Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 10-08-2007, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

I wouldn't normally pimp my blog - but it seems to be very on-topic, so here is an article I wrote going through the Genesis 2-3 story verse by verse, showing how different the original story is to the Christian re-interpretation.

HI Dean, I enjoy your posts here and find I learn from them, and your blog too, from the little I have seen.

I am wondering though, about your comment that..

Quote:

It assumes that the character of Adam is created immortal - which is a purely Christian concept.

I have seen christian commentators try to suggest this is not the case, such as from the following link.

The original immortals

Quote:

All commentators who have engaged themselves with the story of Eden have addressed this question. The Rabbinic commentators studied the record of man's fall and though their reasoning is sometimes a little strange to our way of thinking, they nevertheless reached conclusions which have been shared by the Christian Church in all ages. First of all, they argued that angels are not propagated but are immortal, whereas animals are propagated and are destined to die. "Whereupon God said, 'I will create man to be the mirror of both of them, so that when he sins, when he behaves like an animal, death shall overtake him: but if he refrains from sin, he shall be immortal,'" (i.e., like an angel). * There is another form of this view which states more simply that "Every man could live forever if he should lead a sinless life." **
Jacob Newman, in his edition of the commentary on Genesis by Nahmanides written in the thirteenth century A.D., translates the latter's comments on Genesis 2:17 as follows: "In the opinion of our rabbis, if Adam had not sinned he would never have died, for the superior soul gives life for ever."�* But the Jews went further than this and, reasonably enough, postulated that, so long as Adam and Eve remained sinless, their married life would have been pure and they would have begotten immortal children.◊
Ginsberg states the early Jewish understanding of man's original condition: "Had it not been for the Fall, death would not have been so terrible and painful, but a joyful incident in man's career."‡ He gives several references where this view is clearly expressed in rabbinical commentaries.
Moreover, the Wisdom Literature of the Jewish people in pre-Christian times reflects the same view. In the apocryphal work The Wisdom of Solomon at 1:13-15 it is written: "God made not death;

Lucretius · 10-08-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Reading this again

I am still a bit puzzled IF Noah was supposed to take 7 of each kind "male and female" does that actually mean 7 "pairs" or is it 7 of each kind with a mixture of males and females in the 7 if the latter how was he supposed to split the seven by two ?
I.e.1 male, 6 females or 2 males, 5 females , 3 males and 4 females or 4 males and 3 females etc etc or any other combination you can think of.
God appears to have been a little bit vague here .

Vulgate says "Sed et de volatilibus cæli septena et septena, masculum et feminam". So, seven and seven, male and female. I take this to mean seven males and seven females.

ETA: of course, that means nothing. I just picked the translation which had some clarity in this point. Seven and seven might just have been the interpretation of St. Jerome.

ETA2: ... or maybe 7+7 refers only to beasts flying in the sky, if we take the text literally ...

Thanks for that I know I should have probably checked the wording in other versions myself but it was a combination of laziness and just writing that off the top of my head .
What caused the puzzlement was the sudden thought that the fact that any farmer when told to take seven pairs each of say cattle, sheep , goats or chickens etc would be amazed at the silliness of such an instruction ,knowing full well that one bull and 6 cows (at best 2 bulls and 5 cows ) for example would be quite sufficient to rebuild a large herd in a relatively short time .

Dean Anderson · 10-08-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

What caused the puzzlement was the sudden thought that the fact that any farmer when told to take seven pairs each of say cattle, sheep , goats or chickens etc would be amazed at the silliness of such an instruction ,knowing full well that one bull and 6 cows (at best 2 bulls and 5 cows ) for example would be quite sufficient to rebuild a large herd in a relatively short time .

If you read the account, the point is not to take seven pairs to form a breeding stock.

One pair is considered sufficient by the author to form a breeding stock.

The reason for taking seven pairs is so that one pair can form a breeding stock and the other six pairs can be sacrificed.

Lucretius · 10-08-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

What caused the puzzlement was the sudden thought that the fact that any farmer when told to take seven pairs each of say cattle, sheep , goats or chickens etc would be amazed at the silliness of such an instruction ,knowing full well that one bull and 6 cows (at best 2 bulls and 5 cows ) for example would be quite sufficient to rebuild a large herd in a relatively short time .

