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.
I doubt that very much. The oldest parts, per the documentary hypothesis( the "J" material), DO contain mentions of G-d.
I belong to a foundation church that channels spirits. These spirits are mostly Celestials. Very few are below that status. The original writer of the story of Genesis has stated that the original story was not created by angels or God. It is the workings of men and their imaginations.
"I was a native of Arabia and lived before the time of Abraham, the Jewish patriarch. I come to you to-night to tell you that before the Jewish Testament was written, I had written a book containing a description of creation and of the fall of man, and that the book of Genesis was copied after my writings, which were founded on traditions older than were the description of Genesis.
These descriptions of the creation of the world were not the works of men inspired by the angels or by any other instrumentalities of God, but were the results of the imaginations of the minds of men who lived long before I lived, and who left only tradition of their writings or teachings. I say all this to show you that the world has existed for many thousands of years longer than the account of its creation in the Jewish Scriptures would lead you to think." You can read the rest here: http://new-birth.net/tgrabjvol1/ancient4.htm
Even if they do mention God, it was later inserted and not of the original.
In the end, it really doesn't matter because even if I believed Genesis as 100% truth or not at all, it's not something I need to know about in order to enter the Kingdom of God so information is just that, information. It can be taken any way anyone wants to take it.
I do believe the Bible is just written by men, so nobody needs to convince me that. I was posting more to see what people would say who actually believe it is the word of God and the Bible should be used to dictate our morality. If you just think it's a story, albeit a morally corrupt and brutul one by today's standards, then I'm right there with you.
I beleive it is the record of a peoples struggle to find G-d. The first people to do so who reached to monotheism, and who established the very moral principles by which people like you now judge them. And that makes it more important than say, the latest Grisham novel.
I think its a potentially beautiful and uplifting story. But you need to look at it with some sympathy, and with an interest in the people portrayed, their cultural background, and their efforts (including the failures) to improve themselves.
As for todays standards, I lived in a century when human beings, having turned from faith, slaughtered each other by the tens of millions. Perhaps you are young enough to not have lived in the 20th century.
I do not believe G-d wants to dictate morality. If he did, he could have ended creation with the animals. Man's special ability is to learn, to struggle toward morality. The bible, properly read (and by this I mean with aid of the Jewish tradition, but also with modern creativity and sensitivity, with an open heart, reaching out for a relationship with G-d and with pride in the Jewish people) can be a guide on that struggle. For us Jews, it can also show a way to reconnect with our whole, greater, Jewish family.
I beleive it is the record of a peoples struggle to find G-d. The first people to do so who reached to monotheism, and who established the very moral principles by which people like you now judge them. And that makes it more important than say, the latest Grisham novel.
I think its a potentially beautiful and uplifting story. But you need to look at it with some sympathy, and with an interest in the people portrayed, their cultural background, and their efforts (including the failures) to improve themselves.
As for todays standards, I lived in a century when human beings, having turned from faith, slaughtered each other by the tens of millions. Perhaps you are young enough to not have lived in the 20th century.
I do not believe G-d wants to dictate morality. If he did, he could have ended creation with the animals. Man's special ability is to learn, to struggle toward morality. The bible, properly read (and by this I mean with aid of the Jewish tradition, but also with modern creativity and sensitivity, with an open heart, reaching out for a relationship with G-d and with pride in the Jewish people) can be a guide on that struggle. For us Jews, it can also show a way to reconnect with our whole, greater, Jewish family.
I agree with this idea. However, fundamentalists believe that they need to worship the very words from the ancients. I don't believe we are to do that but honor each other and worship God since we are His greatest creation. So, if we take the Genesis story as just that, most people can learn from it.
Now I understand where you are coming from since you say you are Jewish. To you, this story means more than it does to me. We can still learn from it but we should do it in the proper context, as you say.
From where I'm coming from, we should also learn to reconnect ourselves to former humans who have actually lived in that time to better understand because, I'm pretty sure, there are no history books that go back that far other than what is speculated upon.
The first people to do so who reached to monotheism, and who established the very moral principles by which people like you now judge them.
That would be subject to debate since the early Egyptians, under Akhenaten in the 14th Century BCE, practiced monotheism (although they did revert back to polytheism after his reign due to economic issues.)
And Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion, was founded even earlier than that in southern Russia around 1700-2000 BCE.
Monotheistic Judaism appeared around the early seventh century BCE.
While many of the moral principles that our society adheres to presently were derived from Judeo-Christian teachings, it's important to understand that it is not necessarily the sole domain of a single culture but that similar values exist in other cultures throughout humanity.
