-
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!
My OT class
- Thread starter Aqualung
- Start date
Aqualung
Tasty
The OT (the Hebrew Bible or Tanak) is quite a complex document. It is comprised of the Torah (the law), the Prophets (nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketuvim).
When looking at writings, one must understand that historical texts can either be diachronic or synchronic. Diachronic texts are what we tend to think histsorical texts should be. They are linear and they show stuff as it is in time. Synchronic shows things outside of time. It stresses things that are always true, no matter what time it is.
There are two sources for our modern day Bibles. The first is the Masoretic text (sorry about the spellings if I botch things; I'm reading from my notes, and when I take notes I don't bother to spell correctly). This was written in Hebrew. The second is the Septuegint, a Greek tranlsation made at about the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria.
Hebrew is a semitic language. The Semitic languages are related in much the same way as the romantic languages. For example, I speak spanish, and when I hear people talk in Italian I can usually figure out what their saying.
The OT is taken from 4 different textual sources. The first is called "The J source." This is the Yahwist source (called J because it was "discovered" by a German). These are the earliest writings and are dated to somwhere around 950 BCE, give or take about 50 yrs. The Yahwist uses the term Yahweh to refer to God, all the time. Yahweh is essentially God's first name. The Yahwist uses it even when referring to things that happened before the Isrealites learned that Elohim was called Yahweh. (It's like if I had a teacher who in the past I had to call Mr. Smith, and then later we became good enough friends to where I could call him John, I might still refer to him as John when I'm talking about things he did when to me he was still Mr. Smith.) The Yahwist was writing while Israel was the greatest nation on earth, and was sponsered by King Solomon.
The Elohist (E source) is the second source. This was written around 850 BCE, after the North and the South had split. He writes in distinction to the Yahwist in that he only uses Elohim when referring to God. He finds the Yahwist use of the more personal name to be innapropriate.
Then came the P source (priestly) around 550 BCE. This source was written while Israel was in exile. When Babylonia conquered Israel, they took with them the Israelite intelligentsia, like the priests. The P source is based on the JE source and on the priests own commentary. It uses Elohim before Exodus 3 (when Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh) and Yahweh after that.
The there's the D source, but I haven't learned anything about that yet.
When looking at writings, one must understand that historical texts can either be diachronic or synchronic. Diachronic texts are what we tend to think histsorical texts should be. They are linear and they show stuff as it is in time. Synchronic shows things outside of time. It stresses things that are always true, no matter what time it is.
There are two sources for our modern day Bibles. The first is the Masoretic text (sorry about the spellings if I botch things; I'm reading from my notes, and when I take notes I don't bother to spell correctly). This was written in Hebrew. The second is the Septuegint, a Greek tranlsation made at about the 3rd century BCE in Alexandria.
Hebrew is a semitic language. The Semitic languages are related in much the same way as the romantic languages. For example, I speak spanish, and when I hear people talk in Italian I can usually figure out what their saying.
The OT is taken from 4 different textual sources. The first is called "The J source." This is the Yahwist source (called J because it was "discovered" by a German). These are the earliest writings and are dated to somwhere around 950 BCE, give or take about 50 yrs. The Yahwist uses the term Yahweh to refer to God, all the time. Yahweh is essentially God's first name. The Yahwist uses it even when referring to things that happened before the Isrealites learned that Elohim was called Yahweh. (It's like if I had a teacher who in the past I had to call Mr. Smith, and then later we became good enough friends to where I could call him John, I might still refer to him as John when I'm talking about things he did when to me he was still Mr. Smith.) The Yahwist was writing while Israel was the greatest nation on earth, and was sponsered by King Solomon.
The Elohist (E source) is the second source. This was written around 850 BCE, after the North and the South had split. He writes in distinction to the Yahwist in that he only uses Elohim when referring to God. He finds the Yahwist use of the more personal name to be innapropriate.
Then came the P source (priestly) around 550 BCE. This source was written while Israel was in exile. When Babylonia conquered Israel, they took with them the Israelite intelligentsia, like the priests. The P source is based on the JE source and on the priests own commentary. It uses Elohim before Exodus 3 (when Elohim reveals himself as Yahweh) and Yahweh after that.
The there's the D source, but I haven't learned anything about that yet.