If you read the account, the point is not to take seven pairs to form a breeding stock.

One pair is considered sufficient by the author to form a breeding stock.

The reason for taking seven pairs is so that one pair can form a breeding stock and the other six pairs can be sacrificed.

Now I see where I made my mistake I was assuming this part of the OT was supposed to be logical ,obviously forgetting that it was not at all logical (or even based vaguely on logical principles)

Magdlyn · 10-08-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

HI Dean, I enjoy your posts here and find I learn from them, and your blog too, from the little I have seen.

I am wondering though, about your comment that..

Quote:

It assumes that the character of Adam is created immortal - which is a purely Christian concept.

I have seen christian commentators try to suggest this is not the case, such as from the following link.

The original immortals

Current era Rabbinical meanderings through the difficulties and inconsistencies and absurdities of their Bible are just as far-fetched as Xian ones. If not more.

For example, one idea they have is that the entire Tanakh is somehow a "name of God." All the words together make up a divine name! ? :Cheeky:

Giving the Jews some credit, they think the literal meaning of the Bible stories is the least meaningful, meant only for children. But otoh, their "deeper meanings" become pretty crazy, no holds barred fancy. As above.

And modern orthodox Jews believe every word of it! Slavishly.

I think Dean was referring to what the original meaning was for the people who wrote the story, not what later centuries made of it.

Dean Anderson · 10-08-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I have seen christian commentators try to suggest this is not the case, such as from the following link.

I think Dean was referring to what the original meaning was for the people who wrote the story, not what later centuries made of it.

Yes I was.

The blog entry was a copy of something I posted elsewhere in a discussion about whether the Hebrew Bible was a "prelude" to Christianity (i.e. the original authors believed in and talked about a Christian-style God and were waiting for the Messiah to arrive) or whether Christianity simply re-interpreted and/or took out of context what the original authors said.

In this case, you could substitute "a concept invented by later Jews and Christians" rather than "a purely Christian concept" if you wanted to be strictly accurate.

ck1 · 10-08-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

I just noticed another goofiness on God's part:

Quote:

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Well, wait a minute, I can imagine Noah thinking. Okay, the unclean beasts, we're supposed to take two; one male, one female. That's clear enough. But of the clean beasts, are we supposed to take seven or fourteen? By analogy with the unclean beasts, you'd assume just seven, but how do you get equal numbers of males and females with seven? Isn't seven (Noah pauses to count on his fingers) an odd number? So maybe I'm really supposed to bring seven pairs? Who the hell (excuse my French) knows?

I can guess, by the fact that Noah apparently never asked Jehovah for clarification, that Noah didn't trust Jehovah as far as he could throw a ceratopsian, despite Jehovah's pledges to not wipe out Noah's entire family. And who can blame him?

This site provides 10 different translations of this passage:

http://scripturetext.com/genesis/7-2.htm

Many if not most translate it as 7 pairs.

Dave Hawkins · 10-08-2007, 08:54 AM

I'm spending the day in E/C ... probably will tomorrow also. Thanks Dean for the work you expended with the divisions of the Pentateuch. I will read it thoroughly and comment at length ... probably Wednesday morning.

Silent Dave · 10-08-2007, 01:24 PM

Before you comment, I suggest you take a week or two, and actually consider the possibility that Dean may be RIGHT.

budgie · 10-08-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

I have been described (by myself) as an Atheist Republican Socialist Englishman and I really really hate the acronym

Ahhh! A True Scotsman!

-jim

afdave, how does 2 = 14?
why do the curves agree?
use your god-given brain, man.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2007, 08:54 AM	#728
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	I'm spending the day in E/C ... probably will tomorrow also. Thanks Dean for the work you expended with the divisions of the Pentateuch. I will read it thoroughly and comment at length ... probably Wednesday morning.

10-08-2007, 01:24 PM	#729
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Before you comment, I suggest you take a week or two, and actually consider the possibility that Dean may be RIGHT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.