Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:32 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,884,681 times
Reputation: 1009

Advertisements

The first believers were Jews. They didn't all a sudden lose their nationality or circumcision. The new testament also says there were ten thousand Jewish believers and they were still inherently zealous for the law. Your idea is laughable. why don't you email Jews for Jesus and ask them if they are still Jews. A Jew does not lose his identity when believing. Jesus didn't all of a sudden lose His Jewish identy by being the Messiah. What does this have to do with the op anyway?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:41 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,502,115 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The first believers were Jews. They didn't all a sudden lose their nationality or circumcision. The new testament also says there were ten thousand Jewish believers and they were still inherently zealous for the law. Your idea is laughable. why don't you email Jews for Jesus and ask them if they are still Jews. A Jew does not lose his identity when believing. Jesus didn't all of a sudden lose His Jewish identy by being the Messiah. What does this have to do with the op anyway?
Ah. There we have it. The whole 'Jesus was real -Christ is a myth' thing. The first believers were Jews, as Jesus was. Their belief in Jesus as a messiah was not at variance with the Jewish beliefs. Even Paul's gentile - friendly adaptations didn't make him a non - jew - though it didn't make his converts Jews.

Paul would not have accepted the Messiah as God incarnate image of Jesus as found in the gospels, and that's why anyone who believes in the christian Jesus cannot be a Jew. Of course there may be 'Jews for Jesus' who simply see him as a messiah and not as God, so they may be ok Jews, though regarded with suspicion.

Ok, sorry - back to rewriting Genesis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:41 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,884,681 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
If you believed in Mohammed and Allah, would you still be a Christian?
Christianity is Judeo-christian. Its roots are in judaism. So for a Jew to believe he is still Jewish. Mohammedism is against the jewish religion. Allah is just a different pronounciation of the Hebrew Aloah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:45 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,884,681 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Ah. There we have it. The whole 'Jesus was real -Christ is a myth' thing. The first believers were Jews, as Jesus was. Their belief in Jesus as a messiah was not at variance with the Jewish beliefs. Even Paul's gentile - friendly adaptations didn't make him a non - jew - though it didn't make his converts Jews.

Paul would not have accepted the Messiah as God incarnate image of Jesus as found in the gospels, and that's why anyone who believes in the christian Jesus cannot be a Jew. Of course there may be 'Jews for Jesus' who simply see him as a messiah and not as God, so they may be ok Jews, though regarded with suspicion.

Ok, sorry - back to rewriting Genesis.
Not all Christians believe Jesus is His God. I don't and early Jews did not as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:51 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,502,115 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Not all Christians believe Jesus is His God. I don't and early Jews did not as well.
Then we agree on something. So the (rather off -topic) question is whether Jews for Jesus do and, if so, does that mean that they cannot be kosher (sorry ) Jews?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
3,331 posts, read 5,937,413 times
Reputation: 2082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Not all Christians believe Jesus is His God. I don't and early Jews did not as well.
That is a good point that is often lost on Orthodox Christians. By Orthodox, I don't mean the Orthodox Churches (Greek, Russian, etc), but rather those who follow what most consider standard Christian doctrine (Jesus is God, Hell, Satan, etc).

They actually believe that those first Christians believed that Jesus was god. They cannot or will not accept that those first Christian were Jews and they DID NOT think of Jesus as a god. This eventually lead to a dispute between the Church of Antioch and the Church of Alexandria centuries later. Constantine decided to put and end to it and Alexandria won all thanks to Rome and here we are today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 09:56 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,025,453 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
whoppers and flipflop - good stuff!

I like the Stone Chumash translation of Gen.1:1-3.

'In the begining of God's creating the heavens and the earth - when the earth was astoningly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters - God said "Let there be light," and there was light.'

And of course Fox's is great to.

'At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
(when the earth was wild and waste, darkness over the face of Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters) -God said: Let there be light!'

Both capture the essence of the Hebrew. I do love the capitalized 'Ocean' or 'Deep' aspect of the second translation. Who might that be?