Aqualung
Tasty
Genesis 1 is a P source. This means it was written by the priests while in exile to the Babylonians. The Babylonians had a yearly ritual wherein the entire city would go for a 6 day festival. Everybody had to go, and nobody could work. During this festival, the Babylonians would act out their creation myth. This myth says that the earth and the heavens are two halves of a god that a different god slew, and that the men who the god then made were made to be slaves. When they acted it out, the Babylonians always made sure that the King played the God (showing him to be powerful, god-like, and war-like), and the Israelites always played the men (to show that they were just slaves). The Israelites perhaps then would go home and tell each other this creation story to booste their spirits. This P-source creation story can be seen as to contrast the Babylonian creation myth. For one, Genesis 1 shows a very calm creation. It's not violent, and everything comes into creation with just a word or two. In fact, it's so non-warlike that man can't even kill beasts for food, but instead they are to live completely on plant life. Also, it shows that man is created in God's image. They weren't created to be slaves, but rather to be God's representatives on earth. It's interesting that the P-source stresses that ALL humans are created in God's image. ONe would think that after being so mistreated by the Bablylonians, they would tell eachotehr that we're the good ones, we're the ones who should be enslaving them but instead they stress that all man was created in god's image. Another interesting point is that the earth is created in 6 days, the same length of time taht the Babylonian festivities lasted.
Aqualung
Tasty
Genesis 2, unlike 1, was a J source, so it was written while Israel was the greatest nation on earth. As a bit of background, it's interesting to note that the Ceriphs and the Cherubs were essentially angelic body guards. They were not the sort of angels you would want to meet in a dark alley at night. 
The Ceriphs were snake like, although they walked upright. The "snake" who tempted Eve was actually a Ceriph, a divine being, such as perhaps Lucifer might have been.
This story is quite different than the P source. For one, it doesn't have the humans being created in God's image, but instead just has them as dirt things. God is described as a potter who takes up some dirt (adamah) and uses it to make man (adam). Then, god made a helper for him. But why? For one, adam was genderless, or rather he was both genders. He was single and unitary. So God had to split him. (this chapter is all about eliminating short cuts. It's a short cut for Adam to be unitary. It's hard work for him to have a wife.) He creates ish (man) and isha (woman). Then comes the first covenant of the Bible (covenant comes the word berith, or birtu, meaning shackles). God can't accomplish his purposes without eliminating the shortcuts and then having people overcome them through covenants. Another shortcut that is eliminated is by taking the snake and making him crawl on his belly. The man must also now sweat for his food (eliminating that short cut) and the woman must have pains in her birth.
And that was what we covered in class today.
The Ceriphs were snake like, although they walked upright. The "snake" who tempted Eve was actually a Ceriph, a divine being, such as perhaps Lucifer might have been.This story is quite different than the P source. For one, it doesn't have the humans being created in God's image, but instead just has them as dirt things. God is described as a potter who takes up some dirt (adamah) and uses it to make man (adam). Then, god made a helper for him. But why? For one, adam was genderless, or rather he was both genders. He was single and unitary. So God had to split him. (this chapter is all about eliminating short cuts. It's a short cut for Adam to be unitary. It's hard work for him to have a wife.) He creates ish (man) and isha (woman). Then comes the first covenant of the Bible (covenant comes the word berith, or birtu, meaning shackles). God can't accomplish his purposes without eliminating the shortcuts and then having people overcome them through covenants. Another shortcut that is eliminated is by taking the snake and making him crawl on his belly. The man must also now sweat for his food (eliminating that short cut) and the woman must have pains in her birth.
And that was what we covered in class today.
What you are describing is Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, popularized by Richard Elliott Friedman in Who Wrote the Bible. You should be aware that more and more people are beginning to think it somewhat overstated.
Still, you might want to invest in Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View Into the Five Books of Moses - the Torah with JEDP color-coded.
Still, you might want to invest in Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View Into the Five Books of Moses - the Torah with JEDP color-coded.
i believe in tranquility
Member
hey man did you want this here:
So about God being male:
The dominant voice of God the Father comes from Jesus. So to analyze his speech we must look at his circumstances. Jesus already had a biological mother (the Virgin Mary), and Joseph is viewed as Jesus's "step" father. This leaves no other solution for Jesus to call "God" his father. But here is where I think that people have made somewhat of a mistake. Just because Jesus called God his father, does not imply that we have to, because we have bioligical mothers AND fathers. The Jews said that God is repectabely indescrible. Which makes perfect sense since God is the "unknown". So to get an understanding of God we can take a look at creation. Now make sure that you note the difference in the two DIFFERENT creation stories in Genesis. This is shown in the most common bible accross the church (New Revised standard Version)
The first:
Genesis: 1:26-27
And God said, "Let is make humankind in our image, according to ourl ikeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the world animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them...
