IamJoseph

No folksy tales in these deceptively simple writings. The most under-acknowledged facet of the Hebrew bible may be its majestic literally sweep, far ahead of Shakespear and other writings. We can easily take its sublime expressionisms for granted, forgetting these are primal and original, influencing the greatest writers and minds.

What manner of mind can compose such a volumous array of prose, in such perfect grammar, in an advanced alphabetical form, in such an ancient period, its alphabets also containing numerical values, and can recall 100s of 1000s of names and numbers without a single error - and deliver them all in word combinations which cannot be improved upon even 1000s of years later? I find it mysterious, and its what drew my first attention to this writings. I refer to such parables as:

LET THERE BE LIGHT - which can have multiple contextual applications and most deceptively simple; A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY - a most singularly hypnotic hook for desert wonderers; MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM - is this in the 3rd or 4th person; is it a scientific constant all was created in a duality? SON OF MAN - how can any human writer put himself in such a transcendent premise, and assume himself higher than man - when there is no higher life form? I AM THAT I AM - a most sobering declaration; I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE - why is this in the reverse order!? I AM - why is this in the ancient Egyptian and the only two words not in Hebrew? KNOW FOR A SURETY THY SEED SHALL BE IN BONDAGE - how can a seed as yet not born, nor yet able to sin, consider this - and how can it become vindicated? Count the descriptions of irresistible temptations in this verse: ‘AND WHEN THE WOMAN SAW THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD, AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES, AND THAT THE TREE WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE, SHE TOOK OF THE FRUIT THEREOF, AND DID EAT’. Or the nicest possible description of fornification: 'AND ADAM KNEW EVE AND THEY BEGAT A CHILD'. Or 'IN THEIR MINDS AND IN THEIR HEARTS WILL I WRITE MY LAWS'. What better opening, from a literary perspective, about the beginning of everything than: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD’?

spin

You should try to stick to the topic rather than wandering off to wax lyrical and make literary judgments for which you don't seem equipped to make.

You're not supposed to vomit on people.

What is this crap about "perfect grammar"? and what gives you the ability to comment on Hebrew grammar? What is this rubbish about "advanced alphabetical form"? Was it any more advanced than the Phoenician texts or anything written in Aramaic? Considering that Hebrew texts were originally written in Aramaic script, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

That much I can believe.

It is the paucity of grammatical features in Hebrew that reduces the communications to a minimal simplicity. It's what happens with second language users as well. One uses the linguistic resources one has available and makes the most out of what one has. You note the simplicity of communicated thought. It's a bit like Abba songs: "There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright..." Simply perfect, right?


spin

bacht

When on high heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being...

Babylon, 18th C BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish

Joseph, this is all great fun, but I doubt there are any arguments from the believer camp that haven't been examined here before.

I'll grant that there is some nice poetry in the Hebrew bible, and some words of wisdom (I like Proverbs). To me the most forward-looking aspect of the OT is the movement away from idol worship towards an invisible universal deity. The retrograde part is the adoption of ideas about an afterlife, which may have happened after the Exile (see apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon)

Jayhawker Soule

Agreed.

IamJoseph

Those are sublime writings, showing a deep pondering how the original scenario would have been. Mainly, it appears as sublime questions: what was it like when heaven was not yet formed? No answers are given, other than depicting the awesomeness of it. These answers are given in the Hebrew bible: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH' - that's how it was; the process is then given in verses of measures and steps of a protocol. These answers are aside from if they are accepted or agreed to or not, but more that they constitute a responsa to humanity's ultimate questions, as seen in those verses from Babylon. Here, the Hebrew becomes very bold and singular, positing a responsa scenario, and for its time a very advanced scientific thinking.

Clearly, this is where science itself comes from - an imperical listing of actions and elements which can apply to all generations' understanding. That life is derived from the dust of the earth [ridiculed by anti-creationists], can be seen as from sub-atomic particles representing all the substance of the earth - this is not an over indulgence of that verse because there is no alternative understanding of it; nothing else existed.

