God's language in Genesis?

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Like all ancient writings from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to the Hindu Vedas and the Bible; what they say does not give any credibility that what they say is true .

You're welcome to believe the Hindu writings if you like. That's up to you.

You are welcome to not believe the Bible and to deny its credibility. That's up to you.

You are not welcome to make the Bible something it is not. It presents what it does as truth and history.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Only if you believe so before you study the Bible,

No. The Bible claims to be the written Word of God. If you have studied the Bible and have come to the conclusion that God is not the Author, then it is you who came to the Bible already believing it was not from God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[dybmh]

I meant “absolutely not” with regard to your statement that Im ignoring oral transmission.

I’ll have to research my materials. Will get back to you with specifics.

It's an important, fascinating topic with far reaching implications. I'll certainly check it out; thanks in advance.

Yes. The other cultures are older than that of the Hebrews. AFAIK.

If I grant you that they're older; how strongly does that support the claim of appropriation/adaption of Judaism from the surrounding indigenous culture? At best it's circumstantial.

Also, how are you evaluating the age of Judaism? ( just curious )

What concerning the Bible is?

Agreed.

 

[dybmh]

it is an intro vid, the essays i read provide more data..and I haven't bought his book yet... I am just adding some related research.... and people can see where it goes for themselves....i plan on buying his book though based on what i found on vetting it

The idea that there are discrepancies in the story, I think, are valid. However, the indictment that it was intentional deception becomes very very hard to prove and borders on conspiracy theory. If there was real evidence of what is claimed, the evidence would speak for itself. It wouldn't need the glitz, glamour, and marketing. But, like I said, it's a huge topic, and the video was only 7+ minutes.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Absolutely not"? I think that's excessive, "Stands to reason"? OK. I can agree with that.

My recollection may be biased, I admit it. If possible, remind me of the parallel stories from the surrounding older cultures? The most convincing examples would be parallel stories which are not reflected in other geographically distant cultures. The last time I looked at this, that was the weak point in the arguments claiming cultural appropriation and adaptation. The examples provided were common archetypes in other ancient religious/mythical creation stories as well. This undermined the impact of the examples provided.

Only in writing... All ancient cultures engaged in oral story telling, right? Is there any reason to to exclude the tribe from the other side of the Evir river ( aka the Hebrews ) from this?

Well, if you would like to discuss or debate it, I'm happy to proceed. If I recall, the evidence supporting appropriation/adaptation resulting in the book of Genesis is not iron clad.

The idea that there are discrepancies in the story, I think, are valid. However, the indictment that it was intentional deception becomes very very hard to prove and borders on conspiracy theory. If there was real evidence of what is claimed, the evidence would speak for itself. It wouldn't need the glitz, glamour, and marketing. But, like I said, it's a huge topic, and the video was only 7+ minutes.

Actually the evidence shows that these stories found in the earliest Sumerian writings like Gilgamesh did evolve from oral stories traditions, and the flood is traced to real catastrophic event in the Tigris Euphrates valley.

Also the evidence demonstrated that the written language evolved with the stories primarily from Egypt, and by way of Sumerian, Babylonian, Phoenician, and Canaanite languages. The Hebrew language evolved very late from proto- Sinitic Canaanite, and the earliest known characters are Egyptian that evolved into Hieroglyphics and the root of other Middle East languages such as Phoenician, Canaanite, Ugarite, and later Hebrew including the characters of the words of Gods.

The evolution of language parallels the evolution of the stories as a matter of fact, and Hebrew evolved from these earlier written languages, and their names of Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. The Bible claims to be the written Word of God. If you have studied the Bible and have come to the conclusion that God is not the Author, then it is you who came to the Bible already believing it was not from God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, I go by the actual objective evidence that the Bible is an evolved text, and written, edited and compiled by humans over time.