------------------------------------------------------
First, in the hebrew language which the Old Testament was translated from, the word "man" refers to humankind. The word "he" translates into Yahweh, who was decribes by the Jews to have no sex (because of humans incapability to describe there creator).
Second, we see that God created humankind in his image. This possibley can mean that God has a human figure to him (something that I wouldnt doubt, because of it seems to be clearly stated). But the most important thing to draw from what is said here is that he created humankind in his own imageimplying that humans INCLUDE FEMALES, this means that God could possibly MALE and FEMALE or MALE nor FEMALE, i would tend to lean towards the NOR, becasue again GOD is indescrible.
The SECOND CREATION STORY: Genesis 2:15
"Another Account of the Creation:
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it..."
This creation story is Known as the Adam and Eve story (COMPLETELY different from the 7 day creation story).
As most know, this creation story states that God made Adam, and through Adam God made Eve (out of man). This implies that woman should be in service of man (which alot of people, including my slef, beilve is incorrect).
MABYE WE CAN ANALYZE THIS BETTER HERE....i dont know...
So about God being male:
The dominant voice of God the Father comes from Jesus. So to analyze his speech we must look at his circumstances. Jesus already had a biological mother (the Virgin Mary), and Joseph is viewed as Jesus's "step" father. This leaves no other solution for Jesus to call "God" his father. But here is where I think that people have made somewhat of a mistake. Just because Jesus called God his father, does not imply that we have to, because we have bioligical mothers AND fathers. The Jews said that God is repectabely indescrible. Which makes perfect sense since God is the "unknown". So to get an understanding of God we can take a look at creation. Now make sure that you note the difference in the two DIFFERENT creation stories in Genesis. This is shown in the most common bible accross the church (New Revised standard Version)
The first:
Genesis: 1:26-27
And God said, "Let is make humankind in our image, according to ourl ikeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the world animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them...
------------------------------------------------------
First, in the hebrew language which the Old Testament was translated from, the word "man" refers to humankind. The word "he" translates into Yahweh, who was decribes by the Jews to have no sex (because of humans incapability to describe there creator).
Second, we see that God created humankind in his image. This possibley can mean that God has a human figure to him (something that I wouldnt doubt, because of it seems to be clearly stated). But the most important thing to draw from what is said here is that he created humankind in his own imageimplying that humans INCLUDE FEMALES, this means that God could possibly MALE and FEMALE or MALE nor FEMALE, i would tend to lean towards the NOR, becasue again GOD is indescrible.
The SECOND CREATION STORY: Genesis 2:15
"Another Account of the Creation:
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it..."
This creation story is Known as the Adam and Eve story (COMPLETELY different from the 7 day creation story).
As most know, this creation story states that God made Adam, and through Adam God made Eve (out of man). This implies that woman should be in service of man (which alot of people, including my slef, beilve is incorrect).
MABYE WE CAN ANALYZE THIS BETTER HERE....i dont know...
Aqualung
Tasty
For now this is a good place to debate it, thanks.i believe in tranquility said:
Analyse his speech?
Have you ever known a kid whose father left him when he was still a little child? Did he just latch on to any and all authority figures and call them his father? No. Do you think Jesus was exceptionally "slow" and therefore would call a man who wasn't his father "Father"?
Jesus frequently referrs to god as "our father" or "your father." He makes it clear that he is not just his father, but ours as well, regardless of biology.
I disagree that he is the "unknown". He loves us, and therefore wants to be known.
Yes that's the version I have to read for my OT class.
No, "he" translates to Elohim, because the first creation story is P source. (when I asked you to put this in this thread, I did so with the assumption that you would actually read the thread).
It is clearly stated. God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, and with Noah later on. Jacob wrestled with god. Moses saw god's finger and his back, because no man can see god's face while in the flesh and still live.
It doesn't imply that, but rather gives that as a consequence of their curse, or a prophecy of the future.