See Ps.74:12-17. Even though the Priestly writer does not have God fighting with creatures the Psalmist does - ooops! Good points woppers!
Thanks! I hope you don't mind if I elaborate a little, for those who find this sort of stuff interesting.
I would alter the Stone Chumash's "Divine Presence" to something more accurate, and "astonishingly empty" doesn't capture the Hebrew flavor of tohu wabohu (rhymes nicely), and "the deep" doesn't have the definite article ("the") in the Hebrew - so it should be merely "Deep". "Divine Presence" is a theological translation which doesn't capture the correct nuance of the Hebrew ruach. Other than that, it's not too bad. At least it gets the dependent clause correct (though I doubt the translators would hold to the rejection of Creatio Ex Nihilo if pressed heh heh!)

You're absolutely correct that the motif of the Battle With the Serpent/Dragon/Sea is found throughout the Hebrew Bible (as it is in the rest of the ancient Near East). That this has definite connections with Creation Myths, as well, is also a common motif. A notable exception in which the battle is held, but it does not appear to represent Creation, is in the Baal Cycle from Ugarit - even though it is from there that we get some very good information concerning Judge Nahar or Yam.
The concept of an initial watery chaos and it's representation as a serpent was a common one in the ancient Near East. It became deified in many systems. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2 is Tehom - without the definite article - which is why a good translation will render it with capital letters.

Egyptian
In Egyptian mythology, Nun was the name of mythological primeval sea that surrounds the world. A text highlights this, and makes a reference to it's serpentine nature (after all, bodies of water - whether sea or river - are seen as undulating and twisting like serpents). In this End of the World text, it refers back to the beginning, and Atum says:
"Further, I shall destroy all I have made,
and this land shall return to Nun,
into the floodwaters,
as (in) it's first state.

I (alone) am a survivor together with Osiris,
when I have made my form in another state,
serpents which men do not know
and gods do not see."
("The Primeval Establishment of Order", ANET 9)
In the Instruction of King Merikare, we find:
"Well directed are men,
the cattle of the god.
He made heaven and earth according to their desire,
ad he repelled the water-monster"
("The Instructions of King Merikare", ANET 417)
Mesopotamian
The concept of the underworld sea is found in what is called the abzu, and it is associated with Enki, who causes it to overflow and water the earth. The goddess Nammu was probably a manifestation of this abzu. It doesn't take a linguist to see that abzu will later become more specialized as Apsu - the consort of Tiamat the Mother Serpent (who is seen as the personification of Evil in many texts: thus Chaos is Evil, essentially) in Enuma Elish. In that myth, Apsu represents the "sweet (fresh) waters", while Tiamat represents the "salt waters". In most mythic discussions of these waters, the earth is founded upon - and surrounded by - these primeval waters. In Enuma Elish, Creation begins with the separation of these two waters, and finally finished with Marduk's severing of Tiamat in half to make a space between the waters - exactly as in the Genesis Account. Additionally, Tiamat is aided by various monsters in the battle- these will appear in later Ugaritic and Israelite tradition. It appears that, in addition, to general concepts of the primeval water - the Priestly Writer of Genesis 1 owed much to Enuma Elish's particular ordering of the events of Creation, as seen in a previous post.

Though a particular dim bulb suggested that the references to the Flood had nothing to do with the subject of the OP, the fact is that in Genesis, as in Mesopotamian myths, the primeval waters - even subdued - are not subdued forever, and can return. They return in the many Flood myths, as well as in the Genesis Flood traditions. Even the serpentine nature of watery chaos is found as well in Israelite literature (as Shiloh pointed out above very helpfully!). A Mesopotamian cylinder seal depicts a seven-headed dragon/serpent beast battling a duo of gods, and this should be kept in mind when we get to the Ugaritic and Israelite depictions of Lotan/Leviathan, that great mythological serpent. Notice the flames of fire coming from it's back in the picture below:



Anatolia (Hittitie)
The Hittites had a sea god, and in one myth Kumarbi, King of the Gods, creates a monster to help him win back his Kingship. The monster was called Ullikummi and he was placed in the sea. He grows and grows and is growing ever closer to the heavens, which is a big problem due to the same type of separating of heavens and earth and waters in Hittite mythology that is found in Egyptian and Mespotamian myths. Fortuately, the same saw that facilitated the original separating of such "realms" was used to saw poor pituitary-gland effected Ullikummi. OUCH. Problem solved, though.

