Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 91 of 133 (341337)
08-19-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by smadewell
08-19-2006 5:56 AM


Re: Nuts in a nutshell....
I'm scrambling now to unpack all my books, which I'd thrown into storage years ago. I knew I'd read something about Moses' staff turning into a crocodile in the Rabbinic Literature, but wasn't able to find it, so ... I googled it and found the reference on Rabbi Slifkin's webpage. LOL! I don't know... You decide...
The Power of the Crocodiles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by smadewell, posted 08-19-2006 5:56 AM smadewell has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 92 of 133 (341436)
08-19-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by smadewell
08-19-2006 5:56 AM


ha-taninm ha-gadolim
"Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river [is] mine own, and I have made [it] for myself" - Ezk. 29:3.
yes, it might be referring to a crocodile (in terms of imagery) by using the word for serpent. but that does not mean that all serpents are crocodiles. these ones, in genesis 1, are much more likely the livyatan.
Jewish Encyclopedia link for Crocodile.
i've heard the case before that livyatan is a crocodile. clearly, the description of him in last few chapters of job is not of a realistic animal, fire-breathing aside. the qualifications are that no man can kill him, but only god can. and people have been hunting crocodiles for thousands of years. we have a whole thread on this somewhere, and ringo very eloquently defends this point -- livyatan is supernatural.
and besides, he lives in the primordial waters, the deep and open ocean, not the land near rivers.
Dinosaur just means deinos (fearful) + sauros (lizard), right? Yes, I know they ain't lizards. Yes, I know the history behind the coining of the word "dinosaur," but we're stuck with it now.
dinosaurs were not aquatic. if i had to pick a good reptilian candidate for the taninm, it would be the mososaurs. not only are they true reptiles, and live in the water, but they're very likely related to snakes. however, i suspect very strongly "serpent" was simply used out of a misunderstanding, or ignorance, and the authors meant "whales" in a highly mythicised way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by smadewell, posted 08-19-2006 5:56 AM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by smadewell, posted 08-19-2006 9:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 93 of 133 (341532)
08-19-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by arachnophilia
08-19-2006 4:30 PM