Aqualung
Tasty
This is the story of Cain and Abel, which outlines humankind's historic struggle between shepherds and farmers. In this one, the shepherd, Abel, gives a sacrifice to God, who accepts it; whereas Cain gives a sacrifice of grain to God, who rejects. There are a couple of questions this text brings up. Number one: How did they give sacrifice? The law of sacrifice wasn't made yet, there were no priests to do sacrifices. It was essentially hit and miss. But then why did God reject Cain? Some point to verse 7. in v 6 God asks "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you don't do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." They say that he was not accepted because he did not do well; perhaps he had the wrong intent with his sacrifice (such as prestige or rivalry with Abel). The professor said, however, that this was an eisegetical interpretation (remember, eisegesis is reading what you think is there, not what is actually there). He said that the comment about doing well (since it is in the present) is actually saying that if Cain handles his anger well, then God will accept him, but if he does not handle it well, it opens himself up for sin. In fact, he does not handle it well, and ends up slaying Abel. But this still leaves the question: why did god not accept CAin's sacrifice? Whim? Prefers meat to veggies? The text does not say.
Then, God curses Cain. But, he also protects Cain. Why? Our text book states that it is because God abhors murder so much that he wants to "guaruntee" that nobody will murder Cain, even if he himself is a murderer.
Then, God curses Cain. But, he also protects Cain. Why? Our text book states that it is because God abhors murder so much that he wants to "guaruntee" that nobody will murder Cain, even if he himself is a murderer.
Aqualung
Tasty
Why did God have a flood in the first place? Well, it says in Genesis 6 that the sons of god were coming down and having relations with the daughters of men. Who are these sons of god? Well, at this time in history, the Hebrews are not monotheistic - they're monoidolatrous (or something like that), meaning that while they believe in other gods, they're only allowed to worship one. These other gods were what was present in the council of heaven, and are the gods of other nations. For example, Ra, the god of egypt, is a son of YHWH, and was present in the divine council (we shall make man in our image). These sons of god were coming down and having babies with the children of man. Once again, though, this not only is a short cut (as creation story number 2 warned against), but it also breaking that earth/heaven barrier that God wishes to keep intact. You can't get into heaven through short-cuts, and while you're here, you stay here.
Aqualung
Tasty
Remember, the J source is the second creation story, the one that has God as the potter. In this story, God's "pots" were corrupt. He made them a little misshapenly, and wants to start over. So what does a potter do when he wants to remake a pot? Gets it wet! This softens the pot enough to where you can reshape it. And men, being made from the dust of the ground, can be reshapen if you wet them down. Noah, however, was a "good" pot. He isn't misshapen, or anything like that. So god decides to "keep" him.
Noah brings 7 pairs of clean animals onto the boat. Why? To sacrifice them when he gets off. Noah doesn't build an ark. It's just htere. God just says, get into the ark. The P source is what provides the source of this ark (noah's hands).
The ark in this story is from the hebrew word for "coffin" which is rather interesting. God essentially tells Noah, "Get into this coffin." Noah must be scared out of his mind!! This shows that the J source thought that salvation was through death.
Noah brings 7 pairs of clean animals onto the boat. Why? To sacrifice them when he gets off. Noah doesn't build an ark. It's just htere. God just says, get into the ark. The P source is what provides the source of this ark (noah's hands).
The ark in this story is from the hebrew word for "coffin" which is rather interesting. God essentially tells Noah, "Get into this coffin." Noah must be scared out of his mind!! This shows that the J source thought that salvation was through death.
Aqualung
Tasty
In this story, Noah is not chosen because he's a pot that the potter made correctly. It's because Noah earned that. He was blameless in his generation.
Remember in the creation story how god creates the heavens and the earth out of chaos? order from chaos? Well, He saw that the humans thought they were pretty much Gods, too. They were sleeping with gods, after all, and taking short cuts. So God basically said, "Well, if they think they can be gods, I'll let them. I'm letting go of my control on the order that I created from chaos. Let's see if they can hold the order." They can't. The world begins to go back to the watery mess it was in before god organised the chaos. When god finally teaches the humans that they aren't gods (ie, they all die), he stops the inundation and returns to controlling the chaos.
This story only has Noah brining 2 of every animal. Why? It's a priestly source, and the priests, knowing that animal sacrifice only came about with Moses, "corrected" the J source accounts.
