quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: The only issue I addressed in my post was the twisting of Gen. 1:1 to read "Gods" instead of "God":

I didn't "twist" anything. I am not addressing the Hebrew in the OT myth. I am saying that the ORIGINAL writer may have been influenced by older creation myths. I think "elohim" originally meant "gods."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: As I said, the associated Hebrew verb (created - bara) is in the 3rd person singular. This is not Christian propaganda.

I don't really care what the Hebrew currently says.

Ish: 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.

So it is. I never said it wasn't Hebrew grammar.

Ish: BTW, your translation is pretty "free", inserting articles and other words that aren't there.

You missed my point entirely. I know what the OT says. I don't think it says what the original writer intended.

Ish: 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?

I have made numerous errors in my lifetime and I will make many more. I admit it. With respect to this issue and what I have said, I have not made an error to admit to.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Ish should read some history before telling people what he thinks he knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: This coming from someone who repeatedly expresses incorrect opinions about things which he doesn't completely understand.

Ish has a right to his opinion. But, Christian historian Robert H. Pfeiffer states: "The P account of the Creation (Gen. 2:4a; 1:1-2:3) is based on an earlier version. There is an obvious discrepancy between the source utilized by P, probably a non-Israelitic mythological poem, and his philosophy. As early as 1798, K. D. Ilgen (Urkunden des Jeruslaemischen Temperlarchivs, pp. 433f.) noted this discrepancy between the eight creative acts and six days in which they were performed.
"Without attempting to reconstruct the original version, some of its characteristics may be noted. The chaos (tohu wabohu, 'waste and void' 1:2), the primeval ocean (tehom, 1:2), and darkness (1:2) were not created by the deity, but existed before the work of creation began....The expression 'Let us make man in our own image,' (1:26; cf. 1:27; 5:1, 3; 9:6) is doubly archaic: it presupposes, as Philo (De Opificio Mundi I, 24 [I, 16-17]) already recognized, the presence of other divine beings besides the Creator; and it conceives of God in the form of a human being." Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 192-193.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Ish is correct. The notion that Genesis contains ancient creation myths is here to stay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: 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 has a right to his opinion.

rodahi



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

Yes, no discussion of Genesis is complete without first reading the older Babylonian/Sumerian Seven Tablets of Creation AKA The Enuma Elish (when on high)
it's here!
http://www.mindspring.com/~mysticgryphon/enuma.htm

Genesis is a third or fourth hand version of the creation of the homosapien-sapien by butinsky aliens called the Annunaki, Adam & Eve were the first non sterile non defective breeding pair, test tube babies in other words, the Annunaki made them to do all the local grunt work & 'serve' the 'gods' till the Annunaki killed each other off in a war of domination of the newly found Eridu or Earth as we call it.
as Jaliet said read the Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, also 'the Creation of Humanity by Enki & Ninmah' and 'the Biography of Enli'
and thats the way it was!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
Ish should read some history before telling people what he thinks he knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: This coming from someone who repeatedly expresses incorrect opinions about things which he doesn't completely understand.

I found another translation of Genesis 1:1-2:

"At commencement the gods created the skies and the land. The land was shapeless Tehowm, and on Tehowm's face was darkness. The breath of the gods moved on the waters' (Tehowm's) face." William Harwood, Mythology's Last Gods, P. 48

Also, with respect to "elohim," W. Robertson Smith has this to say: "If the oldest sanctuaries of the gods were originally haunts of a multiplicity of jinn, or of animals to which demonic attributes were ascribed, we would expect to find, even in later times, some trace of the idea that the holy place is not inhabited by a single god, but by a plurality of sacred denizens...But, apart from this, we may expect to find traces of vague plurality in the conception of the godhead as associated with special spots, to hear not so much of the god as of the gods of a place, and that not in the sense of a definite number of clearly individualized deities, but with the same indefiniteness as characterises the conception of the jinn. I am inclined to think that this is the idea which underlies the Hebrew use of the plural [Hebrew=elohim]...Merely to refer this to primitive polytheism, as is sometimes done, does not explain how the plural form is habitually used to designate a single deity. But if the Elohim of a place originally meant all its sacred denizens, viewed collectively as an indeterminate sum of indistinguishable beings, the transition to the use of the plural in a singular sense would follow naturally, as soon as this indeterminate conception gave way to the conception of an individual god of the sanctuary." The Religion of the Semites, P. 426.