Re: ha-taninm ha-gadolim
No comments on Rabbi Slifkin's webpage, which has taninim as being crocs? The Power of the Crocodiles
quote:
As a rabbi, it helps me to know about such things -- it enables me to better understand certain verses in the Torah.
When God appointed Moses as the agent to redeem His people, He gave him a miraculous sign:
Moses responded and said, 'But they will not believe me and they will not heed my voice, for they will say, "God did not appear to you".' And God said to him, 'What is in your hand?' and he said 'A staff.' God said, 'Throw it to the ground.' And he threw it to the ground, and it became a serpent (nachash), and Moses fled from it. (Exodus 4:1-3)
Strangely, however, when Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh, a different event is described as having taken place:
When Pharaoh shall speak to you, saying, Show a miracle; then you shall say to Aaron, Take your staff, and throw it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a tanin. (Exodus 7:9)
Contrary to popular belief, tannin is not any kind of snake. Rather, it is the crocodile. This is made abundantly clear by a prophecy in the book of Ezekiel:
...Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great tannin crouching in the river, which has said, My river is my own, and I have made it for myself. But I will put hooks in your jaws, and I will cause the fish of your streams to stick to your scales, and I will bring you up from the midst of your streams, and all the fish of your streams shall stick to your scales. (Ezekiel 29:3-5)
The great scaly creature that is the king of the Nile is undoubtedly the crocodile. It is the largest, most terrifying animal in Egypt, and the top predator. The Egyptians worshipped the crocodile, and they embalmed hundreds of them, after which they were wrapped in strips of cloth, just as the humans of the time. Pharaoh, king of the nation that worshipped crocodiles in addition to the Nile, is well represented by the crocodile.
So when Aaron's staff was thrown down before Pharaoh, it became a crocodile. Yes, I know it was different in the movie, but there are many mistakes in that movie. So why did the staff turn into a snake when thrown down by the burning bush, but into a crocodile when thrown down before Pharaoh?
One explanation is that the staff appeared in different forms depending upon the context. With Moses' encounter with God, he saw a snake, a creature that symbolizes a fearsome evil power. The message was that God is all-powerful and can change a supportive staff to an evil force at will -- and the reverse. But when the staff transformed in front of Pharaoh and his court, it became a crocodile, the symbol of Pharaoh who claimed to be the god of the Nile:
"It shall become a crocodile" -- Why did God tell him that it would be a miracle involving a crocodile? Because Pharaoh is compared to a crocodile, as it says, "the great crocodile crouching in the river" (Ezekiel 29:3). When Moses would depart from Pharaoh, he would say, "If Moses comes back to me, I will kill him, I will impale him, and I will burn him"; and when Moses entered, Pharaoh instantly became as mute as a stick. (Midrash Shemos Rabbah 9:2)
Yet if Aaron's stick symbolized Pharaoh, then when the stick miraculously transformed into a crocodile and swallowed all of the other crocodile-sticks, this may appear to be demonstrating that Pharaoh does indeed possess power! But the important part of the symbolism is that afterwards it reverted back to a stick:
God said: This evil person boasts and calls himself a crocodile, as it is written, "The great crocodile..." (Ezekiel 29:3). Go and tell him: See this staff, it is a piece of dry wood; it shall become a crocodile with life and soul and swallow up all the other staffs, and it is destined to revert to a dry piece of wood. The same is true of you; I created you from a putrid drop and gave you empire, and you boasted and said, "My river is my own and I have made it for myself." Behold, I shall turn you back to nothingness and chaos. You swallowed up all the staffs of the tribes of the children of Israel, behold I shall cause you to disgorge all you have swallowed.... (Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, Shemos 7:181)
As the Midrash says Pharaoh's power stemmed from God in the first place, and was limited; it was revoked when he became arrogant and abused it. Man should never become overly convinced of his own power. Even the mighty crocodile, powerful and terrifying, is nothing more than a toy in the hand of God.
In the hand of man, though, caution is recommended.
Edited by smadewell, : highlighting text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by arachnophilia, posted 08-19-2006 4:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 08-20-2006 1:54 AM smadewell has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 94 of 133 (341652)
08-20-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by smadewell
08-19-2006 9:34 PM


Re: ha-taninm ha-gadolim
yes, i looked over it breifly. it's an interesting idea. crocodiles were indeed important to egyptians, and thus it would have made a good symbol, i'm sure.
however, snakes were also important to egyptians. and since a rod bears more similarity to a snake than to a crocodile, i'm going to cautiously stick with "snake" for now.
"serpent" does, however, seem to be an over-arching term, for reptiles in general. the serpent in genesis 3, for instance, has legs at the beginning of the story, or is at least unlike any snake we know today. i'm aware it's a different word, but you often see nachashim associated with taninm synonymously.
still, in the context of genesis 1, "crocodile" does not make sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by smadewell, posted 08-19-2006 9:34 PM smadewell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by smadewell, posted 08-20-2006 2:00 AM arachnophilia has not replied

smadewell
Member (Idle past 6114 days)
Posts: 48
From: Midwest, USA
Joined: 08-14-2006


Message 95 of 133 (341655)
08-20-2006 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by arachnophilia
08-20-2006 1:54 AM


Re: ha-taninm ha-gadolim
quote:
still, in the context of genesis 1, "crocodile" does not make sense.
okay. have it your way. doesn't really matter to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 08-20-2006 1:54 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by IamJoseph, posted 07-01-2007 2:22 AM smadewell has replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 96 of 133 (347216)
09-07-2006 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by arachnophilia
08-19-2006 3:04 AM


