Hi,"book of Genesis" questions.

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 4, 2005

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begines to twist that facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

Depending on one's perspective and temperment, it is either sad or amusing to watch speculation posturing as 'theory' as people weave excuses for various Biblical phrases. Meanwhile, the West Semitic origins of Judaism are well known and remnants of the 'Divine Council' are scattered throughout the Bible. It is also known that El was a northern deity, while yhwh seems to have originated (perhaps with the Shasu) in Biblical Edom. Nevertheless, religious dogma requires that we "twist the facts to suit the theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

retrorich · Jan 4, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begines to twist that facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

How refreshing to see a quote from a REALLY "good book."

may · Jan 4, 2005

Jesus had a prehuman existence. In his letter to the Christians in Colossae, the apostle Paul described Jesus as "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."Colossians 1:15.

From the start, Gods Son received a unique assignment, that of being "master worker" alongside his Father. I came to be the one he [Jehovah] was specially fond of day by day," notes Proverbs 8:30, adding, "I being glad before him all the time."

Jehovah later invited his firstborn Son to share in the creation of humankind. "Let us make man in our image," he declared, "according to our likeness." (Genesis 1:26) As a result, another fondness developed. "The things I was fond of," explained the prehuman Jesus, "were with the sons of men." (Proverbs 8:31) At the beginning of his Gospel, the apostle John acknowledged Jesus prehuman role in creation: "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."John 1:3

SoulTYPE · Jan 4, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begines to twist that facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia

Depending on one's perspective and temperment, it is either sad or amusing to watch speculation posturing as 'theory' as people weave excuses for various Biblical phrases. Meanwhile, the West Semitic origins of Judaism are well known and remnants of the 'Divine Council' are scattered throughout the Bible - as noted here. It is also known that El was a northern deity, while yhwh seems to have originated (perhaps with the Shasu) in Biblical Edom. Nevertheless, religious dogma requires that we "twist the facts to suit the theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Using the forum index http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=264 to prove a point? I thought you were smarter than what you try to appear to be..I seen the index lots of times..

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 4, 2005

SoulTYPE01 said:
Using the forum index http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=264 to prove a point?

My mistake ... sorry.

anders · Jan 4, 2005

There are umpteen ways to approach a sacred text. For my part, I regard them all as basically being fairy tales and I regard any statements in them untrue until they are proven true. I do, however, try to find out what the writers meant, and I sometimes consider what the respective followers have believed and now believe about the texts.

Ronald, your

Bereshis bara Elohim et- In the beginning created, God, Aleph Tav/Alpha Omega/the first born of all creation/the word of God/the image of the unseen God.(New Testament)

and

Jn. 1:1 bereshis bara Elohim et/in the beginning was the Word.

and

Those who are brave enough to read Revelations, I am the Aleph Tav/alpha omega.

and

Ge.1 Bereshis bara Elohim et/Aleph Tav. I learned this from a Hebrew Teacher.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Aleph Tav.

don´t make sense. First, I think most readers here will realize that Hebrew letters aren´t found in the NT, so forget Colossians. (Yes, I have looked at the Greek text.) Likeways, John is in Greek. I agree that he copied the idea from Genesis, but his Greek reads "was the Word", not very similar to "created the heavens and the earth", and, again, in Greek, not Hebrew.

Your "Hebrew teacher" just made a silly joke. Gen. 1 goes, in a slightly simplified transcription
bere****h barâ Elohîm eth ha-shamayim ve eth ha-arets.
Both "eth" are indicators that the following noun is an object to the verb. This is even more obvious by the fact that both nouns, heavens and earth, are preceded by the definite article ha. According to the text, God created the heavens and the earth; he didn't create the letters ' and Th.

Fluffy, the plural heavens is no scribal error. It is always the plural form in the OT, so we should perhaps accept that it refers to the one heaven perceived by humans. Compare it to "Elohim", which also is plural in form, but, as standing_on_one_foot remarked, it is used with a singular verb.

