Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is remarkable that these divine beings arrive..and seed the planet with humanity. It appears that we are the mirror image of these beings..I wonder if God had a group that were a little lower than the angels that he would send out on these tasks..?
Genesis is a very interesting book...when the firmament was created...If you look up the term it means dome..or in my view- atmosphere...The story is so modern yet ancient..also- now that we understand the concept of cloning - it's a great connection to why a rib (sample material) was taken from a being in order to make another being - a clone- a female clone.
Originally the divine council, the DADAt of the Egyptians, was the body of the assessor gods, the judging gods, which consisted of 42 gods.
In this thread the divine council is understood as a congregation of gods, usually of the first class gods.
I think it also possible (or maybe it is not) that the Priestly/Scribe/Redactor/s believed in the council but with the modification that YHWH as head of that council was, as Heiser suggests, incomparable as the creator of all things even the other gods. The preistly writer of course is interested in holiness and order. As such how do they explain the disorder - whether in their own ranks or in the other nations. How about have the gods rebel and have YHWH and his portion (Ps.82) assume their roles by using Israel as his instrument in punishing and making subservient the other nations and having the other gods die like men and/or eventually punished and bound for all eternity.
As a sidenote: Heiser frames the later strict montheistic statements as incomparable monoltarous statments. Whether Israel finally went to a strict monothesim or not is moot - what is true, it seems, is that Israel at least had a stage of incomparable monoltary based in ANE motifs. It also seems that they did a pretty good job of equating YHWH and Elyon so that the texts (like Duet.32:8-9 even with bene elohim) are ambiguous enough (to us today) to see that YHWH and Elyon are the same in Israel's eyes and that their redactors did not fail in editing this out. Back to the story:
Since the evil in the present world is polar opposite to the holiness and order of YHWH Genesis 1 is a prologue, as Smith suggests, to the 'fall' in Genesis 2-3. YHWH as incomparable is annoucing and informing his council of his intent to create mankind in his/their image - the image being the capacity to represent God on earth as his delegated authority - i.e. holiness and order - something the gods failed to do with the other nations and brought the foundations of the earth to chaos (Ps.82:5). All the references to 'good' in Genesis 1, it's structure around 6 days of work and 1 day of rest, contrasted with Genesis 3 (the reality of the real world) suggests the preiestly writers attempt to frame the ANE motifs acccording to his perspective. A perspective that elevates the preistly moral and YHWH and his people over the gods and their peoples.
So the preistly vision accomplishes at least thee things within the context of ANE and Israel previous history:
1) It sets YHWH as head and creator of the council of the gods - incomparable monoltary.
2) It explains the evil and disorder in the earth by the fall and rebellion of the gods - God intially created all things in order and in holiness. Interesting that there is a figure that is introduced, in Genesis 3, as if the audience already knows who it is - the serpent. Just a snake or some other divine being?
3) It explains the eventual justice in getting rid of the gods and taking over the earth and all other nations - setting the world aright by instilling holiness and order.
The above could probably be much tighter but I am sure some criticism will come.
Good post!
Just a few things I noticed:
1- I would disagree with Heiser (if he claims that Detero-Isaiah was not claiming a strict monotheism in order to bolster the spirits of the defeated Judahites), but am not sure exactly what time frame he was referencing.
2- I'm not entirely convinced that the Priestly writer was attempting to establish Yahweh as the ultimate head of the "Divine Council" - especially if that is based off of the assumptions we are making concerning the plural "us" as indicative of the Divine Council. That claim for Yahweh seems to have been made previously in other Biblical works, most likely prior to the Priestly Writer's Account; and we still haven't entirely established whether the Priestly writer, when he was writing, would have subscribed to the idea of a "Divine Council". Is it possible that every plural verb form in reference to God is a reference to the Divine Council? I find that bordering on a certain fallacy that Fundamentalists make when they claim that a certain usage or word means the same thing every single time, without considering who wrote it, under what circumstances and when.