Re: bottom line....
"starting without a bias, or a need to defend the bible against science -- and a semester or two of hebrew behind me -- i completely fail to see any of this flexibility so many people speak of. words have different usages and connotations and can sometimes mean two completely different things. but that's just a property of language in general. we have the same issue in english, but we still know what people mean, except in some cases ("go left here?" "right." "correct-right or direction-right?").......
....BOTH stories contain very many elements of other creation myths from surrounding "pagan" cultures. to put the hebrew stories in isolation from their cultural and POLITICAL context is quite western...
..... the bible is one of the few places i have little respect for the middle-ground. a literal reading of the bible is utterly incompatible with modern science in very, very many ways. keep in mind that i have a bit of a reputation here as being called "overliteral" by the supposed literalists. ...i simply have no problem with the bible being wrong."
(I forgot how to quote in html code,will be sure to again learn how to do so by the next post.Sorry.)
Arach.
Have you ever read the Claus Westermann Genesis 1-11 commentary? He is a non-believer and accepts the general Documentary Hypothesis you do,but he believes that the Creation and Flood (as well as other stories) of Genesis show evidence of having stories that pre-dated even the Sumerian "proto-types".He doesnt think mass diffusion spread a common tale (which would be an obvious conclusion to me, and you dont have to believe in Genesis to believe such) but for psychological reasons he feels that the worldwide primeval stories from around the world sound similar to Genesis 1-11.
That not too important for this discussion,but it is interesting that he admits that the Creation,(fall?),Golden Age ,Flood, and Babel events have parallels though he doent think they all came from a common source (instead psychological).He references many fine books showing that the primeval Genesis story is an ancient and archaic story.Albright felt there was a local flood around Mesopotamia before the great human expansion some tens of thousands of years ago.And primitive memories of events in native peoples (almost) everywhere reflected a memory of such an event.William Hallo mentions the "remarkable agreement" of the Creation,Golden Age,and Flood in almost ALL cultures around the world in his gold standard History of the Ancient Near East book that universities use nationwide.
Anyway.Westermann feels that the Ancient Near Eastern myths parallel to Genesis 1-11 all came from an archaic story(or stories)and Genesis is a seperate strand.
What I am going to say is that you are assuming too much (or overlooking the other assumptions) and mixing apples and oranges when you debate these points with Bible believers.
First,I will assume that you are right.That Genesis stole from late versions of Ancient Near Eastern Creation myths (say around 1000BCE or later).Or we can say it was stolen from c2000BCE stories.Buts lets assume the former as you seem to.You will admit that Genesis is a rough paraphrase at best, regardless of which extant "pagan" ANE document we have today from around c500BCE?
You admit that it is a re-interpretation of existing Ancient Near Eastern stories (which you say are pagan) though it seems to not be an exact quotation of whatever document it was drawn from?
While debating Bible believers you seem to demand to us that the text be defended by 100% literal definitions of known Hebrew words as compared to their known cognates in other ANE languages and the traditional lexicon. If you insist on every word in the Bible being a precise fundamental reflection of modern science then you assume that God would telescope into the future of Planet earth to 2006AD and implant that knowledge into the Hebrew scribes heads.
Not exactly a respectful expectation of ancient scribes since we know that the world 3000,4000, and 5000 (...) years ago wasnt technological to the extent that it is today.
You may say that God could have given the "perfect words" that fit the official NASA Astronomers Pocket Dictionary 2006 editionTM for the Hebrew scribes BUT......
...you also overlook that Babel event(BLL not Babylon, I think that was a scribal error,but I dont want to get into that).Im NOT demanding anyone believe in such an event mind you.But I am going to say that a debate with Bible believers must consider that point of view especially when there is a (clearly mistaken) assumption/demand that the literal words in Genesis 1-11 must be up to speed with 2006 scientific terminology.
Lets assume that God handed text straight to Pre-Babel Hebrews with every last word penned by the creator himself.You seem to demand such an extreme assumption so Ill assume such for the sake of argument.
After the languages (either worldwide or regional) were confused then how do we know that the later translations into the new language (say Amorite though it would have been Proto-Semitic actually which later became many Semitic languages including Amorite)reflected the precise words of the ancient text with its lost language? If the Babel event was (slightly)more than 5000 years ago, it would have been when then there are no extant texts of ANYTHING around today in any language(so far found to date).How could scribes(regardless of how smart)best represent a "perfect text", with its complex words in a dead language few would have much of a grasp of, in an Amorite or Proto-Semitic langauge that even you would call "primitive"? (nevermind the repeated translations as time went on and the Canaanite dialect of Hebrew developed)