The critical separations of the elements before life [separation of light from darkness, water from land, etc] can be seen as actions which anticipate life, which could not occur otherwise - factors not listed in ToE, as if they do not matter, or as if evolution can occur without those pre-requisites. Agree or not, like it or not, Genesis is based on a 'finite' universe [there was a 'BEGINNING'], and when this factor is applied - there is no alternative to Creationism - which is one answer to the ultimate questions facing humanity - one of many, but a scientific and legitimate: cause and effect being 100% science, and legitimate by virtue of there being no other aternatives possible.


If the Hebrew bible is more than 1600 years old - it means it emerged when there was as yet no Hebrew interaction with Babylon. Many site the writings of Hamurabi as a prototype, and there is an eerie similarity here with the Hebrew writings - not so much in alphabetical mode but what is said. However, I see it the other way around - the datings of the writings subscribed to Hamurabi are post Abraham and Moses; the differences in those two writings transcends the similarities - I refer here to Monotheism as opposed an array of head bashing dieties battling for supremecy; again, questions and a responsa here on ultimate questions.

There are definitive subtle factors to this, notwithstanding over 50% of scholars dispute the Hamurabi datings: the impacting factors are never addressed. Similarly, my understanding is that the Hebrew did not derive from Phoenecian or Aramaic but it is the other way around - this is well against the grain of most links and graphs seen in the scientific reportings, but there is also good merit in this premise: the impacting factors are never addressed again.





Without downplaying any other sublime writings, we must not forget that expressions in writ is the single most powerful tool in the universe: it represents 'thought' per se, and all science and math is derived from a preamble of a phylosophical expression.

An invisable God makes total sense, from the pov a universe maker [creator] has to be, at least, transcendent of all within the universe [creation]: its a good advocation and harbors no loss of belief but intensifies it because it demands more.

The premise of an after life is not given to humanity and not becoming voluntarilly. All we can do is conjure up things - yet when one reaches an advanced age, they become like when they first were born - like suckling new born babies, in their minds, bodies and vision. This makes me think we don't go somewhere new but back to the point we came from, and that death is not a ceasing of life but a u-turn retractive action. IOW, I don't see it as a change of state but a return to a treshold the other side of change; life or living is the change and is this side of the separation treshold.

This becomes a disorienting premise with a verse like, 'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE'. It does not mean what it first points to - namely that life and death is a cyclical factory of in and out actions. It means, 'I TAKE LIFE [BACK TO WHERE IT WAS]; I GIVE [NEW] LIFE [WHICH NEVER WAS BEFORE]'. This overturns the change of state premise, which is not a scientifically correct premise because each change incurs a loss factor, thereby reaching diminishing and different values not in accord with what something changes to or where it goes after the change. Its a deep science when co-operated with as with any other deep scientific premise, such as MC2.

IamJoseph

Ok, lets have a technical definition of the word 'CREATE'? We use this in everyday speech, but what is its actual meaning? In Genesis, this word appears only in the first creation chapter; thereafter it is replaced by the word 'formed' throughout the remaining 5 books. How does that work - is it just a typo? When one considers what create actually means, it can only be 'ex-nehilo' [a pristine, technical term]; namely 'something from nothing' - this is correct because there was once no elements or forces in a finite realm [exacting grammar]. This is also why Genesis replaces create with 'formed' [something from something else] after this chapter. We use the term create for an artist or sculptor - but technically, this is formed - using pre-existing clay and paints, and making them appear as something else. How does it work when such fastidious allignment is seen in an ancient texts? :constern01:


Show us some phoenecian alphabetical books in a thread upto 800 years after the Hebrew arrived - because phoenecia existed before and well after the Hebrew emerged? This is a reasonable ask, and there should be 1000s of such examples from a nation mightier and predating the Hebrews - yet I find it is totally bereft of this fulcrum requirement. The same applies to the premise the alphabet comes from Egypt - show us the Egptian alphabetical books - this should be at least more prevalent than that of a wondering desert roaming peoples, no? :wave:

Oh - my bad! I never knew there was an Aramaic edition of the Hebrew bible. The ball is now in your court! :wave:

spamandham

This is nonsense. No ancient writing is "100% history" including the papyrus god you worship. A few scattered relics here and there do not even begin to make the kind of case you're fooling yourself (but no-one else) into accepting.

