Steve Weiss

In reading a book entitled God by Alexander Waugh which raises some interesting points. On the very first page of my bible is Genesis 1:26 which refers to the relationship between god and man thusly, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." How many gods are there then? Is this supposed to be an example of monotheism? What about plural Hebrew words like elohim which refer to god and the numerous names for god such as Yahweh, Adonai, El Shaddai, El, and many others? How about references to god's companion Sophia and his parents El and Asherah. Funny way to start off a monotheistic religion.

Here's another quandry. Adam and Eve were supposed to be created from dust, and man is supposed to return to dust when he dies, but we all know about the birds and the bees and that man isn't composed of dust, and neither does he "return" upon death to the dust that he never was. Most people decay after death, and after a while end up as a skeleton, not dust. So, how do people who know about skeletons believe that man becomes dust after death? Not too credible a source if that which is easily observed on a daily basis is ignored in favor of a myth.

Zwaarddijk

Most of you does become dirt in the ground, though, so ... I mean, most of your body does not become a skeleton. (And the skeleton, over time, mostly does wear down as well, altho' exceptional skeletons - as well as exceptional other parts of bodies - keep existing for long times.)

Tommy

Standard explanation is that the "us" refers to the divine council (i.e. angels presumably already created), the plural Elohim denotes a "plurality of majesty" (in the same way that the royal/Thatcher "we" denotes egotism) and the varying names are what God revealed sequentially. According to the documentary hypothesis God was originally termed Adonai (lord) and the YHWH preceding adonai in Genesis 2 was added by a redactor for consistency; Elohim as found in Genesis 1 originates from a later tradition. God revealed diffferent El titles to the patriarchs and the YHWH (to be) tetragram began when Moses asked the burning bush who He was and the reply was I am who I am. If you recite from the Tanakh you have to pronounce YHWH as adonai unless you are the High Priest who can say it as he says fit once a year although everyone shouts over him.

Certainly there was some polytheistic worship amongst the early Israelites: you shall have no Gods before me, exodus 20:3

Good point, never thought of that!

Huon

This point would have a better place in BCH.

It is well known that the five books of Moses -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy -- are not homogeneous.

The term "Documentary Hypothesis," means something more. It means that the four traditionally identified sources J ("Yahwist"), E ("Elohist"), D ("Deuteronomist") and P ("Priestly") once served as independent documents, rather than being accretions.

Steve Weiss

For a collection of books supposedly written by the same author, Moses, the variation in names and viewpoint is very questionable. Everyone knows that Moses was not the author of the books attributed to him by legend, and there is no evidence for either his existence or for the myth that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt who downed tools and emigrated en mass without any place to go and that they wandered about without any direction for forty years! The people of the book were very thinly committed to monotheism and rose from obscurity based upon good fortune and self-promotion.

Steve Weiss

One does not decay into dust, and show me a body that is buried in a casket that does not end up as a skeleton. Insects and bacteria probably consume the flesh, but if one is embalmed that process may be retarded. Perhaps an undertaker would have some idea of the normal process, but a pile of dust is not an option unless one is cremated at a very high heat. Even if one dies in the open and is eaten by scavengers, dust is not what's left. The bones may be picked clean by vultures, but show me a pile of dust. That is a primitive idea.

Steve Weiss

Whatever name one cares to use for the Hebrew deity from the sundry list available, the "holy one" seems confused about his identity. Sometimes he refers to himself as "I," as in "I am who I am," and at others in the plural, we, us, and our. This lack of consistency in self-concept could explain the lord's psychotic and pathological behavior, but the entire work is one of irrelevance, inaccuracy, myth, triviality, and barbarism. If this work is the best that a deity has to offer, one must question his credentials and competence.

Zwaarddijk

The word is indeed 'dust' in English. In the Hebrew (and Greek), 'earth' is among the possible meanings. Insects and bacteria certainly consume it, but your average pound of earth does contain a fair bit of bacteria and insects.

You're basing this on a technicality with regard to how an English word works. Try to think a bit about how dumb that really is.

Steve Weiss

Are you making the assumption that dead bodies are generally left exposed to the elements so that they can be broken down through natural decomposition and animal consumption? The fact remains that humans leave a skeleton behind, not dust, earth, dirt or anything else. If you don't think so, just visit the catecombs under Paris where you can see the bones of about five million people stacked neatly in piles.

The bible says that man was created from dust, not sperms and eggs and that dead humans "return" to the way that they started, which would be to sperms and eggs. I see no evidence for that belief, but perhaps that's the way things work in Finland. Perhaps you believe that man is composed of dust or whatever Finnish word you would use it its place, but that would still be wrong in any language.

steve_bnk

'...So, how do people who know about skeletons believe that man becomes dust after death? Not too credible a source if that which is easily observed on a daily basis is ignored in favor of a myth...'

Is this suposed to be a serious question?

Metaphor, allegory, and poetic imagery seem to be beyond those who insist on shoe horning the bible into a narrow secular literal right or wrong context.

'dust to dust ashes to ashes' a simple poetic observation on the mortality and the ultimate demise of the himan body.

http://www.kencollins.com/answers/question-27.htm