xaxxat

What about the Shekinah? Is that the same as Sophia?

dzim77

Hi spin,

For clarification's sake:

Is your suggestion of the 'wind' translation based soley on the comparison to the Enuma Elish, or is there a linguistic reason for it?

I see that this word is translated 'spirit' in the following passage:

It seems to be the same phrase as the Genesis 1 phrase, exept that in this case the 'spirit' is *in* Joseph instead of *on* the waters.

It is translated 'wind' in the following verse:

Gen 8:1 NRSV


Is this the kind of idea you are suggesting here for Gen 1 - God blowing with his 'wind'? It seems to match Gen 1 to some extent but the word following the phrase is different ('moved/fluttered' in Gen 1 vs. 'passed over' in Gen 8).

Are you saying that this verse has no connection with the development of the concept of the Holy Spirit?

Curious to hear your thoughts...

spin

It's not just a suggestion, as the NRSV and JPS indicate. As a translation it is not solely based on the Enuma Elish, but it is a strong pointer.

Its meaning is based on air movement, as in "wind", leading to "breath" and "spirit". Look at Job 16:3, "have windy words (DBRY-RWX) no limit?" This should show you that RWX doesn't carry a basic idea of "spirit", but that one derives it metaphorically from the notion that one's spirit is their breath -- stop the wind of the mouth and you die, though it is a common metaphor.

No. It is a vestige of the original story. The wind caused Tiamat's mouth to be held open so that Marduk could slay her. As I've already indicated Tiamat and tehom are cognates -- they are the same word. You can find vestiges of the battle elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

The movement is bird-like, birds being animals of the air.

The question as worded is irrelevant to the issue. The significance of something is no reflection on how it is later used.


spin

judge

I don't thinkgod or the holy spirit could have sex. Sex is what people have.
just my thoughts

spin

Perhaps you could lift their tails to check.

Chili

I would say that Gabriel, Raphael and Michael are male and the HS is unadultered female with Lucifer being the adulterating vagabond.

Steven Avery

Iasion, who are you saying does not "mention the Holy Spirit". We know the Tanach does. Are you claiming the Holy Spirit is absent in non-canonical apocryphal Jewish writings ? Such as various texts in the DSS. Are there any pre-1st century writings that you would definitively claim does not mention the Holy Spirit ?

Oh, still waiting for your response on Theophilus and the Johannine Comma. "I dunno" would be better than simply non-responding since that was a significant claim of 2nd century evidence against the Johannine Comma.

Thank you dzim for mentioning Genesis 1.

btw, much of the discussion in this thread is apparently based on blurring or simply disregarding the distinction between grammatical gender and biological gender. Rather an elementary and oft-made error.

Shaom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

dzim77

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps I should have said "translation" instead of "suggestion". My fault.

I see your point that the meaning of 'spirit' is related to (or derived from) the idea of 'breath'. The idea of 'breath of life' appears in Genesis from this same word.

However, the Job 16:3 passge doesn't convince me. Job 33:4 seems closer to the meaning of Gen 1:2 and is translated 'Spirit of God' in the NRSV...


Ok, I understand the role of the wind in the Enuma Elish. However, I don't see how that would indicate that a Hebrew writer couldn't portray the Spirit of God as being involved in creation. Regardless of whether the Genesis story and the Enuma Elish are based on the same account (??), it doesn't exclude the possibility of a Hebrew author mentioning the Spirit of God. As you say- a pointer, perhaps, but not a decisive factor.


Wouldn't this movement characterize a spirit more than a wind?

I understand the Gen 1:2 translation to 'wind' as you've explained it. But many other versions, (and other similar verses in the NRSV) translate the same phrase 'Spirit of God'. My question was whether there is a decisive linguistic factor in Gen 1:2 that would determine the 'wind' translation.

Since the issue of the thread is the origin of the Holy Spirit, if Genesis 1 is refering to the Spirit of God, I think that would help us out.

Again, I'm just asking if there is any difinitive linguistic factor that would determine a translation of "wind from God" rather than "Spirit of God"?

Thanks.

spin

The relevance is that there is no way that you can extract a notion of "spirit" no matter how hard you try. As a literal translation "Words of wind" makes sense. "Spirit" is a secondary meaning of the word.

You argue from the evidence, not conjecture. I have supplied a close parallel of events and the linguistically significant context of tehom, the watery chaos, Tiamat in the Enuma Elish.

Can you exclude the fact that little green men have been visiting the planet for eons? You argue from evidence of what you have, not lack of evidence for what you don't have but can conjecture.

The wind in the Enuma Elish hovered.

From Gen 1:2, why would you translate it "spirit"?

You start with the base meaning of the term and if it doesn't fit, then you consider other meanings. Unless there are circumstances in the context to make you prefer the less basic, you go for the basic meaning. (If I told you only, "I went for a run yesterday", you'd have no reason to think of any other meaning but me moving relatively fast on my feet, but if I mentioned someone had given me a car, you'd have a cue for a more elaborate meaning of "run".)




spin

dzim77

Ok, makes sense.

But, you didn't comment on Job 33:4. This verse translates the same phrase from Gen 1:2 as 'spirit of God'. It also involves a context of creation...

I understand the evidence you presented (tehom), but it's not strong enough to justify an adamant adherence to the 'wind' translation.
Using the story of the Enuma Elish to influence the translation of a phrase in the Hebrew text requires an assumption that the Hebrew text draws from the EE. Futhermore, it requires an assumption that the Hebrew author (of Genesis 1) used the idea of wind from God (in a way similar to the EE), instead of using the idea of the Spirit of God... which is found elsewhere in the Hebrew text.

This is a bad comparison. The same phrase in Gen 1:2 is translated "Spirit of God" elsewhere. 'spirit' is also another use of the word, whereas "little green men" is not.


I see. Thanks.


Not saying I would necessarily, but possibly because it makes as much sense as 'wind', and because it is translated 'Spirit of God' elsewhere.


Yes... the phrase is translated 'Spirit of God' elsewhere which makes me wonder "it is likely that you went for a jog but I'm not totally sure - maybe you took the car".

Your first point of this post is well-taken... using the primary meaning unless there is a secondary meaning that fits better with the context. However, I don't see that an adamant adherence to the 'wind from God' translation is justified.