</font>

My points confirm that the early Hebrews believed that there was more than one God, and the Bible is very plain about this. This is quite different from the modern Judeo-Christian viewpoint. If the Bible was truly the "Word of God", then why would God talk about other Gods in his book if he was the only God?

The fact that the early Hebrews acknowledge more than one God is more evidence that the OT is simply a collection of ancient Hebrew mythology and definitely not the Word of God.

[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 13, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.