hatsoff

Hey, all. I just wanted to let everyone know I am reading this thread, and appreciate all responses. At the moment I don't know enough to contribute meaningfully, though.

I am curious, though, if anyone has further thoughts on the Philo references.

Thanks, everyone!

spin

1. It's not the same phrase: RWX-)L.
2. The "wind" of El is is the agent of creation in Job 33:4, whereas there is no indication of such agency in Gen 1. The wind of god does nothing in the creation account of Gen 1. (Job is a different tradition of speculation.)
3. RWX-)L is strictly paralleled with the "breath of Shaddai".
4. The contextualising Job 33:3 makes clear what the intention of RWX-)L is: "my words", what comes out of the mouth of god.

So, why is "spirit of god" even a reasonable translation in Job 33:4, when it is clear that we are not dealing with an entity but a means in the act of creation??

"Adamant"? You are approaching the issue with your fixed idea of what the text should be because of your desire to inject the trinity wherever you can. As I said, you start with the context to tell you what the term means. There is nothing to suggest anything other than the base meaning of the term, "wind". This is supported by the parallel story of creation which features the wind present before the creation. The translation of "wind" seems logical, whereas that of "spirit" is forced for christian theological purposes which aren't justifiable from the Hebrew.

Whatever in the linguistic context or the parallel literary tradition would ever make you think of anything other than wind?

You miss the point. Assuming conjecture as a foundation of an argument is a logical error. You need to demonstrate your assumptions.

So, from the context of the verse, you wouldn't be able to translate RWX as "spirit". Are there any usages of RWX )LHYM that are actually paralleled with Gen 1:2?

You are changing the subject, ie leaving the current communication and looking over all my other communications to create the meaning you want.

You are using this adjective "adamant" in a rhetorical and mildly abusive sense. I'm being "adamant" by not infecting the text with post-biblical theology.


spin

Lugubert

A way of interpreting the Ruah that I haven't seen yet in the thread is offered by L. Clarke, A Compleat History of the Holy Bible, London 1740:
Gerhard von Rad: Genesis (1st German ed. 1949) rev. ed. London 1972 advocates such an interpretation even more.
So, it could be just "God, what a wind there was!"

Loomis

Artifacts from the Enuma Elish are all over the place in the OT. For example, the idea of stretching out heaven like tent hide, crushing Leviathan, and dividing the waters in two (and placing one half above the firmament) all comes from the EE.

When you are done explaining away the “Spirit of God” stuff in Genesis 1:2 you will just have to start again at 1:6.

All the best,

Loomis

douglas

This thread maybe has run it's course, but I have a basic question. The concept of the Holy Spirit has always interested me.

My understanding is that this term came from that "warm fuzzy feeling" that you get when you experience something good, kind of like when you hear a great song, watch a movie that moves you in some way, or go to a christian revival. We now know that this feeling is caused by real biological factors, but ancient people had no clue where this feeling was coming from. There explanation was that it must be some external being entering their body and making them feel good/bad. The Holy Spirit caused you to feel good things, the Evil Spirit was bad. Both "spirits" are sent by God.

So, is it reasonable to presume that the term "Holy Spirit" came from a metaphysical explanation for a very physical experience? As usual, I have no sources to back me up, so I'm looking for some references that might help me better understand this term.