I won´t tell you what I think of the statements that a concept invented in ca. 200-300 CE can be found in the OT (I refer of course to the Trinity). The mods wouldn´t like that kind of language.

Linus, from Wikipedia:
Pluralis Majestatis ("Majestic Plural") is the use of the plural pronoun in reference to one individual her-, him-, or itself alone. This is also known as the "Royal we" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, Popes, and university rectors. The reason behind the pluralis majestatis is the idea that a monarch or other high official always speaks for their people.
So I agree with standing_on_one_foot and _salam_ on that item.

May, good that you quoted a more correct text for Col.

But I think that using that verse creates difficulties for several of you. If the Bible gives a correct description of the creation you believe in, isn´t it strange that neither creation story points out that somebody was created before all other living things? Surely that would have been even more important than describing that plants were created.

To put it extremely mildly, I don´t believe in your interpretation of Prv 8. I see it as giving voice to the personified Wisdom, coming down, like a Vishnu avatar, to teach Israel. I don´t believe in any prophesies in texts thousands of years before what is pretended to happen according to them. Resemblances between the OT and the NT will only mean that the NT writers knew the OT and copied suitable parts from it.

Ronald · Jan 4, 2005

Anders,
Yeshua, to everyone, didn't make sense!

Mt 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

You have my sincere hope that you may find understanding.

Scuba Pete · Jan 4, 2005

For my part, I regard them all as basically being fairy tales and I regard any statements in them untrue until they are proven true.

How sad!

croak · Jan 4, 2005

I'm going to have to side with this explanation here because this is how it is with the Arabic in the Qur'an when God says We. It's a royal we. Also Arabic and Hebrew are very similar languages, they have many words that sound very similar or came from the same root word.

They're not just similar. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic are sister languages. Look at this:

Peace = Salam Arabic; Shalom Hebrew
They do sound quite the same, don't they?

"Royal We" means when somebody of great power and royalty: ex. king, emperor, Allah; wants to speak about themselves, they say we, us, etc.

For example:
We do not believe you. A king to a prisoner.
We created the Earth. Allah speaking of Himself.
We attack at dawn. I dunno, this kept popping in my head.
We are greater than you. A puffed-up arrogant king.

Make sense?

Linus · Jan 4, 2005

That makes sense. Its as if God is speaking to and for his sort of "royal court" (angels, sherubeim, serahpem, etc)? Is that right?

anders · Jan 4, 2005

Me said:
For my part, I regard them all as basically being fairy tales and I regard any statements in them untrue until they are proven true.

Me said:
NetDoc said:

How sad!

Click to expand...

Not at all! I believe in no supernatural judge, wanting to send me to some hell if I don't follow his rules. I am free from sin, because there is nobody against whom I can sin.

This means that, not relying on what someone else is said to have said, I have to work harder and think on my own to create a code of conduct for me, which is acceptable to me and doesn't hurt anybody else.

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 4, 2005

anders said:
Not at all! I believe in no supernatural judge, wanting to send me to some hell if I don't follow his rules. I am free from sin, because there is nobody against whom I can sin.

This means that, not relying on what someone else is said to have said, I have to work harder and think on my own to create a code of conduct for me, which is acceptable to me and doesn't hurt anybody else.

Fine, but to reduce the Tanach to a series of untrue fairy-tales seems a bit tragic to me as well. That body of work was the cornerstone of a relatively successful and enlightened culture, and important for the understanding of that culture. It is also a body of work that capable of informing historical research, and laden with a great deal of beautiful imagery and poetry.

Scuba Pete · Jan 4, 2005

I have to work harder and think on my own to create a code of conduct for me,

Even sadder still.

The Russians have a saying:
Возможно вы думаете слишком высоки себя?

Hi,"book of Genesis" questions.

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD

may

Well-Known Member

SoulTYPE

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

anders

Well-Known Member

Ronald

Well-Known Member

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...

croak

Trickster

Linus

Well-Known Member

anders

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...