Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slaveofChrist · 11-03-2003, 05:51 PM

Sorry about my delayed response, been busy with classes...

Quote:

Can you please reference the passage(s) that depict Yahweh as a divine warrior? Even if He is depicted that way, I find this evidence as anything but convincing.

Thanks for the references, but that still does not even come close to convincing my that Yahweh was just another ANE mythical god. There are still many aspects of His nature that are different.

Quote:

Save it is not YHWH . . . it is El.

save it is not El, it is Elohim. I believe there is a difference.

Quote:

No, for the earth and the waters of the deep preexisted.

Incorrect... Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The waters were on the earth, so that means they were created with the earth.

Quote:

Actually, no. What you list occurs in other creation myths as well.

I'd like to see those please.

Quote:

Ipse dixit--methinks if one wishes to "trust authority" I would trust the authority of Cross as well as other modern scholars. I would trust what the text actually states rather than what he tries to make them say. Given what you have quoted from him, he appears to lack understanding of the authorship of Genesis, and familiarity with creation myths detailed in the venerable ANET.

He's the one with the PhD.
Do you have a PhD from the Hebrew institute. I am pretty sure he was one of the only, if not the only non Hebrew student there. That gives him some authority in my book, not a lack of understanding.

Quote:

I'll agree with the first part of this because the text says so, but where is the text in the old testament that says Balaam attacked, directly or not, the Israelites? Isn't the whole point of the story that he was called to curse them and ended up blessing them? How is blessing them attacking them?

He attempted to attack them. His intentions were not good toward Israel.

Quote:

nd yet throughout the story Balaam is always saying "the Lord MY God" said such and such. If Balaam acknowledges Yahweh as his God how is that not worshipping him? Were not all the altars set up at Balaam's command and does he reference any other Gods for these altars?

Basically the only people that worshipped YHWH at that point were Israelites. Balaam obviously wasn't an Israelite. I am not sure of the exact meaning of the Lord My God, but I suspect it is not what you think.

DrJim- the whole point is that Genesis is unlike other religious writings of its day. And it is unlike them.

DrJim · 11-04-2003, 07:50 AM

slaveofChrist says:

Quote:

DrJim- the whole point is that Genesis is unlike other religious writings of its day. And it is unlike them.

"The whole point" is that each ANE myth has its share of unique features and features which show the shared cultural traits in the region: Genesis two creation myths included.

The "whole point" is that you are attempting to remove the biblical material from its wider cultural setting and claiming that special rules of interpretation need to be employed: why is the number of gods that show up in a creation account determinitive of its belonging is so diverse a genre as "mythology"? What is your criteria?

Doctor X · 11-04-2003, 08:01 AM

slaveofChrist:

Quote:

. . . but that still does not even come close to convincing my that Yahweh was just another ANE mythical god. There are still many aspects of His nature that are different.

such as? Seriously.

Quote:

Moi: Save it is not YHWH . . . it is El.

SofX: save it is not El, it is Elohim. I believe there is a difference.

Ah! I sit corrected . . . took me a bit to find a Hebrew text my browser will support.

"Elohim" is, technically, plural--"gods." There is not "Royal We" in Hebrew. However, by context, the P write is using this as "a god"--though it seems to preserve a more polytheistic understanding.

Quote:

Moi No, for the earth and the waters of the deep preexisted.

Incorrect... Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The waters were on the earth, so that means they were created with the earth.

No . . . checketh again the opening. First, the verb is more properly translated as "cut"--which connects the myth to other "creation myths"--I can provide the painful reference to that if you need it. You get more properly:

Quote:

At the time when god/the gods separated heaven from the earth, the earth was without form and void, and a divine wind moved over the face of the waters.

I am away from my library, but the ANET has the "Formation of the Plowshare." You also have the Greek myth of Chronos literally separating his father from his mother with a gardening implement . . . effectively castrating him! Eeee! Other OT creation myths include YHWH versus the sea monster which parallel the Tiamat-Marduk story.

Quote:

He's the one with the PhD.

Do you have a PhD from the Hebrew institute. I am pretty sure he was one of the only, if not the only non Hebrew student there. That gives him some authority in my book, not a lack of understanding.

"Pilled Higher and Deeper"--no relevance whatsoever. Unless he addressed what I stated above, he lacks understanding of the basics of OT scholarship. If we wish to play "dueling Ph.D.s" I am afraid Cross and others will win that one.

As for the rest, I strongly recommend you check out Cross' book to understand the extent of the YHWH cult and parallels to other Canaanite gods.

--J.D.

DrJim · 11-04-2003, 09:21 AM

slaveofChrist:

Quote:

Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Really?
How about, "When God began to create heaven and eath--the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water--God said, "Let there be light" (New Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh).

In this rendition,the earth pre-exists God's creative activity as a formless void. Sort of what one gets in the very start of Enuma Elish.
Why is your translation superior on linguistic grounds?
How is it "very clear" that God created from nothing? You must first defend your translation. Perhaps it is an anachronism: imposing on an anceint text a not-so-old doctrine of creation from nothing.

On another point, why should we not argue that since Gegnesis is a bit different to the other ANE creation stories, that those other stories are NOT myth, and Genesis is? Or perhaps some of the Egyptian theologies are not Myth and Genesis and the Babylonian stuff are?

And to shift the debate a little: if what about Proverbs 8 and Hokhmah, "Lady Wisdom"? She says she was with God at creation, God created through her. Sounds pretty polytheistic to me...

JRL

King Rat · 11-04-2003, 10:54 AM

slaveofChrist I apologize for jumping in here, but I'm having difficulty understanding what led to the following conclusion:

Quote:

As for the insignificance of Balaam...he was clearly significant. The book of Numbers deals with him and his attack on Israel in a significant manner. God dealt directly with Balaam and Balaam directly attacked God's chosen people.

King Arthur is referenced in many more and diverse texts than Balaam. But this does not mean that all of the legends attributed to King Arthur actually occured. I've read some evidence that suggests that the Arthurian legends were based on a real person. But this still would not prove that the events/actions attributed to King Arthur actually occurred. I'm not sure there is a way around this problem. I guess I'm confused as to why faith requires empirical data?

slaveofChrist · 11-04-2003, 12:59 PM

I'll get back to the rest of you guys later, but I want to address King Rat right now...

My point was never to argue that Balaam was a real historical figure, by that statement I only meant that Balaam is a significant figure in Biblical History. Once again, in regards to the story of Israel found in the Old Testament, Balaam is a significant figure. I am not, at this point in time, to argue that he is truly an historical figure.

Dont worry about jumping in. Cya.

King Rat · 11-04-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

I am not, at this point in time, to argue that he is truly an historical figure.

Cool, just checkin'.

DrJim · 11-05-2003, 07:30 AM

Would you possibly argue that he is a "mythic" figure, or just "legendary", or will you get around to arguing he is "historical" eventually?

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

11-04-2003, 12:59 PM	#36
slaveofChrist Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: City of Angels Posts: 50	I'll get back to the rest of you guys later, but I want to address King Rat right now... My point was never to argue that Balaam was a real historical figure, by that statement I only meant that Balaam is a significant figure in Biblical History. Once again, in regards to the story of Israel found in the Old Testament, Balaam is a significant figure. I am not, at this point in time, to argue that he is truly an historical figure. Dont worry about jumping in. Cya.

11-05-2003, 07:30 AM	#38
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Would you possibly argue that he is a "mythic" figure, or just "legendary", or will you get around to arguing he is "historical" eventually?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.