Genesis 1:1-3 (punishment, Abraham, doctrine, perspective)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by look3467

I'm glad you find it amusing.

No further comment warranted.

I don't mind Look's comment at all. I do find the thing amusing. The whole idea of anyone believing that these infantile myths really actually happened is a source of never-ending merriment to me. I cannot help but cast them in a sort of comedy TV episode style because to take them as seriously as you do, chum, would be to make me look as absurd as the myth.

So I am quite cool with your chilly disapproval and find that quite funny, too.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

There is an excellent vid, What if Adam and Eve never ate the fruit.

It kinda puts in perspective how ridiculous the story is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

That was hilarious. And made perfect sense. The Biblical account is almost as funny but makes no sense - except as a deliberate stitch - up by God in order to impose sin on man so God could have the fun of trying to find ways to get around it.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That was hilarious. And made perfect sense. The Biblical account is almost as funny but makes no sense - except as a deliberate stitch - up by God in order to impose sin on man so God could have the fun of trying to find ways to get around it.

Yeah the whole way the bible is put together, the opening chapter requires the fall of man and OS. Without OS (The Jews deny this concept but IMO that is just ignoring the obvious) the rest of the story is pretty moot.

The evangelicals have ascribed all sorts of imagery to the tree of life as being Christ so the whole concept of where the free will argument comes from makes their god seem pretty incompetent. If they were supposed to have free will, why the dramatic set up? Furthermore, how were they even supposed to know a command if they had no concept of knowledge of good and evil?

The whole plot requires their disobedience. The argument that god did not want robots, well he made them robots. He has to introduce the concept of evil via the talking snake. The story is also a huge set up to shame that which is natural viz. sex; even though pre fall, nothing is inferred they were having nookie. I suppose the idea of god showing up during nookie with all his visitations would have made it kinda awkward no?

But then some folk still have this weird idea their dead relatives or god sees them having unmarried nookie and hence the huge guilt factor. Weird that the passion of the moment can make people ignore all they were indoctrinated with. I wonder actually how a marriage (sanctioned by the state) changes all this? I also wonder after they marry obviously too young, divorce and then remarry how this principle applies? Well that is easy to answer, nookie is nice and if you have had it regular and split, you will ignore all the laws pertaining to adultery just so you once again have it "on tap" so to speak.

This is why the whole idea of the biblical stories really have no hold on people no matter how they profess they do.

I guess base instincts should be added to the iron chariots god cannot defeat.

[PanTerra]

All this talk about A&E brought these to mind.






Mr. Deity and Da Man - YouTube


Mr. Deity and the Woman - YouTube

[look3467]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't mind Look's comment at all. I do find the thing amusing. The whole idea of anyone believing that these infantile myths really actually happened is a source of never-ending merriment to me. I cannot help but cast them in a sort of comedy TV episode style because to take them as seriously as you do, chum, would be to make me look as absurd as the myth.

So I am quite cool with your chilly disapproval and find that quite funny, too.

I don't know about your religious childhood up-bringing, but could you honestly say that at age 6 or 7 the story of Adam and Eve, the eating of the fruit of the tree could be explained away as a myth and of no earthly relationship to our behavior potentials?

I mean, does not the story identify the fallacies of human nature, the consequences of actions and the allusion to a better way....good?

Does it not point out our abilities to choose between two complete opposites?

The creation of "a living soul" embodying both a marriage of a spirit and a fleshly body?

Does it not point out the resultant of a direct disobedience of a command given, common to all mankind?

How many times had our parents warned us of impending dangers, should we proceed to do our own will and the possible consequences resulting from the wrong choices?

What the book of Genesis in story detail is telling us are two key important factors, 1. That God is the creator and 2. That we, being made in His image, have the ability to be as they are......gods.

That as gods in the flesh have limited powers, but as gods, have the ability to choose;free will.

Could a child of 6 really comprehend any of this?