3- I think that the Priestly Writer might have been attributing the orign of "Evil" to the pre-exisistent Chaos and Darkness talked about in another thread. As ANE symbols of "Evil", it would get God off of the hook for many issues of Theodicy and it might have been on the mind of P. In fact, the Day in which he separates the Chaotic water does not bear the mark of being "Good" - which might be a comment on that particular Day (or a scribal ommission, though I find that unlikely). At any rate - we must wonder why that Day is not "Good" in relation to the others.
Ascribing the inception of Evil to the acts of Mankind (and it's gradual crescendo?) is more the style of J (Genesis 2-3, and the rest of the Primeval "Crime and Punishment" Narratives), rather than P - in my opinion. If P's Creative Account was a comment on J's version - it produces some curious results. It seems likely that P was definitely aware of J's account, and was trying to say something different. Perhaps the differences are where the important themes are? How could mankind be responsible for Evil if they were created in the Image of God? I guess it all depends on how one views the whole "image" and "likeness" aspects of it. In a later genealogy (Genesis 5:1-3), an interesting problem is posed: if you read closely, it makes a point to mention that Seth was in the "image" and "likeness" of his father, who was mentioned just immediately along with his wife as being made in the "image" and "likeness" of God. Does it carry on to all humans? Or does that verse signify a limitation on God's image being reproduced in mankind?
How could mankind be responsible for Evil if they were created in the Image of God? I guess it all depends on how one views the whole "image" and "likeness" aspects of it.
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his ownimage(6754 Tselem), in the image(6754 Tselem) of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness (1823 Dhemuth) of God made he him;
Tselem is an exact equivalent of Dhemuth.
Gen. 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen. 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness(Dhemuth), after his image (Tselem); and called his name Seth:
Man (Adam) created man (Seth) as an exact copy of himself.
God created man NOT as an exact copy of himself. It looks like that it is not important which of the two words, Tselem or Dhemuth, is used as long as they are not used together when it comes to God’s creation of man.
The man was imperfectly created. That is the Original Sin (to which there are grades, if you care to study the Egyptian texts).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
In a later genealogy (Genesis 5:1-3), an interesting problem is posed: if you read closely, it makes a point to mention that Seth was in the "image" and "likeness" of his father, who was mentioned just immediately along with his wife as being made in the "image" and "likeness" of God. Does it carry on to all humans? Or does that verse signify a limitation on God's image being reproduced in mankind?
...who was mentioned just immediately along with his wife as being made in the "image" and "likeness" of God.
...who was mentioned just immediately along with his wife as being made in the "image" and "likeness" of God.
What verse is that?
Verses 1-2:
(1-2) This is the record of the begettings of Adam / Humankind ["Humankind is the translation of adam here].
At the time of God's creating humankind,
in the likeness of God did he then make it,
male and female he created them
and gave blessing to them
and called their name: Humankind!
on the day of their being created.
(3-5) When Adam had lived thirty and a hundred years,
he begot one in his likeness, according to his image,
and called his named Shet.
Adam's days after he begot Shet were eight hundred years, and he begot (other) sons and daughters.
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred years and thirty years,
then he died.
Whoppers dear, there is no verse where it is said that Adam and his wife were created in the image and likeness of the God.
Only gods were created in the image and likeness of their divine parents.
Men had no divine parents. They had divine father but a common woman for mother.
I can assure you that the redactors of the texts did know that much of the mono-myth.
Whoppers dear, there is no verse where it is said that Adam and his wife were created in the image and likeness of the God.
Only gods were created in the image and likeness of their divine parents.
Men had no divine parents. They had divine father but a common woman for mother.
I can assure you that the redactors of the texts did know that much of the mono-myth.
Thanks for the assurances, Dtango.
Well, anyways - at least I answered your question clearly and to the affirmative, despite how you want to misread it based on your mono-myth stuff...
Why would GOD need to consult with anyone to create something??
Maybe because we all have some preconceived idea of what 'god' is and It is not That.
Hence, the third choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