In the end, though, NOah wasn't a good choice. Rgith after he gets off the boat, he gets drunk and does naughty things. Why, therefore, ought we to have any faith in God's jusdgement?
Remember in the creation story how god creates the heavens and the earth out of chaos? order from chaos? Well, He saw that the humans thought they were pretty much Gods, too. They were sleeping with gods, after all, and taking short cuts. So God basically said, "Well, if they think they can be gods, I'll let them. I'm letting go of my control on the order that I created from chaos. Let's see if they can hold the order." They can't. The world begins to go back to the watery mess it was in before god organised the chaos. When god finally teaches the humans that they aren't gods (ie, they all die), he stops the inundation and returns to controlling the chaos.
This story only has Noah brining 2 of every animal. Why? It's a priestly source, and the priests, knowing that animal sacrifice only came about with Moses, "corrected" the J source accounts.
In the end, though, NOah wasn't a good choice. Rgith after he gets off the boat, he gets drunk and does naughty things. Why, therefore, ought we to have any faith in God's jusdgement?
Aqualung
Tasty
Here's another interesting thing that goes along well with teh Adam lived to be 930 thread. Nowadays, when we want to honour people, we'll have documentaries about them. These documentaries will highlight their accomplishments and the obstacles they overcome. But back in the olden days, they couldn't make documentaries. So to honour people, they would say, "So-and-so lived to be 5,000 years!!" and people would understand to mean that they were an honourable person.
i believe in tranquility
Member
Well yes it happends all the time in society...(at least the America I observe).
Sorry, but I dont comprehend your response. Perhaps you may reword it?
Not like I am in disargeement with your statement, but can you give some quotes?
I would have to say otherwise, because God is not my father, my father is my father and he is about 20 feet away from me now. God is my guide, my teacher, my creator, and his Son is who I pay my alligance to. The God I know has no sex, God is niether male nor female. God is God.
Ok. I agree that he wants to be known. Thats why he created humans (to praise his creation, as he puts it). But God is unknown, because we do not know everything about him. Im not saying that he is COMPLETELY unknown, but rather that he is unknown to a certain extent.
Not quite my friend. In the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:27:
"...he created them"
Note: Because of English's poor construct (example: congugation is poor: I said, he said, she said, you said....said stays the same). The only possible way for translators to link "created them" with "he" is to apply a masculine sense to identify God. Basically in the Hebrew bible it does NOT say "he" created them.
The word you said: "Elohim" simply is the translation for the word God. And just something to think about...that word in Hebrew is plural, implying "Gods".
Show me where this is clearly stated please. And in response: the word Adam translated from Hebrew means "human", in otherwords, it is the way to idenify the human race. The word Eve, means life. So to think that Adam and Eve represents two people is absurd, because when Cain was banished from Eden for killing his brother, he went to another village and interacted with other humans, implying that THERE WERE MORE HUMANS OTHER THAN, the two you would call "Adam and Eve". So Adam and Eve means the whole of humanity.
Well..we can see the oppression of women at its finest, in the "beginning".
i believe in tranquility
Member
sorry for my late response. I've been swamped with work. My post was in response to Aqua's post on page 1
Aqualung
Tasty
I'm just saying it's not very logical that Jesus was sooo dumb that he coulnd't comprehend not having a "real" father, and so decided to call God his "father."i believe in tranquility said:
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created...
Matt 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father...
6:9 Jesus taught us to pray to "our father, which art in heaven"
Eph. 4:6 One god and father over all.
Heb 12:9 subjectio nunto the Father of spirits
Well a number of those quotes (especially the malachi and the hebrews ones) show that god is the father of our spirits.
Sure, but he's not "the unknown" - we just don't happen to know it all yet.
Not quite my friend. In the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:27:
Well, "he" refers to Elohim. It was from a P source.
Well, I don't know hebrew. Maybe I'll get one of the Deuts to verify that for me.
I know the first part, but I don't know that Elohim is plural. Once again, maybe one of the deuts can look at it.
They're in here somewhere.
We're still talking about genesis one, which never says adam. Genesis 2, which says adam, does not say we were created in god's image.
A) the bible is synchronic, not diachronic. B) the bible is not complete, so it doesn't include all of the children.
Well..we can see the oppression of women at its finest, in the "beginning".[/QUOTE]