Ugarit
Sea as a definite personalized deity, along with his attendant monster servants, is especially evident in Ugaritic mythology. He goes by several names: Judge Nahar ("Prince River") and Yamm ("Sea" or "Ocean"), and is generally the god of all the destructive and uncontrollable waters. He is a son of Il (El - Hebrew name for God or gods), and vies with Baal for the Kingship of the gods (Il is seen as an aged god who has the final say in matters in the Divine Council, but would rather let someone else actuially take the annoying task of being King of the Gods). IN magical texts, Yamm is seen as a dragon-type being with a fish tail, and his powers of Chaos are ever ready to overwhelm the world if not kept in check. The only other deity capable of also vieing for Kingship is Mot ("Death") - whose powers are well-known as inevitable. Some of Yamm's helpers are Rabah, Lotan, and Tannin - to name a few: all three will be found in the Hebrew Bible, as well. This text displays some of Yamm's helpers, as well as some of his characteristics - in it Mot is speaking of Baal's battle with Yamm's minions:
When you smote Lotan, the swift serpent,
Destroyed the serpent Twisty,
The Tyrant with seven heads...
(Baal Cycle, Trans. Pope)
In another text, the goddess Anath speaks of her assistance in bringing down Yamm and various other monsters:
What foe has risen against Baal?
What enemy against the Cloud Rider?
Did I not smite El's darling Sea?
Did I not annihilate River the great god,
Did I not muzzle the Dragon? I muzzled him.
I smote the tortuous serpent,
The tyrant (?) with seven heads.
I smote El's darling -
Vanquished the monstrous, ferocious bullock,
Smote El's b-tch Fire,
Annihilated El's daughter Flame.
(Anat, ibid)
A very fragmentary text yields:
[ ]god[ ]
They [ ] in/from the earth
... the sea.

The forked tongue licks the heavens.
The forked tail thrashes the sea.

Put the Dragon on high/in check(?),
Bind it to Lebanon's height.

They are humiliate, Yamm,
The multitudes terrified, River.

They see abasement....
(The Binding of a Monster, Trans. Parker)
This "Binding" motif is also present in Enuma Elish - Marduk sets a guard, a muzzle essentially, to stop the waters from escaping from their now separated status using Tiamat's body. Israelite myth will also show the same motif.

Israel
The "Binding Motif" can be found in several places in the Hebrew Bible.
In the Book of Job, Job complains that he is being treated the same as either Tiamat or Lotan/Leviathan or Tannin (Dragon) and Sea/Ocean - Yamm:
Therefore I'll not restrain my mouth;
I will speak in anguish of spirit,
Complain in the bitterness of my soul.
Am I the Sea or the Dragon,
That you set a guard over me?
(Job 7:11-12, AB, Pope)
The Ugaritic Lotan is cognate to the Hebrew Leviathan, though this is more apparant in it's unvocalized form reading the root letters. The same name for Sea or Ocean in Ugaritic (Yam) is used in Hebrew: Yam. In the above passage, clear allusions are made to the "Binding and Muzzling Motif". Dahood suggests that Psalm 68:23b should be read as "I muzzled the deep sea". One should see definite affinities with previous Ugaritic concepts of the defeat of Sea and the Dragon.