You demand that the Hebrew words be a perfect and scientific("literal")reflection of what we know today.I guess that,while you give Bible believers their assumptions as a given for the sake of argument, there will be a demand that we must defend the post-Babel translation as being precise and literal without error.
You wont hold yourself to the same standard though.
But you will then at the same time not be able to give us a pagan proto-type text, that the "P document" drew from, to view so we can see the literal translation the Hebrews made c500BCE when they "stole" the Creation myth.You assume that there was no perfect translation void of paraphrasing there.And that c500BCE Akkadian source document would have been in a language that Hebrew scribes would have easily understood there.
So maybe the literal demand should be canned?
Look at Genesis chapter 1 again.
Maybe Genesis 1 COULD (for the sake of argument) be a rough translation or paraphrase of a text from God or inspired by God.Maybe the verses before day 1 were, first the title(in the beginning God made), and then a description of an universe before the Big Bang when the Earth wasnt formed yet.Tehom may have been the "Hebrews" best word for outerspace.Maybe the "Hebrew" scribes didnt understand the words in the original Pre-babel document,when translation into a post-Babel text, and thought that it said something slightly different about the earths "form".
Maybe day 1 could have described the time from Big Bang all the way till the complete formation of the earth after 13 billion years of cosmic debree crashing and being drawn into a snowballing rock that would become the earth 4.6 billion years ago? The explosion of light called the Big Bang did seem to divide (I have read that bara can mean divide)the elements and begin the process that would lead to a planet that could eventually have a evening and morning.Light and darkness were seperated from a tiny dot (where all the materials of our present universe were) after the Big Bang.Day 1 after all DID start with the expansion of light.
The ancient people all knew light came from the sun, so we can safely assume(though most dont want to) that the Sun also was part of the "creation" during day 1.I would say it formed near the end of the 13 billion year period that Day 1 covered.Same with the earth.
(day 2)I think the "firmament" could be a primitive *best* word NOT "literal" word for atmosphere which was when the gasses formed around the earth.
Day 3 could describe the waters forming around the Pangea landmass.
Day 4 seems to describe the beginnings of plant life and their use of the sun,plus use of the seasons.
Day 5 seems to indicate that the first significant intelligent life "evolved" (we will use that term since we must be "scienific")around the time of plants or slightly after.It seems to put sea life as being the first intelligent life.With evolutionary assumptions, it seems that it would describe sea animals "evolving" into land animals perhaps reptiles like crocs(or whatever) that are bridge between sea and land.Perhaps it is saying that birds would come from reptiles? Perhaps amphibious reptiles? Maybe that could explain what (theoretical)reptile/birds transitionals did with their feathers while evolving for milions of years? They swam with them?
The general chronology isnt too bad so far.Though it may infact be general.Perhaps pure land animals werent the subject of day 5 and a seperate category closely related to the "day 5" of non-land life would be used for them(like day 6,the closest day).Surely there would be an overlapping line when "kosher science" of Evolution (dynamic changes at times but not evenly distributed and uniform) is in effect.Birds however do have hollow bones which dont preserve well. And the dates keep getting pushed back for the oldest bird fossels. Back to 130 million years ago then about 150 million years ago. yet Reptiles existed long after the evolutionary change into the first bird.Infact they still exist.
Day 6 menions the non-human land animals BEFORE man.Man was described as being a late comer in the Bible.
Just as day 5 described sea life as coming before birds and all other non-land based life.Infact sea life came before any intelliegnt life period.
I have heard that the odds of getting the correct order is something like 1 in 5800.I would think it would be much longer than that.
Maybe Genesis 1 shouldnt be held to a 100% literal scientific standard and literal Lexical and textual standard that uses words and terms we use in the Space Age.
But it should be held to a common sense standard and then judged based on and according to a critical examination.That takes all relevent issues into consideration.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : computer problems made me post too soon
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 08-19-2006 3:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2006 3:28 AM Nimrod has replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 97 of 133 (347217)
09-07-2006 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by arachnophilia
08-19-2006 3:04 AM