The design, I believe, is to give a simple explanation in story form, to where even a child could understand the conditions by which we are subjected to a resultant of our behavior pattern.

The tree is not a real physical tree, therefore, no real physical fruit.
No real snake or serpent, yet the conditions establishing our behavior potential are all there.

"Tree of knowledge" is knowledge gained and the exercise in behaviour is the fruit.

Now, of what value does the fruit produce? How can it be determined?

The serpent, the snake is but the evil potential we all possess as fleshly gods that is our doom.

Unless, unless we are saved despite our evil potential, we should have no hope in any continuance of life after this one.

Now, for many of you, this information is of no consequence, but for those who have grown up in their spiritual maturity, that information is vital to their mature understanding of the human condition.

Because one does not understand the spirit of the story, one should make light of it?

To that is what I commented on, not necessarily as an offense, but rather in ignorance of the spirit of it.

Blessings, AJ

[TRANSPONDER]

Thinking back to my infancy, I know that I didn't believe any of what the religious bods bussed into our church - run school to indoctrinate us were saying. I had a big book of the 'Bible in pictures' but I read it as I did the illustrated story books of Robin Hood or Puss in Poots. It was fairy take to me then and is fairy tale to me now.

You can take it as metaphor or symbolic. That is just saying that it is an ancient and rather silly myth that attempts to deal with human origins, human nature and human life and death.

Those matters are better left to scientific research.

Since this subject was brought-up more recently on another thread I thought I would add this summary that I posted on that other thread:

Let's make this clear by talking about what Gen.1:1-3 does not say but what many people think it says:

1) That before verse 1 God and the angels are the only things that exist.

2) That verse 1 says that he created the heavens and the earth in the very absolute beginning of all things created except for the above invisible heavenly realm mentioned in #1. Verse 1 is the very first creative act.

If this is the case then God must have created...

3) The earth as formless, he must have created darkness (since only light is in heaven nor was light created as of yet), he must have created the deep (whatever you think that is) that the darkness covered, and he must have created the waters. A total of 4 things.

If this is not the case then you will have to interpret verse two as 'and the earth became formless...' Unfortunately the grammar does not allow for this just as the grammar for verse 1 does not allow for an an absolute beginning - oooops! So you are left with these 4 things either all ready being in existence or God creating them like this.

It would also mean that he created the heavens, at verse 1, but they we not created until the second day which was called the firmament in verses 6-8 after he created light.

Also notice that the earth appears, from the waters, on the third day which was called the dry land in verses 9-10 after he created light (day 1) and the firmament (heaven - day 2).

So that's what it does not say! See the problemo!

This interpretation is not based upon the grammar or context and completely is ignorant of the ANE motifs.

Here is what it does say:

1) God exists before verse 1.

2) Verse 1, When God began to create the heavens and the earth...

This is so because of a few things not the least of which are: a) It is a dependent clause in Hebrew, b) it has no definite article in Hebrew, c) It is a Topic Statement that heads-up the subsequent verses and as such, d) the phrase 'heavens and earth' encompass all the creative acts in verses 3-31. Verse 1 is not the first creative act in Genesis.

3) Verse 2 - the earth was...

Notice that the earth was already present but covered in the waters when God began to create. This is why it appears out of the waters on day 3. The earth was already there but it was formless.

The deep, in the ANE, was a watery chaos called Tiamat - a negative female primordial force that was defeated by Marduk who 'spread out his net to enfold her, his wind followed behind, he let loose in her face.' After she was slain Marduk cut her in two and created the heavens with one half and the earth with the other.

Notice the mythological parallel with verse 2 of Genesis: Genesis says that darkness was upon the face of the deep (Tehom -the cognate of Tiamat) The spirit (wind) was hovering over (spread out - as in when Marduk spread out his net) the face of the waters (The net of Marduk was let loose in her Tiamat's face). Anyway much more can be said but the writer of Genesis is mythologizing this tale.

Verse 2 speaks of the already present condition when God began to create. The first act being verse 3 - 'Let there be light.' God is taking pre-existing Chaos and creating Order.