 

[MNoBody]

The idea that there are discrepancies in the story, I think, are valid. However, the indictment that it was intentional deception becomes very very hard to prove and borders on conspiracy theory. If there was real evidence of what is claimed, the evidence would speak for itself. It wouldn't need the glitz, glamour, and marketing. But, like I said, it's a huge topic, and the video was only 7+ minutes.

agree
it is a huge topic and this guy is another researcher...I always find those interesting as they bring new items to the table ...even if they are 50% irrelevant, the other 50% usually proves useful in some way
besides, authors have to hype their book, part of the whole schema of our economy, which makes salesmen out of academics [just to be heard]...a sad commercial malpractice and disservice to our species I think

 

[sojourner]

Of course I'm biased. I am Christian. So?

My faith is not a result of your studied assessment. The study of the Bible will reveal that it claims to be the written Word of God. Which makes God the Author.

Good-Ole-Rebel

No, but you should at least be honest as possible about the Bible, and you can’t do that through bias. The study of the Bible reveals that no one knows who authored it, with exception of some letters attributed to Paul, and John’s Revelation.

 

[PruePhillip]

I never made the claim you did believe this. In fact it is obvious that you do not believe this. I believe over the millennia of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years humans have evolved physically and spiritually by the evidence including the spiritual evolution demonstrated in the Bible.
By the evidence they are all fallible humans, and no more unique than any other culture in the history of humanity.

Said this before.
Imagine (like Lennon's song Imagine, only the opposite beliefs) that a handful of people
claimed to be Babylonians. And everybody hates Babylonians, even for thinking they are
Babylonians. How ridiculous. So these Babylonians, after having been driving out of 120
countries, go home to modern day Iraq. They build their nation again, resurrect their old
language, fight off the Muslims from all across the Middle East and Sadaam Hussein's
secular government too. And they prosper.
Fanciful? That's the Jew.
Yes, Jews are unique. People argue over whether Egyptians were black or white people.
Egypt !!!!! The greatest nation-empire of the Bronze Age. Yet, here are the Jews, still. And
they took back their ancient land after 2,000 years..

 

[shunyadragon]

Said this before.
Imagine (like Lennon's song Imagine, only the opposite beliefs) that a handful of people
claimed to be Babylonians. And everybody hates Babylonians, even for thinking they are
Babylonians. How ridiculous. So these Babylonians, after having been driving out of 120
countries, go home to modern day Iraq. They build their nation again, resurrect their old
language, fight off the Muslims from all across the Middle East and Sadaam Hussein's
secular government too. And they prosper.
Fanciful? That's the Jew.
Yes, Jews are unique. People argue over whether Egyptians were black or white people.
Egypt !!!!! The greatest nation-empire of the Bronze Age. Yet, here are the Jews, still. And
they took back their ancient land after 2,000 years..

So what?!?!!? That does not negate the evidence for the early history of the Middle East as documented as to the origins of the Hebrew language, stories, and the culture of the Hebrews.

Changing the subject does not change the facts of history.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're welcome to believe the Hindu writings if you like. That's up to you.

You are welcome to not believe the Bible and to deny its credibility. That's up to you.

You are not welcome to make the Bible something it is not. It presents what it does as truth and history.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I do not necessarily believe nor disbelieve in any of the ancient scripture nor claims of contemporary scriptures I go first by the objective verifiable evidence as to the documented history of the ancient writings, and the writings have weak provenance simply by the history and archaeology of Middle East history.

Documented evidence indicates the Hebrew language did not exist before ~1200-1000 BCE, and there are no scrips of scripture nor Hebrew writings before this. Actually there are no extence Pentateuch writings before 200-100 BCE. The writings of the Bible show distinct evidence evidence of being edited, compiled and writen later than the claims of those that believe.

I go by the evidence as with the science of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, but you should at least be honest as possible about the Bible, and you can’t do that through bias. The study of the Bible reveals that no one knows who authored it, with exception of some letters attributed to Paul, and John’s Revelation.

Authorship of some of Paul's letters and John?'s Revelation are seriously open to question.