With respect to what extent the Hebrew writers were influenced by earlier peoples, here is what Samual Noah Kramer states: "The development of the Sumerian system of writing and creation of a Sumerian written literature in the course of the third millennium B.C., proved to be epoch-making for the intellectual and spiritual development of the entire Near East, for this cunneiform system of writing was borrowed not only by the Semitic Babylonians who conquered the Sumerians but by nearly all their more civilized neighbors as well. As a consequence, Sumerian literary motifs and patterns permeatd the various literatures current in Western Asia during the second millennium B.C. Needless to say, the Bible, too though a product of literary genius of the Hebrews of considerably later days, shows not a few traces of this Sumerian influence...The Sumerians, like the Hebrews, thought that the primeval sea existed prior to creation; it was probably conceived as eternal and uncreated." "Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature," pp. 7-8.

Oh, ok. I understand. So you simply recreated what the ORIGINAL writer wrote...

I think one could call this speculation and falsification of data to fit a pet theory.

Funny, last debate, you picked a variant reading with 5 measly sources to back it up. This time there isn't even a variant in the text to support your point, so you have to make the whole thing up.

This could be fun....

I think what Rodahi ORIGINALLY said in his post was: "Ish knows what he is talking about, don't listen to me."

Ish

Enough verses proving that there was either more than one god - or the authors of the bible believed that there was more than one God.

Ish, Ish, why cant you just lay it down and accept this? Its so damn unrefutable. What more do we need?

Marduck
Thanks for the link - I now have a soft copy of Enuma Elish! Your name now makes a helluva lot more sense! I was thinking of christening myself Lapis Lazuli - or Gilgamesh or something sumerian - but I got lazy.

Rodahi
You said "I didn't "twist" anything. I am not addressing the Hebrew in the OT myth. I am saying that the ORIGINAL writer may have been influenced by older creation myths. I think "elohim" originally meant "gods.""

Maybe I am a bit slow but do you mean that the original writer meant God but wrote "gods" because he was influenced by what you call older creation myths?

If so, are you then also saying that monotheism preceeded polytheism? because I beleive all available evidence point to the idea that polytheism was the first system of belief then only later replaced by monotheism.

Truethinker
Make your closing arguments. Was "the deep" a body of ocean(a fact - ie a real body) or the writers beleived there was a primeval "deep" thus "the deep"?

What kept the "light" from reaching the earths surface? a dark shroud or close cover?

How huge was the "spirit of God" that hovered over the surface of the deep - considering that God is omnipresent?

"Who was God speaking to when he said "let us make man in our own image?" I contend that this plus other verses quoted by JamesK mean that there was actually (as far as the authors beleived) more than one god. What sayest thou?

If the only act of creation took place on the fourth day how many "days" did the creation take place?

You still havent contrasted "let there be...",created and make as used in Genesis.

If the "days" are meant to illustrate some kind of cronology - its a chronology of what? creation - or the naming of things created before or both?

Just clear up this so that we can move to the next few verses.

I remain humble.

Rodahi: "I didn't "twist" anything. I am not addressing the Hebrew in the OT myth. I am saying that the ORIGINAL writer may have been influenced by older creation myths. I think "elohim" originally meant "gods.""

jaliet: Maybe I am a bit slow but do you mean that the original writer meant God but wrote "gods" because he was influenced by what you call older creation myths?

I agree with W. Robertson Smith, the word "elohim" originally meant "devine beings" or "gods." I think the original writer of the Genesis myth also believed the word "elohim" meant "gods." The word "El" was the singular form of "god" and "elohim" was the plural form. Notice the writer does not use the singular form, but the plural. As Smith points out, it was LATER that the word "elohim" took on a singular meaning, and that is how it is read by Christians and modern Jews in the OT.

Also, I think the writer was influenced by earlier creation myths. That is why I quoted Samuel Noah Kramer. Finally, I think the writer believed the "deep water" existed (eternally) BEFORE creation (of sky and land). That is why I quoted Robert H. Pfeiffer and Kramer. Look at the quotes and you will see what I mean.

My views are consistent with those of historians; they are not consistent with those of conservative Christian apologists.

jaliet: If so, are you then also saying that monotheism preceeded polytheism? because I beleive all available evidence point to the idea that polytheism was the first system of belief then only later replaced by monotheism.

You and I agree.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodahi:
I didn't "twist" anything. I am not addressing the Hebrew in the OT myth. I am saying that the ORIGINAL writer may have been influenced by older creation myths. I think "elohim" originally meant "gods."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ish: Oh, ok. I understand. So you simply recreated what the ORIGINAL writer wrote...

No, I simply think historians are correct and that Christian apologists are not.

Ish: I think one could call this speculation and falsification of data to fit a pet theory.

I think this is what a Christian apologist would say instead of presenting evidence.

Ish: Funny, last debate, you picked a variant reading with 5 measly sources to back it up. This time there isn't even a variant in the text to support your point, so you have to make the whole thing up.

Funny, I thought this thread was "From Genesis - The unknown and the known."

Here is what I orignally said:
_________________________________
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

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..."