The Dragon in Israelite literature is known in Hebrew as tannim, tannin and tanninim and stems from Ugaritic tnn. Targumists would equate the Dragon with Leviathan when making their translations. Yahweh's invocation of the Leviathan was meant to demonstrate his awesome power to Job, hearkening back to his defeat of that dragon and his minions, as an earlier verse shows. Job is extolling God's might, and mentioning that it would be difficult to drag God to court:
A god could not turn back his anger;
The cohorts of Rahab groveled 'neath him.
(Job 9:13, AB)

By his power he quelled Sea,
By his cunning he smote Rahab.
By his wind he bagged Sea,
His hand pierced the fleeting serpent.
Lo, these are but bits of his power;
What a faint whisper we hear of him!
Who could attend his mighty roar?
(Job 26:12-14)
In the immediate above, one can see allusions to Marduk's technique of slaying Tiamat (by sending a great wind down her mouth to distend her, so he could slay her with an arrow to the heart), and the Genesis 1 account where the Priestly Writer has toned down the mythological aspects by turning Yahweh's great "wind" with which "he bagged Sea" into a mere "wind of God rushing over the face of Ocean". Also notice the mention of God's voice, his roar - his thunder, which is usually attendant with lightning, which is what a Storm God's (Marduk, Yahweh) arrows are. In many texts in the Hebrew Bible, God speaks via thunder - though this is usually lost in translation.
Your wonders, O Yahweh, are praised by the heavens,
Your faithfulness, too, in the assembly of Holy Beings.
For who in the skies can equal Yahweh,
can compare with Yahweh among the gods,
a god greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings,
held in awe by all around Him?
O Yahweh, God of hosts,
who is mighty like You, O Yahweh?
Your faithfulness surrounds You;
You rule the swelling of Sea;
when its waves surge, You still them.
You crushed Rahab; he was like a corpse;
with Your powerful arm You scattered Your enemies.
(Psalm 89:6-11, NJPS w/ alter.)
Notice the mentions of the Divine Assembly, and also notice that the "Holy Beings", the "Hosts" are the same "gods" mentioned. In this text, Yahweh is the god of gods - he rules in the Divine Council, and he presumably attained this status in the same manner Marduk attained his - by quelling the chaos of the initial primeval waters - Yamm, Leviathan, Tannin, etc. Many, many more references could be given, and Shiloh offered an excellent one in his post. Another important thing to notice is that monstrous cohorts also assisted Tiamat.

The point is that the Israelite poets, writing from their West Semitic background, were well aware of the Dragon/Sea Conflict and used it frequently in the Hebrew Bible, several times using it to portray Egypt as the enemy. But at some point, this poetic tradition would be usurped by a narrative tradition - one of the oddiities of much of the Hebrew Bible.

Genesis 1, again and Creatio Ex Nihilo: NOT
The P Writer, writing at a quite late date, was not comfortable with the Israelite poet's Canaanite heritage and their adoption of the Dragon/Sea Conflict Motif - and he engaged in some patent demythologizing, as much as he could get away with, as well as attempting to rid the sources he redacted to exclude much of Israel's mythic poetry (as suggested by Cyrus Gordon). The P Writer probably equated the poetic tradition with an older, more poplytheistic tradition, one that he wished to rid the people of.

Despite this - he could not entirely erase a collective tradition and memory. He did engage in some active demythologization in his Creative Acount, but the linguistic reading of Genesis 1:1a as a dependent clause arguing AGAINST Creatio Ex Nihilo is very handily backed up by Israel's literary and poetic heritage. It just so happens that Genesis is the first book in the Bible - so many people assume that the P Writer's Account (and to some extent, Genesis 2-3's Account by the Yahwist) is the first and only account.

This is simply not true.

Some may appeal to later texts that talk of a Universal God that DID create everything, but these texts must be seen for what they are - very late expressions of an evolving monotheism that was slowly paving the way to exclude all other gods, mythologies, etc. in favor of a simple "God created Everything" idea. This, unforortunately, will never be accepted (or even grasped by some) as legitimate, as many see the Bible as being written by God with one Divine voice. There's nothing one can say to those people, and one can only hope that they are happy believing their tradition's interpretations or that they eventually pick up a book, or at least pay attention to some posts in this forum and decide to do some research.




Last edited by whoppers; 05-02-2012 at 10:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 09:59 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,025,453 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I did nothing with Hebrew grammar.