 

[sojourner]

Authorship of some of Paul's letters and John?'s Revelation are seriously open to question.

But they at least point to probable authorship, which is more than we can say for the preponderance of the texts.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Genesis 1:3 says
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light
He also says stuff in Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:14, Genesis 1:20
But here are my questions:

1. When God spoke in these verses, what language did he use?
2. And who was he talking to? Why did he speak?
3. Also: in what language did Adam and Eve speak to each other in? ........

Seems to me it could have been: Hebrew.
My high school English teacher mentioned that English was Not that comprehensive a language.
One student asked what language is comprehensive, or the most comprehensive language _____________
She replied it was: Hebrew.

Genesis 5:1 speaks of a book of generations of Adam.
So, nothing perishable survived the Flood except for what was on the Ark.
Thus, Moses could have had the writings of Adam from which to draw from.
To me, Hebrew would have been the original or logical chosen language in Eden.

Seems as if Genesis chapter one is written from the perspective that if someone was already on Earth.
Those ' creative days ' are Not specifically dealing with matter or material, but more about how Earth was arranged, and the preparation of Earth for mankind to inhabit Earth.

 

[Deeje]

Genesis 1:3 says

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light

He also says stuff in Genesis 1:6, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:11, Genesis 1:14, Genesis 1:20

But here are my questions:

1. When God spoke in these verses, what language did he use?
2. And who was he talking to? Why did he speak?
3. Also: in what language did Adam and Eve speak to each other in?

1. The logical choice is Hebrew...the language of Noah, who survived the flood.
Genesis 11:1 says...
"Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words." So whatever language God gave to Adam and his wife, it continued to be spoken after the flood until God caused the language to become confused in order to thwart the plans of the Tower builders at Babel. Those who dispersed as God commanded, were the ones who understood one another's language. But there is nothing to say that some of Noah's descendants didn't continue to speak Hebrew.
Abraham for example was called a "Hebrew", (bespeaking both his language and his lineage.)

2. Proverbs 8:30-31 speaks of God's "Master Worker", at his Father's side in creation.
The apostle Paul also speaks about the pre-human Jesus as...."the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist".

God was not talking to himself but to his "firstborn" son....his able assistant.

3. As above....the logical answer is Hebrew.

That is how I understand the Bible's explanation of those questions.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, I go by the actual objective evidence that the Bible is an evolved text, and written, edited and compiled by humans over time.

Thus, your problem. You don't believe what the Bible says.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

No, but you should at least be honest as possible about the Bible, and you can’t do that through bias. The study of the Bible reveals that no one knows who authored it, with exception of some letters attributed to Paul, and John’s Revelation.

No, the study of the Bible reveals God as the Author. There were many human writers of which some we know some we don't. But the Authorship is God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I do not necessarily believe nor disbelieve in any of the ancient scripture nor claims of contemporary scriptures I go first by the objective verifiable evidence as to the documented history of the ancient writings, and the writings have weak provenance simply by the history and archaeology of Middle East history.

Documented evidence indicates the Hebrew language did not exist before ~1200-1000 BCE, and there are no scrips of scripture nor Hebrew writings before this. Actually there are no extence Pentateuch writings before 200-100 BCE. The writings of the Bible show distinct evidence evidence of being edited, compiled and writen later than the claims of those that believe.

I go by the evidence as with the science of evolution.

As I said, thus your problem is you don't believe the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[dybmh]

Don't you have to say, 'you believe God is not speaking'. Every time I speak that clearly of my belief, I get a warning that I can't say that unless I make it clear that that is just my belief.

As I said, thus your problem is you don't believe the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

This one probably could use an "I think" qualifier to avoid a rule violation... but, whatevs.. just trying to help

 

[shunyadragon]

This one probably could use an "I think" qualifier to avoid a rule violation... but, whatevs.. just trying to help

In the subjective world outside the sciences and direct observed experience based on evidence everything is 'Ithink' or 'I believe.'