As noted above the grammar does not allow the translation of 'became' in verse two. It is also a parenthetical clause - which means it is supply information to verse 1 - what the conditions were like when God began to create. Also notice that if verse 1 was a creative act then Chapter 2:4 does not make any sense - 'Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished.' The creative acts began on day 1 and were finished on day 6.

As noted before we can say:

When God said let there be light, the earth was without form and empty, darkness was upon the surface of the waters, and the wind of God was moving over the surface of the waters. God called the light day....

Much more can be said but that should suffice - but probably not for the literalists.

[whoppers]

Very excellent summary, Shiloh! Your points about the first v. being a dependent clause are well taken and many modern translations have begun to implement this view, especially since our knowledge of Ancient Biblical Hebrew has grown enormously in the last century.




Here are some translations that make better sense of the Biblical Hebrew phrasing in Genesis 1:1-3. For now, notice the different ways of translating certain words and phrases that we are either a) still not entirely certain on the meanings, or b) a term has multiple semantic meanings in the target language and the specific meaning is debatable, such as (using the Schocken Bible translation as our source guide):

• • "wild and waste" - a translation that attempts to catch the alliterativeness of the original Hebrew תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ (tō·hû wā·bō·hû). It is not easy to find an equivalent meaning in English that is both alliterative and semantically equivalent, thus the NRSV's poor, but traditional: "A formless void".
  • "rushing-spirit of God", ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים (rûaḥ ʾělō·hîm) - a translation that has an equal number of possibilities, such as "mighty wind", "God's breath", "wind of God", "Spirit" (more traditionally, leading many to read back into it Christian interpretations of the Holy Spirit at work), etc.
  • "hovering over the face of", מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י.

Here are some translations that best illustrate a better understanding of the Hebrew syntax, both the dependent clause structure and what Shiloh pointed out concerning the incorrect view that the earth "became" tō·hû wā·bō·hû:

At the beginning of God's creation 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! And there was light.
(Schocken Bible: The Five Books of Moses, E. Fox)

When at first God created the heavens and the earth -
the earth was void and vacuum,
and darkness was over the face of the deep,
and the wind of God was sweeping over the fact of the waters -
(then) God said, "Let light be," and light was.
(The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, M. S. Smith)

When God set about to create heaven and earth -
the world being then a formless waste,
with darkness over the seas and
only an awesome wind sweeping over the water -
God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.
(Anchor Bible 1, E. Speiser)

When God began to create heaven and earth,
and the earth then was welter and waste and
darkness over the deep and
God's breath hovering over the waters,
God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.
(The Five Books of Moses, R. Alter)

Obviously, the alliterative term is difficult to translate, as it occurs only a few times in the Hebrew Bible. Some have argued for a context of dryness, like a desert, from other passages and cognates in other languages. Ugaritic has, for Hebrew tō·hû , thw (the "w" being a matres lectionis in Hebrew for the vowel "û")with a meaning of "wasteland" or "wilderness". In a passage that includes our word (and also illustrates that the Hebrew word nepeÅ¡ traditionally anderroneously translated as "soul" has other meanings also found in Biblical Hebrew), we have npÅ¡ lbim thw: "the hunger of the lion/s in the wilderness". The primary meanings in Biblical Hebrew are "wilderness", "wasteland", "emptiness", "desert", and "nothing" - which is why we get various different interpretations of it in translations. It is from the Egyptian cognate especially that we get connotations of Chaos being added to the meaning.

The entire phrase appears to be simply an alliterative one constructed simply to act in that fashion.

Thanks whoppers,

I always enjoy your posts - you are much versed than I am. CD won't let me rep you - argggh!. Just purchased 'The Origins of Biblical Monotheism' by Mark Smith, can't wait to start reading it.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Anyway much more can be said but the writer of Genesis is mythologizing this tale.

CORRECTION: Should be de-mythologizing.