Re: bottom line....
It just hit me that I made a mistake(several Im sure),and since this post cant be gotten rid of (it was a dupe of my first post),Ill post it here.
I didnt mean to say that Tehom was a Paleo-Semitic word.I dont know what the Paleo-Semitic word would have been (perhaps something like Tiamat or a word long before that one existed)in Post-Babel Genesis (and not pre-Babel for sure),but Tehom would be an example of a much later updating of the word.
That is with the apples-apples assumption that Genesis 1-11 is a generally true ,and highly simple, rough outline of some details in the primeval world. I understand that most would reject it.Whether it is true or not,isnt exactly the point.
The mistake I made allows me to make my point on lexical issues and the "literal perfect scientific words" expectations of some.
Also,this talk about lexicons and the question of which are the best is something is would like to hear people anwser/mention.Im always interested in what is out there.Biblical Hebrew the benefit of having has some great works done on it.I would say that the Theological Dictionary Of The Old testament is the best as for each word it covers (some definitions are 4-5 pages long).Great for showing cognates and the commentary is great.But the 15 volumes so far only cover maybe 1000-1500 total.The extremely rare Complete Biblical Library 7 volume Hebrew Dictionary set is in some ways better (covers every word in the Hebrew Bible,all 8000 and each definition has a very good concordance right under the definition).The definitions and commentary in the CBL dictionary is shorter for each word compared to TDOT but longer than anything else I know of.The definition for each and every word in the CBL also shows you the page number the Hebrew word can be found on nearly every other important lexicon out there.So you can quickly further your studies and find the definition in the TDOT, K-B, BDB,TWOT, and many others(about a dozen).The page number's the CBL gives for TDOT are only for the volumes that were made when the set was printed.It went out of print about 7 years ago with only about 5000 sets made.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 08-19-2006 3:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2006 3:32 AM Nimrod has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 133 (348455)
09-12-2006 3:08 PM