Look up the Hebrew word for "became" in the whole Old Testament and note each instance and you will kindly note it does not mean "was" as the KJV states as in "the earth was formless."
Some of us don't need to look such things up, or use the innacurate (but beautiful and majestic) KJV to justify biased readings. You cannot just "look" up random words and hope to understand an ancient text written in Biblical Hebrew, especially how words are used semantically and morphologically. Those who try to do so, fail miserably and those of us who can read it notice it right away.

Work on your English comprehension skills, first. They truly are atrocious. Sorry - just stating what others have also stated.

We're trying to have an advanced conversation here - and from what you've presented, you're not able to properly participate. Read the evidence, and if I notice one of your replies shows that you have done so - I'll let you know. So far - none of them have.

Again - moving on..

Last edited by whoppers; 05-02-2012 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2012, 10:07 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,025,453 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Then we agree on something. So the (rather off -topic) question is whether Jews for Jesus do and, if so, does that mean that they cannot be kosher (sorry ) Jews?
This whole issue of Jewish vs Christian traditional interpretation has gotten us way off course, I think. Of course every tradition feels they have the right to interpret a text they believe is their sole possession, but this doesn't make any of those traditions correct in the end concerning what the original author's intent or meaning was.

This is an endless argument that gets thrown out there by Flipflop (or others) - that non-Jews cannot possibly understand a "Jewish" text. The same arguments against such a view STILL hold, and don't bear repeating here. One can reference them in one of a number of threads in which this assumption has been made.

If we were discussing how different traditions have interpreted Genesis 1 over the millenia - that would be different, and make for a fascinating thread! I would love to see a thread all on it's one and would gladly participate!

But this thread seems to have started to focus on the linguistic features of the Priestly Writer's version of the Creation Account concerning Creatio Ex Nihilo, and as such - we are not dealing with later Jewish or Christian tradition, but with what the original text has to say. The P Writer was not a member of Judaism or Christianity - he was an Israelite, probably a Judahite, working before Judaism sprouted out of Mosaic Yahwism as a response to the Babylonian Exile. Later traditions may be interesting, but are not helpful in examing the text's original context and meaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2012, 03:14 AM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Whoppers, great additions - enjoyed it immensely.

As to Eusebius he does not seem to understand that it does not matter whether 'hayah/hawyaw' can mean 'became.' I never said it could not mean such a thing nor did I ever say it could - that was not my argument. Ergo Strawman!

As such I pointed out that such a thing did not matter by quoting Heiser - yet I doubt he even takes the time to chew on it.

'This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view. It matters not that one can find ONE (count it) other example of the verb hayah (“to be”) in an identical grammatical construction that could be translated “became” (a key idea in the gap theory) precisely because the waw disjunctive that begins 1:2 forbids a linear sequence of events. (And the fact that a search for the identical construction with hayah in Gen 1:2 where the meaning can be “became” only yields one result should also tell us something about the grammatical merits of the gap theory).'

What I did argue is that in Gen.1:2 it CANNOT be translated 'became', the reasons for which he seems to be willfully ignorant and/or incapable of grasping. The fact that Isaiah says that God did not create the earth to be 'chaos' is also irrelevant since it is clear that Is. says he 'created', 'formed', 'made', and 'established it' to be inhabited - and when was it established that it might be inhabited? After SIX DAYS.

I am not sure why he keeps stating that 'God did not create the earth out of nothing', as if that is what I am arguing, when I have clearly and numerously said otherwise.

He acts as if there is only two positions: 1) Gen.1:2 being translated with 'became' and 2) creatio ex nihilo. FALSE DICHOTOMY.

The 3rd option, and the overwhemingly correct one, is that God created, formed and made from preexisting material. There is no indication of a preexisting inhabited world that 'became' formless and void.

He should also take note of the NET Bible comment on verse 2, technical note #5 NET Bible® - Genesis 1 something I have more than once stated. The waw-disjunctive forbids it to be translated with 'became.' It is also prefixed to the noun not the verb. This coupled with the fact that we are dealing with a dependent clause and similar ANE cosmology absolutely mitigates against his interpretation PERIOD! END OF STORY!

The demons have been exercised! Always enjoy your thoughts woppers - and yes Fox's translation is much better in light of you points.

Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 05-03-2012 at 03:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top