Quote:
Peterson and Seligman [12] approach the anthropological view looking across cultures, geo-cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain virtues have prevailed in all cultures they examined. The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence. Each of these includes several divisions. For instance humanity includes love, kindness, and social intelligence.
That would be subject to debate since the early Egyptians, under Akhenaten in the 14th Century BCE, practiced monotheism (although they did revert back to polytheism after his reign due to economic issues.)
akhenaten may have been a monotheist, but it seems VERY unlikely to me that the egyptians as a people were. Egypt is the story of a an anomalous monarch making a change from above that was completely and very rapidly rejected by his civilization - the story of Israel is of a people slowly, through generations, organically moving from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism, and then from a monotheism based on animal sacrifice to one based on prayer and study.
I think its questionable whether Persian zoroastrianism was truely monotheistic, esp that early. As for southern russia, if the a monotheistic form of zorostrianism was present that early, I am not sure how we would know it, given the paucity of sources - it doesnt seem to have left a large mark on the later history of the southern russia.
"The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence."
but AFAICT the values by which folks are denouncing the bible are NOT those listed above - but values of respect for all human life, for the sacredness and dignity of all human life, that were not only not universal, but were in fact rather scarce.
Even if there were SOME other cultures that held those values, afaict most English speaking critics of the bible, as a matter of historical fact, did not derive those values from the sayings of the native americans or from the tales of the australian aboriginal dream time - they got it from their own western culture -typically via enlightenment thinkers who certainly got them from the background of abrahamic religion, even while they rejected other aspects of abrahamic religions.
"The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence."
but AFAICT the values by which folks are denouncing the bible are NOT those listed above - but values of respect for all human life, for the sacredness and dignity of all human life, that were not only not universal, but were in fact rather scarce.
Even if there were SOME other cultures that held those values, afaict most English speaking critics of the bible, as a matter of historical fact, did not derive those values from the sayings of the native americans or from the tales of the australian aboriginal dream time - they got it from their own western culture -typically via enlightenment thinkers who certainly got them from the background of abrahamic religion, even while they rejected other aspects of abrahamic religions.
I think moral values have many different sources. That's why laws change over time. Religion may be one of these sources, but it is not the only source. Moral values also come from one's society, from government, and from individuals like ourselves. Nowadays, even the media is a contributing source to how we view different aspects of morality. True that in Western society these things were influenced by scripture (like the Ten Commandments). But that has changed over time.
We now question things that were written in scripture as no-no's..... like about gays, living together outside of marriage, etc.
In my previous post I was viewing things more globally than about Western cultures.
I think moral values have many different sources. That's why laws change over time. Religion may be one of these sources, but it is not the only source. Moral values also come from one's society, from government, and from individuals like ourselves. Nowadays, even the media is a contributing source to how we view different aspects of morality. True that in Western society these things were influenced by scripture (like the Ten Commandments). But that has changed over time.
We now question things that were written in scripture as no-no's..... like about gays, living together outside of marriage, etc.
In my previous post I was viewing things more globally than about Western cultures.
I was reviewing specifically in view of western cultures - I do not often hear Indians or Chinese or whomever engaged in vitriolic attacks on the bible. As for the changes, I would say that is a matter of the core ethical values of the bible triumphing against the historical accidents of the bible. That is a process of change, but does not invalidate that the basic moral values of human dignity by which we challenge particular hurtful restrictions (and I would not put a limit on living together outside marriage in nearly the same category as the very deeply hurtful things about gays) are biblically based (as for the role of human dignity in, say, chinese culture thats a complex thing - well there are many admirable statements on human virtue in Confucian classics, China was also a society that maintained slavery (among other things) until late in the 19th century - Chinese society finally changed under the influence of either a liberalism more or less directly influenced by Abrahamic religion, or under Marxism, whose ethical core, such as it is, I believe, is also the fruit of Abrahamic religion - and I think a similar historical story could be told about most if not all other non-western cultures) .
as for HOW we discern the ethical core of biblical teaching, and how we use it to transform (but not wholesale reject) the rest of biblical law, I cannot address that here. First it is not simple, and second, I do not consider my specific approach one that is intended for universal consumption so to speak. It is at heart a Jewish one, and one I find best expressed in the works of leaders of the Conservative (masorti) movement within Judaism. Those who are interested, can find many sources online. That is as far as I will go in proselytizing for it - I will however, take issue with what I view as ignorant or simple mind attacks on the biblical text.
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.
