Research ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I am not quite sure what effect that has on my faith. I suppose the first and most important question is: does it make God less 'Godly' if the meaning is as in the OP? -The answer to which I think is 'no'
Of course it throws up a heap of unknowns, but I guess they only replace the unknowns that were there before.
Of course it throws up a heap of unknowns, but I guess they only replace the unknowns that were there before.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Let's start here. How does one translation become "an impressive body?" That term usually refers to multiple works by numerous authors.
Oy vey! :banghead3 How does one manage such a remarkably foolish question?sandy whitelinger said:
Jayhawker Soule (post #1) said:
Jayhawker Soule (post #28) said:
Jayhawker Soule (post #32) said:
I have no respect for childish appeals to ignorance. If you have no interest in Textual Criticism and prefer whimpering about uncertainty, feel free ...Tiberius said:
messianicmystic
Member
How does the concept of Contraction taught in Kabbalah correspond (or not) to this understanding of the opening phrase of the Torah? A friend once pointed out to me that if you add up the infinite set of numbers, you get zero, nothing. Could it be that the Creator is both everything and nothing, and that matter both did and didn't exist already? What about the law of the conservation of matter and energy? How does this relate to the discussion?
Stop polluting the topic.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Wow, so polite to the new guy. Not trying to scare me off, are you? :tsk:
If I am going to believe a particular text, I would like to have verification of its accuracy.
Please tell me how we can verify the accuracy of a text that we have no original copies of, and even these are several thousand years old.
Or are we just to assume that it's true for the purposes of this debate?
<yawn>This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of the text. You're off topic ...</yawn>Tiberius said:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
The accuracy of the text is something you yourself brought up in the opening post, so please don't tell me it is off topic.
And the simple fact is that you've provided an alternative viewpoint to that given in the Bible, and made the claim that this source is accurate, but you have not explained why it is accurate. And when I challenged you to show that your source is accurate, you do not respond with a logically thought out argument, but instead with rude ad hominem attacks.
Your claim that your source is accurate is not enough to make it accurate, and I will not accept it as accurate until you can show me that it is accurate. And frankly, I don't think you can show that. After all, the sources you cite are not originals, and there were no eyewitness accounts of creation.
Perhaps this is why you refuse to discuss the topic of the accuracy of this source (which you raised in the OP)? Because you know that you can't?
Then you should have no difficulty quoting me.Tiberius said:
You are apparently so driven by your childish agenda that you cannot distinguish between the accuracy of a manuscript and the accuracy of its translation.
Once again: your comments are off-topic and increasingly tiresome.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I did quote the part of your opening post where you discussed the accuracy of the source.
You claimed only that it was accurate.
You did not state WHY the source is accurate.
I am asking you to tell me WHY it is accurate.
Or do you expect me to just take your word for it that the source is accurate?
once you show me why it is accurate, I'll be happy to debate the source. In the meantime, I feel that you're asking us to take something seriously when there's a good chance (in my humble opinion) that the entire thing is a load of rubbish.
You claimed only that it was accurate.
You did not state WHY the source is accurate.
I am asking you to tell me WHY it is accurate.
Or do you expect me to just take your word for it that the source is accurate?
once you show me why it is accurate, I'll be happy to debate the source. In the meantime, I feel that you're asking us to take something seriously when there's a good chance (in my humble opinion) that the entire thing is a load of rubbish.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Sorry, you are so crass I don't pay any attention to what you say.
Do you practice being obtuse? Do you have any idea whatsoever about the topic of this thread? Let me give you a hint: it has nothing to do with theology. Now stop embarrassing yourself. :slap:Tiberius said:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Look, you've asked me to consider this source you cited. If you want it to be considered, you need to show that it is worth considering. So please show me why it is an accurate source. Surely that isn't a hard thing to do?
And I'm getting really sick of you insulting me. Are you unable to respond in a civil manner?
And I'm getting really sick of you insulting me. Are you unable to respond in a civil manner?
I don't recall asking you to consider anything. Nor do I have a responsibility to talk down to your level. It is understandable that you would not know of Alter. It may even be understandable that you know nothing of Friedman. But ignorance of the authority of the JPL, the Stone Edition, and Etz Hayim translations (supported by Rambam) leaves you ill prepared to participate in any discussion worthy of the name. It is only hubris that allows you to presume that your consideration of these sources would be of interest to me.Tiberius said:
I'm getting really sick of your pompous dismissal of scholarship based on nothing but ignorance and agenda. If and when you have something coherent to say on the topic at hand, feel free to share.Tiberius said:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Philosophically and linguistically speaking, consciousness has as it modus operandi the creation of order. When a being becomes conscious of self, the "world" springs itno existence as a thing the self can experience, and the conscious mind begins to create order out of chaos through the use of symbols.
The distinction discussed in the OP is very significant to me because I read Genesis 1-2 as a very sophisticated and beautifully nuanced myth about the nature of self-consciousness and human reason, rather than a literal creation story. So I've always found the "created order out of chaos" to harmonize much better with the meaning I find in the rest of these two chapters than "creation ex nihilo."
The distinction discussed in the OP is very significant to me because I read Genesis 1-2 as a very sophisticated and beautifully nuanced myth about the nature of self-consciousness and human reason, rather than a literal creation story. So I've always found the "created order out of chaos" to harmonize much better with the meaning I find in the rest of these two chapters than "creation ex nihilo."
atofel said:
The only verse in the Bible that actually describes God creating something other than just saying he did it is Genesis 2:7 and he didn't create out of nothing but used the existing dust of the ground.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul
What a wonderful observation!doppleganger said:
It also harmonizes much better with the beliefs of the period. So, for example, while reading The Rise of Yahwism, I came across the following ...doppleganger said: