Scripture and origins ~ [open] thread for all. Bring snacks as we're running low...

[busterdog]

I see now.

I don't have the sources with me, but I remember reading there are "normal" discrepancies between many of the ancient Hebrew documents that have been found - normal in the sense that they make the usual errors that one would expect from handwritten documents derived from oral sources. There is also some simple proof that Israel was heavily affected over the years by the nations around them - it's called the "Old Testament". There is no doubt that at various times the Israelites worshiped foreign gods, performed foreign rites and ceremonies, and were intimately familiar with foreign customs and terminology. It was a constant fight to keep them pure.

There is no doubt that the Israelites were intimately familiar with the Babylonian pantheon and mythologies; there is ample evidence that the stories in Genesis were written not to adopt those stories for their own purposes, but to counter them, deny them. Just as we need to hear scripture applied contextually to our lives today, ancient Israel needed it even more. Also, at the time Genesis was written (2000-1500BC), there was really no CONCEPT of "accurate history" - there were simply stories passed down orally from generation to generation.

My view is not a metaphorical one. The stories are actually quite literal, in that they mean to tell what they tell. They are just told from the a cultural context of their times, and we misinterpret them when we apply our own context to it.

Yes. Interesting.

Lots of OT explicitly incorporates ME culture:

"out of Egypt have I called him"

Luk 4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, [a city] of Sidon, unto a woman [that was] a widow.

Nebuchadnezzer, who was apparently saved, and Daniel

Nehemiah

Isaac himself was apparently offered in a "faux" pagan sacrifice.

 

[stumpjumper]

The introduction of the tablet theory to the discussion was not to prove Genesis to be historical. But only that it could predate the Babylonian account and, therefore, isn't based on it.

Fair enough.

It is possible that the Genesis accounts have deeper roots than the Babylonian or Sumerian accounts, yes. I don't think it's a very important issue but there are some real similarities between the accounts.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not Genesis was developed independently of the Sumerian accounts, we still have the issue of why the primordial history 1-11 should be taken as anything more than mythology.

Of course I don't ignore Jesus' parables. But there is nothing indicating the inscription of commandments on to stone is a "parable". How much of Israel's history is a parable? Do you have an actual systematic way of eliminating fables from fact, or is it just whatever you feel? Or, is all the OT just a fable?

I think a very compelling case has been made by scholars that the primordial history in Genesis which is in Chapters 1-11 is primarily mythology with a great deal of allegory.

The writing style, topics, and themes among a great many other clues lend a great deal of support to that position...

 

[busterdog]

The writing style, topics, and themes among a great many other clues lend a great deal of support to that position...

I have been of the opinion that Genesis sets itself apart and is more modern than any other text that existed until Hubble. I wonder if I am right.

All that Apsu/Tiamat stuff and the Atum pornographic version of creation never seem to be comfortable with the notion of a beginning of everything. The Cogi (Columbian) story of the world coming into being through menstruation, or Native American beavers diving for the fundamental buildng materials of earth, all seem to be fumbling for some handle on the idea of "first nothing, then everything."

The idea that there was an unknowable precedent is never rendered with any of the chutzpah of Gen. 1:1.

Genesis just says, there was nothing and then something, becaues God spoke. That is a rather unvarnished, apologetic notion of our existential position. Until the Big Bang legend was penned, there was hardly a metaphor that had its equal.

IN that aspect of creation, do you know of any creation story that resembles Gen. 1:1?

 

[shernren]

All that Apsu/Tiamat stuff and the Atum pornographic version of creation never seem to be comfortable with the notion of a beginning of everything. The Cogi (Columbian) story of the world coming into being through menstruation, or Native American beavers diving for the fundamental buildng materials of earth, all seem to be fumbling for some handle on the idea of "first nothing, then everything."

The idea that there was an unknowable precedent is never rendered with any of the chutzpah of Gen. 1:1.

You're kidding! All that Apsu/Tiamat stuff looks a lot like Genesis 1. It looks so much like Genesis 1 that you can actually pick out key differences and study them.

Take a good look at the text of Genesis 1 - if God created the heavens, and the earth, where did "the abyss" and "the waters" come from? Isn't it a little sneaky that God's working on something He didn't create in the previous verse? I wonder what that reminds me of.

 

[HypnoToad]

I think a very compelling case has been made by scholars that the primordial history in Genesis which is in Chapters 1-11 is primarily mythology with a great deal of allegory.

The writing style, topics, and themes among a great many other clues lend a great deal of support to that position...

Ok, but we're not talking about Gen.1-11, remember?

You made your comment about Exodus, about God giving commandments to Moses on tablets - you rejected THAT as just myth. My question still stands - how do determine what of the OT (not merely Gen.1-11) is myth or history?

 

[HypnoToad]

Take a good look at the text of Genesis 1 - if God created the heavens, and the earth, where did "the abyss" and "the waters" come from? Isn't it a little sneaky that God's working on something He didn't create in the previous verse? I wonder what that reminds me of.

Um, "the heavens and earth" is everything. So, "the deep" and "the waters" would be part of that.

 

[busterdog]

You're kidding! All that Apsu/Tiamat stuff looks a lot like Genesis 1. It looks so much like Genesis 1 that you can actually pick out key differences and study them.

Take a good look at the text of Genesis 1 - if God created the heavens, and the earth, where did "the abyss" and "the waters" come from? Isn't it a little sneaky that God's working on something He didn't create in the previous verse? I wonder what that reminds me of.

Focusing specifically on what "the beginning" represents, there is hardly a comparison between Gen. 1:1 and Atum being super-freaky in the Rick James sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum Since it reads like a Lil Kim song, I am not comfortable quoting it here.

Apsu and Tiamat might be a little more Barry White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat), but is still pornographic.

Genesis does not come up with a lame story. It just says there was a point of beginning and God just made a universe right then and there.

There is no comparison.

 

[shernren]

Um, "the heavens and earth" is everything. So, "the deep" and "the waters" would be part of that.

Well, why couldn't God just have said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the deep of the waters"? Something He's not telling us?

 

[HypnoToad]

Well, why couldn't God just have said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the deep of the waters"? Something He's not telling us?

Again, since "heavens and earth" includes them, there's no reason to mention them. There's no mention of "mountains" being created, I guess God never created that part of earth either. There's no mention of "dogs" or "rabbits" anywhere, so I guess those animals, and every animal not mentioned by name must have eternally existed.

 

[artybloke]

I have been of the opinion that Genesis sets itself apart and is more modern than any other text that existed until Hubble. I wonder if I am right.

Umm, no. The whole of the Bible, from the earliest to the latest, falls under the general category of "ancient literature." To read it as if it were anything else is to commit the fallacy of "anachronism." To read the Bible as a scientific account "like Hubble" (what, you mean like some 17th/18th century CE scientist, or like some contemporary scientific paper?) is ridiculous in the extreme (where's the abstract? where's the reading search? where's the methodology? where are the references? where's the presentation of evidence & results? etc etc...)

This Bible is story, not science.

 

[busterdog]

Umm, no. The whole of the Bible, from the earliest to the latest, falls under the general category of "ancient literature." To read it as if it were anything else is to commit the fallacy of "anachronism." To read the Bible as a scientific account "like Hubble" (what, you mean like some 17th/18th century CE scientist, or like some contemporary scientific paper?) is ridiculous in the extreme (where's the abstract? where's the reading search? where's the methodology? where are the references? where's the presentation of evidence & results? etc etc...)

This Bible is story, not science.

The Bible, unlike any other literature, posits a reality precedent to which questions are pointless and inquiry is impossible on any human terms. That is by some definitions what existed prior to the Big Bang and is one definition of the nature of the singularity. See RObert Jastrow. Other literature tries to explain it by sex. The BIble, however, make no attempt whatsoever. Only the BIble and the physicists of the mid-20th century realize that the exercise is pointless and that there is a realm of the unfathomable precedent conditions.

This is a pretty clear use of literary critical rules. I do know what I am doing and don't mind throwing my weight around when I am told I am ridiculous in the extreme.

Show me any other origins literature that is capable of making this distinction. The concept of Brahman comes closest, though they have this wierd idea of these oscillating periods of collapse and recreation.

 

[shernren]

Again, since "heavens and earth" includes them, there's no reason to mention them. There's no mention of "mountains" being created, I guess God never created that part of earth either. There's no mention of "dogs" or "rabbits" anywhere, so I guess those animals, and every animal not mentioned by name must have eternally existed.

But if God started by creating a big ball of water, why call it "earth"? Especially when He was going to create dry land on the 3rd day ...

The Bible, unlike any other literature, posits a reality precedent to which questions are pointless and inquiry is impossible on any human terms. That is by some definitions what existed prior to the Big Bang and is one definition of the nature of the singularity. See Robert Jastrow. Other literature tries to explain it by sex. The BIble, however, make no attempt whatsoever. Only the BIble and the physicists of the mid-20th century realize that the exercise is pointless and that there is a realm of the unfathomable precedent conditions.

This is a pretty clear use of literary critical rules. I do know what I am doing and don't mind throwing my weight around when I am told I am ridiculous in the extreme.

Show me any other origins literature that is capable of making this distinction. The concept of Brahman comes closest, though they have this wierd idea of these oscillating periods of collapse and recreation.

Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...

Pan Gu:

In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs ...

Whatever you mean by "a reality precedent to which questions are pointless", there's plenty of that in other creation myths.

 

[HypnoToad]

But if God started by creating a big ball of water, why call it "earth"? Especially when He was going to create dry land on the 3rd day ...

He didn't create land on the 3rd day, He separated land from water. You can't separate two things if one of them doesn't exist.

 

[busterdog]

Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...

Name that tune ....

Wake up, Wake up, Wake up, Wake up, 'cos you do it right
Baby I got sick this morning
A sea was storming inside of me
Baby I think I'm capsizing
The waves are rising and rising
And when I get that feeling

Apsu and Tiamat may be dismissed with Sanjaya (American Idol) at this point.

Pan Gu:
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs ...

Whatever you mean by "a reality precedent to which questions are pointless", there's plenty of that in other creation myths.

Chaos is a condition that Gen. 1.1 will not even assume, nor will any physicist.

However, you are right that this is getting closer to the concept of Genesis and bridging the gap between Paganism and the true Creator. Unfortunately, we find a troll under that particular bridge..

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy . . For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."—*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978).

 

[shernren]

Chaos is a condition that Gen. 1.1 will not even assume, nor will any physicist.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
(Genesis 1:2 NIV)

"Formless and empty" sounds pretty chaotic to me. Doesn't it?

And XianJedi, why is "the earth" treated differently from "the deep" and "the waters" in Genesis 1:2? And if the earth was completely covered with water how can it have been "empty"?

 

[HypnoToad]

why is "the earth" treated differently from "the deep" and "the waters" in Genesis 1:2?

I don't know what you mean by "treated differently".

And if the earth was completely covered with water how can it have been "empty"?

No life.

 

[shernren]

I don't know what you mean by "treated differently".

Now the earth was formless and empty,
darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
(Genesis 1:2 NIV)

It's clear that Genesis 1 is talking about separate things here. If God had intended to say that the waters were formless and empty, would He not have said precisely that? Or if God had intended to say that the Spirit of God was hovering over the earth, would He not have said precisely that?

 

[artybloke]

The Bible, unlike any other literature, posits a reality precedent to which questions are pointless and inquiry is impossible on any human terms.

Nonsense. It was written in human languages that are no longer spoken, using human alphabets and was written by human beings who lived at particular human times and in particular human places by people with human brains.

It didn't descend from the sky on golden plates, it wasn't dictated by a diety verbatim into 20th century categories.

It is ancient literature, with no 21st century scientific understanding of the world at all.

Only the BIble and the physicists of the mid-20th century realize that the exercise is pointless and that there is a realm of the unfathomable precedent conditions.

Physicists of the 20th century make no such claim. They just claim there's things they don't know yet; but that doesn't mean they're not looking.

Trying to read science into the Bible is still ridiculous. Any coincidental similarity is just that - coincidence - plus a sign that you probably don't understand the science (and anyone who claims to understand the physics of the big and very little universe of cosmic and quantum physics without doing years and years of research and knowing some incredibly difficult maths, is just ridiculous too. I would never make a comparison between science and the Bible, because I know enough at least to know that I'll never have the maths to make the comparison stick.)

I also am at a loss to know what it's supposed to prove if there is some coincidental equivalence, anyway. It doesn't make the story more or less true whether it's "mythical" or "factual."

 

[busterdog]

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
(Genesis 1:2 NIV)

"Formless and empty" sounds pretty chaotic to me. Doesn't it?

And XianJedi, why is "the earth" treated differently from "the deep" and "the waters" in Genesis 1:2? And if the earth was completely covered with water how can it have been "empty"?

Chaos is closer, not a bad approximation as I indicated previously. But, my office is chaos. And I assure you that it is not empty.

 

[busterdog]

Nonsense. It was written in human languages that are no longer spoken, using human alphabets and was written by human beings who lived at particular human times and in particular human places by people with human brains.

It didn't descend from the sky on golden plates, it wasn't dictated by a diety verbatim into 20th century categories.

It is ancient literature, with no 21st century scientific understanding of the world at all.



Physicists of the 20th century make no such claim. They just claim there's things they don't know yet; but that doesn't mean they're not looking.

Trying to read science into the Bible is still ridiculous. Any coincidental similarity is just that - coincidence - plus a sign that you probably don't understand the science (and anyone who claims to understand the physics of the big and very little universe of cosmic and quantum physics without doing years and years of research and knowing some incredibly difficult maths, is just ridiculous too. I would never make a comparison between science and the Bible, because I know enough at least to know that I'll never have the maths to make the comparison stick.)

Since you won't accept it from me, I will see if Eric Auerbach dealt with this. He wrote an excellent piece on Genesis many years ago. Perhaps you already know it. I am using his methods, in any event.

Robert Jastrow agrees with me on the tie to Big Bang, or rather, that connection is actually his idea, not mine. He's the physicist.

I also am at a loss to know what it's supposed to prove if there is some coincidental equivalence, anyway. It doesn't make the story more or less true whether it's "mythical" or "factual."

How many times does the BIble have to be more right for a longer period of time than science for it to have credibility?

How about we go right to the nub of scriptural credibility. Is Daniel also about beauty of expression primarily, or did it predict events that have and will come true?

If we are so dramatically divided that we can't agree on basic principles, we are just not going to progress very far.