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.
____________________________________________

Next, I presented the opinion of Robert H. Pfeiffer, a Christian historian:

"The P account of the Creation (Gen. 2:4a; 1:1-2:3) is based on an earlier version. There is an obvious discrepancy between the source utilized by P, probably a non-Israelitic mythological poem, and his philosophy. As early as 1798, K. D. Ilgen (Urkunden des Jeruslaemischen Temperlarchivs, pp. 433f.) noted this discrepancy between the eight creative acts and six days in which they were performed.
"Without attempting to reconstruct the original version, some of its characteristics may be noted. The chaos (tohu wabohu, 'waste and void' 1:2), the primeval ocean (tehom, 1:2), and darkness (1:2) were not created by the deity, but existed before the work of creation began....The expression 'Let us make man in our own image,' (1:26; cf. 1:27; 5:1, 3; 9:6) is doubly archaic: it presupposes, as Philo (De Opificio Mundi I, 24 [I, 16-17]) already recognized, the presence of other divine beings besides the Creator; and it conceives of God in the form of a human being." Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 192-193.

Then I presented the following as additional support my opinion:

I found another translation of Genesis 1:1-2:

"At commencement the gods created the skies and the land. The land was shapeless Tehowm, and on Tehowm's face was darkness. The breath of the gods moved on the waters' (Tehowm's) face." William Harwood, Mythology's Last Gods, P. 48

Also, with respect to "elohim," W. Robertson Smith has this to say: "If the oldest sanctuaries of the gods were originally haunts of a multiplicity of jinn, or of animals to which demonic attributes were ascribed, we would expect to find, even in later times, some trace of the idea that the holy place is not inhabited by a single god, but by a plurality of sacred denizens...But, apart from this, we may expect to find traces of vague plurality in the conception of the godhead as associated with special spots, to hear not so much of the god as of the gods of a place, and that not in the sense of a definite number of clearly individualized deities, but with the same indefiniteness as characterises the conception of the jinn. I am inclined to think that this is the idea which underlies the Hebrew use of the plural [Hebrew=elohim]...Merely to refer this to primitive polytheism, as is sometimes done, does not explain how the plural form is habitually used to designate a single deity. But if the Elohim of a place originally meant all its sacred denizens, viewed collectively as an indeterminate sum of indistinguishable beings, the transition to the use of the plural in a singular sense would follow naturally, as soon as this indeterminate conception gave way to the conception of an individual god of the sanctuary." The Religion of the Semites, P. 426.

With respect to what extent the Hebrew writers were influenced by earlier peoples, here is what Samuel Noah Kramer states: "The development of the Sumerian system of writing and creation of a Sumerian written literature in the course of the third millennium B.C., proved to be epoch-making for the intellectual and spiritual development of the entire Near East, for this cunneiform system of writing was borrowed not only by the Semitic Babylonians who conquered the Sumerians but by nearly all their more civilized neighbors as well. As a consequence, Sumerian literary motifs and patterns permeatd the various literatures current in Western Asia during the second millennium B.C. Needless to say, the Bible, too though a product of literary genius of the Hebrews of considerably later days, shows not a few traces of this Sumerian influence...The Sumerians, like the Hebrews, thought that the primeval sea existed prior to creation; it was probably conceived as eternal and uncreated." "Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature," pp. 7-8.

Ish: This could be fun....

Yes, it could. That is why I am here. Just look at how much fun it has been so far.

Ish: I think what Rodahi ORIGINALLY said in his post was: "Ish knows what he is talking about, don't listen to me."

See above for what I originally said. Also, see the opinions of three historians and a commentator who agree with me.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 14, 2001).]

Rodahi,

What I think is so funny is that you completely ignore what the actual Hebrew text says, and you make up (or dig up) poor translations that don't even follow correct Hebrew grammar to support your points.

Tell me exactly why I am supposed to back my points about Gen. 1:1 up considering I have the actual Hebrew text working for me?

I think you are the one left with something to prove. Crack open a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and tell me exactly where the variants are in this verse that support your point.

The reason he won't talk about the underlying Hebrew is either: (1) He doesn't understand it or (2) He may know that the Hebrew doesn't say what he wants it to and never has because there is no evidence of variation in any other ancient copy of the OT in Gen. 1:1.

Oh and by the way, the other bad translation you quoted with the "Tehowm" stuff is pure speculation on the part of the translator and is even worded incorrectly.

I think it said "shapeless Tehowm", but the Hebrew says tohu(without form) va(and) bohu(void) - "without form and void". How did the translator come up with "shapeless Tehowm" when the word behind shapeless is tohu, the very word that the translator is apparently attempting to forcefully equate with Tiamat? And what about the "and" between the two words?

Rodahi, please work from translations of the Bible that accurately reflect the languages...

Ish