Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 05-12-2005, 12:07 PM

Hey Tom (Trh),

Have you read “101 Myths of the Bible�? by Gary Greenberg?

Maybe you will find this interesting:

It looks like the P source used a literary formula to delineate each of the seven days of creation. At the end of each day’s activities, except for the second and seventh days, God reviewed what he did and declared, “It was good.�?

See for yourself. The phrase “it was good�? occurs seven times.

Gen 1:4 – first day
Gen 1:10 – third day (first instance)
Gen 1:12 – third day (second instance)
Gen 1:18 – fourth day
Gen 1:21 – fifth day
Gen 1:25 – sixth day (first instance)
Gen 1:31 – sixth day (second instance)

The idea of “resting�? on the 7th day appears to be an afterthought. It looks like it was tacked on later by compressing and re-arranging some events into the third and sixth days.

Loomis · 05-12-2005, 12:12 PM

Hey Tom (Trh),

Have you read “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan�? by John Day?

Quote:

“there appears to be a polemic against P's creation account in Deutero-Isaiah, especially in Isaiah 40-45. It appears to respond point-by-point against the claims made in Genesis 1.�?

I think that The Secular Web and IIDB are great, and I don’t want to piss anyone off by pointing you off of this site (so please come back); but you might want to check out the posts of some guy named “Leolaia�? over at this forum for fallen Jehovah’s Witnesses.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73734/1.ashx

meforevidence · 05-12-2005, 12:29 PM

I would suggest going to this site for the two creation accounts
http://specialtyinterests.net/

click on "Toledoth"

Loomis · 05-12-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trh

I own Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible, but felt it would be better to try to work through the text first.

...

Is the Friedman book a good place to start?

IMO, no.

I highly recommend “A Brilliant Deceit and Other Essays�? by Lloyd Barre. The first half of the book sucks (unless you believe in a Historical Jesus), but the second half is excellent. It’s a reconstruction of the ancient Israelite religion(s). Barre argues that the OT stories are not the product of one people but two, originally and distinctly worshipping El and Yahweh.

Friedman is considered an expert on this subject, nevertheless he is clueless regarding verses like Deuteronomy 32:7-9. (IMO, this is the one of the most important sections of the OT, because it portrays Yahweh as one of El’s 70 sons.)

Another good book is “The Early History of God�? by Mark S. Smith.

Wallener · 05-12-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

...if you look into some Hassidic sources, it is hard to conclude that they totally disregard the literal reading.

Oh for sure, and I certainly didn't mean to imply there weren't any literalist Jews. Judaism is like any other large group, it has its share of, ah, "colorful" elements on the fringe. No surprise it was out of Chasidism that the "He's dead, it isn't the messianic age, but we still think Schneerson was Messiah" movement comes from.

Wallener · 05-12-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

I’m no expert, but it looks to me like Yahweh was not the original god associated with the flood story.

This seems reasonable to me. The one difference between the Genesis flood story and similar stories from the region that I've seen (which almost certainly isn't all of them) is that the reason for the flood in the Genesis variant is explicitly moral. The reason given for the floods in the other ones seem considerably more capricious. At least, as far I've read, which is not nearly as far as some others here (ie, correct me at will!)

Jayhawker Soule · 05-13-2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

The traditional Jewish view is that the stories are allegorical and not intended to be read literally.

I'd appreciate seeing this substantiated.

Wallener · 05-13-2005, 07:27 AM

You can start here...

http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/200...d_religion.htm

Notsri · 05-13-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trh

2.) In Genesis 2, the narrative tells us: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth… – then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.�?

Now, admittedly, I have no familiarity with the original languages, and how the syntax may have differed from the translated English version. But the structure of the translation makes it clear that Adam was created on the same day as the ‘earth and the heavens’. The sentence specifies a day, explains that there were no plants or herbs of the field, and says that then God created a man from the dust of the ground. Everything else is parenthetical, sectioned off by “– dashes – �? and the conjuntion (when no plant…) is not closed until the bit about God forming dust into a man.

So I am not playing fast and loose with the text if I paraphrase as follows to make my point: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.�? So Genesis 2 has Adam created on day 1, whereas Genesis 1 has humankind made not until the sixth day.

Hey, Tom. Hopefully you're still in the neighborhood and reading this. I do plan on responding to the "every seed" issue of Gen 1 (hopefully later today), but until then I wanted to quickly comment on the above.

I don't think Gen 2:4 specifies the first day of creation. The expression "in the day that" can very well mean "in the time when," and I think that's the signification here. "In the time when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth… – then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground."

For other examples, see:

Num 3:1: "IN THE DAY that the LORD spoke with Moses on Mount Sinai..." -- of course, Moses was on Sinai forty days and forty nights.

Num 7:84: "This was the dedication-offering of the alter, IN THE DAY when it was anointed, at the hands of the princes of Israel, etc." -- the offering of the sacrifices actually lasted twelve days.

2 Sam 22:1 (= Pss 18:1): "IN THE DAY that the LORD delivered him [David] out of the hand of all his enemies, etc." -- needless to say, it was not in one day that David was delivered from all his enemies.

Regards,
Notsri

Loomis · 05-14-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

This seems reasonable to me. The one difference between the Genesis flood story and similar stories from the region that I've seen (which almost certainly isn't all of them) is that the reason for the flood in the Genesis variant is explicitly moral. The reason given for the floods in the other ones seem considerably more capricious. At least, as far I've read, which is not nearly as far as some others here (ie, correct me at will!)

Maybe.

Again, I’m no expert. But it looks to me like one motive for the flood was to drown the Nephilim (half human, half elohim).

The idea of causing a flood to drown giants and half-humans is not unique to Genesis. It can also be found in “The Book of Giants�? from The Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q203, 1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q530-532, 6Q8).

This places Gilgamesh (from “The Epic of Gilgamesh�?) and Enoch (from Genesis) in the same story!

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

05-12-2005, 12:07 PM	#31
Loomis Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: The recesses of Zaphon Posts: 969	Hey Tom (Trh), Have you read “101 Myths of the Bible�? by Gary Greenberg? Maybe you will find this interesting: It looks like the P source used a literary formula to delineate each of the seven days of creation. At the end of each day’s activities, except for the second and seventh days, God reviewed what he did and declared, “It was good.�? See for yourself. The phrase “it was good�? occurs seven times. Gen 1:4 – first day Gen 1:10 – third day (first instance) Gen 1:12 – third day (second instance) Gen 1:18 – fourth day Gen 1:21 – fifth day Gen 1:25 – sixth day (first instance) Gen 1:31 – sixth day (second instance) The idea of “resting�? on the 7th day appears to be an afterthought. It looks like it was tacked on later by compressing and re-arranging some events into the third and sixth days.

05-12-2005, 12:29 PM	#33
meforevidence Junior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Denton Texas Posts: 28	I would suggest going to this site for the two creation accounts http://specialtyinterests.net/ click on "Toledoth"

05-13-2005, 07:27 AM	#38
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	You can start here... http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/200...d_religion.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.