IamJoseph

What's the antithesis of a papyrus God, you don't say - how about an invisable one? I've no idea what assertions by me you refer to. You agree there are few scattered relics - I would replace 'few' with more than any others by a very far margin; scattered does not apply if it is focused on its textual space-time context only. You say I am fooling myself - I say the Hebrew bible is the world's most believed document by concencus, period of time and volume of impact. this includes the atheist anti-creation sector, which targets the Hebrew bible obsessively - aka no need to even consider other theologies.

There are only two legitimate paradigms facing humanity: Creationism; Non-Creationism. From a scientific POV - the former has more than 50% odds in its favor, while the latter is based on the single most anti-science premise possible: objections without any alternate solution.

I should ask you to validate your objections: which universe do you inhabit - an absolute infinite one - or an absolute finite one? These are totally different universes.

spin

"Create" is English. What's the Hebrew word?

Stop bullshitting on. You can't make sense of the linguistics of a text if you are going to analyze it only in a translation.

You do not understand even the first verse of Genesis, which is best translated "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth..." Just check out a neutral translation such as the NRSV or the JPS.



The only sense I get out of this screed is that you have an unscholarly bias, based on nothing but belief. You know nothing about the linguistic issues, not even the fact that the earliest inscriptions thought to be Hebrew are very similar to Phoenician. Wanting books in Phoenician is irrelevant to the claims you make, given that the language went into extinction 2700 years ago and there was no desire to preserve texts written in the language. We are just lucky to have traces of it.

Not understanding that the alphabet migrated from Egypt is your problem. You need to know about proto-Sinaitic, which is a simplification of hieroglyphic. This preceded the Phoenician alphabet, which in turn preceded the Hebrew alphabet. Do check it out.

Egyptian hieroglyphic is found all over the walls of temples in Egypt. Many books were written in the language, though you will only find then in translation in Egyptian anthologies these days, but then you only use translations of the Hebrew texts, so you should be at home.

More than one Aramaic edition. Just look up the Peshitta for example. But you misunderstand my comment. The Hebrew alphabet was not used in the earliest writings in Hebrew, as seen in Hebrew inscriptions and letters. The earliest Hebrew was in fact written with Aramaic letters.


spin

IamJoseph

'Bara'. But the point is, it appears only in the first chapter of Genesis. This is different from formed. The Ex-nihilo concept comes from here.


Sure I know that extended translation of the first verse - but it is not relevent here, and we are discussing the english versions.


Incorrect - that's why I added this nation prevailed 800 years 'after' Israel emerged. Its reasonable to ask for their alphabetical books if they were older, mighter and prevailed almost a 1000 years after. The Phoaenecians even had a naval partnership with Solomon, and were contracted to supply material for the 2nd Temple. The links you refer to serve up stray bits of alphabets on tomb stones and trade reciepts, supposed resembling the Hebrew - thus the conclusion it is older. This is not proof - a large archive of alphabetical books, more than the Hebrew, is obviously encumbent - yet this does not bother you!?

Unlike the Hebrew desire? Why do you accept this - knowing that Europe and islam have an ingrained agenda against anything Hebrew?


Not being able to affirm this with alphabetical books is your problem.

I did. Why do you except it without equivaent proof as per the existing Hebrew archives?


I'm aware of that - its common knowledge. If you accept the Hebrew alphabetic writings came from there - you need to put up an alphabetical Egytian book. I take it you are aware they never spoke Hebrew - but the Hebrews spoke Egyptian - a most impacting factor why you can't be right!?



Incorrect. The aramaic - a generic peasant tongue, was used only when Hebrew was barred, or when talking to other nationals. The Mosaic and prophetic books, including the Psalms - are in Hebrew.

Conclusion: Loads of claims of alphabetical books preceding the Hebrew. Only Hebrew evidences itself in hard copy, over numerous decades.

I say, there surely should be loads more alphabetical books that the hebrew - the latter appeared late in the scene and were a mostly a miniscule, dispersed and desert wondering nation. But what happened - why the blatant vacuum - the denial - and the distortions?!