Bump
bumping this thread as a test. See Are new posts supposed to kick topics?.


Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2006 1:03 AM AdminNWR has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 133 (348610)
09-13-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by AdminNWR
09-12-2006 3:08 PM


Re: Bump
i'll bump as well -- i never got notified of the two responses above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by AdminNWR, posted 09-12-2006 3:08 PM AdminNWR has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 100 of 133 (348630)
09-13-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Nimrod
09-07-2006 5:34 AM


Re: bottom line....
this topic is officially broken, btw. if you don't see a response, it's because one or both of has not been notified, and the topic not bumped by the new post -- because new posts are not going through correctly.
(I forgot how to quote in html code,will be sure to again learn how to do so by the next post.Sorry.)
when you're writing a reply, there's a little link to the left that says "dBCodes On (help)." click on the "help" and it will tell you everything you need to know. alternatively, you hit the peek button on any post, and see what code went into it.
Have you ever read the Claus Westermann Genesis 1-11 commentary?
no, i have not. honestly, i tire of commentary very quickly.
He is a non-believer and accepts the general Documentary Hypothesis you do,but he believes that the Creation and Flood (as well as other stories) of Genesis show evidence of having stories that pre-dated even the Sumerian "proto-types".He doesnt think mass diffusion spread a common tale (which would be an obvious conclusion to me, and you dont have to believe in Genesis to believe such) but for psychological reasons he feels that the worldwide primeval stories from around the world sound similar to Genesis 1-11.
many are somewhat archetypal. this says more about the human mind than the human history. certainly, there are traditions in genesis that are very, very old. but they've also been rendered through the eyes 10th-6th century bce scribes, and that's the version we're stuck with.
That not too important for this discussion,but it is interesting that he admits that the Creation,(fall?),Golden Age ,Flood, and Babel events have parallels though he doent think they all came from a common source (instead psychological)
many of the stories in genesis have themes that have to do with things that undoubably happened at some point -- it's a book on origins, and the traditions aren't totally wrong in every regard. for instance, the explusion from the garden deals with the theme of the early hebrews leaving the fertile crescent. it's not a 1:1 "the story is an allegory" kind of thing, but the meaning is there.
William Hallo mentions the "remarkable agreement" of the Creation,Golden Age,and Flood in almost ALL cultures around the world in his gold standard History of the Ancient Near East book that universities use nationwide.
and names of god (ea = yah, il = el, etc). all the cultures in the area come for the same area. they have the same basic history, and for a while were probably the same people (babel obviously deals with this theme). they certainly spoke similar languages, and had similar traditions. but if you go a little distance at all, this idea doesn't hold up so well. greek traditions don't match, and egyptian traditions don't match. i think you find that ancient philistine traditions probably didn't match either (as they came from cyprus, originally). lots of cultures have myths involving floods, yes. but not the SAME myth, and not the SAME flood.
early civilizations grew up around rivers. floods very easily became a story archetype.
What I am going to say is that you are assuming too much (or overlooking the other assumptions) and mixing apples and oranges when you debate these points with Bible believers.
well, of course. people are apparently too busy believing it to read it, learn about it and the people who wrote it, and understand it.
First,I will assume that you are right.That Genesis stole from late versions of Ancient Near Eastern Creation myths (say around 1000BCE or later).Or we can say it was stolen from c2000BCE stories.Buts lets assume the former as you seem to.
i'm not sure i said that? genesis clearly bears relation to other mesopotamian myths that pre-date it, but "stolen from" may not be the right phrase. influenced, maybe. but i'll i'm really saying is that to take genesis out of the context of not just jewish society at the time, but the surrounding cultures and other mythologies does a disservice to the text.
You will admit that Genesis is a rough paraphrase at best, regardless of which extant "pagan" ANE document we have today from around c500BCE?
i'm not sure i understand what you mean? i don't think genesis is very rough at all. on the contrary, i think it was very carefully worded.
You admit that it is a re-interpretation of existing Ancient Near Eastern stories (which you say are pagan)
in "quotes." meaning it's not my terminology. specifically, it was the terminology of the person i was replying to, smadewell, who wrote:
quote:
All I've done is a little tweaking and attempted to present how a primitive, monotheistic Nomad might have come up with the Genesis story without appealing to pagan cosomologies.
i was using the word "pagan" from his (her?) post -- these cosmologies are not pagan at all; they are exactly identical to the ancient hebrew one. the traditions are clearly related. nobody sitting around in a field came up with genesis all on their own. the authors of genesis belonged to a complex relationship of ideologies, cosmologies, philsophies, and traditions that made up their society, and they did not control all of their influences. many were clearly foriegn.
though it seems to not be an exact quotation of whatever document it was drawn from?
exact, no. but it does line up pretty well in some places (especially well in noach). it's also worth mentioning that there are a number of intermediary, extra-canonical books that seem to be various attempts at combining j+e, some more directly copied than others. what we have is a "final" version, but some of the earlier texts that clearly draw from the same sources are quite different. and that's without targumim translational issues.
While debating Bible believers you seem to demand to us that the text be defended by 100% literal definitions of known Hebrew words as compared to their known cognates in other ANE languages and the traditional lexicon.
no, there is some room for shades of meaning and connotation. i just insist that people pay attention to those connotations, the rules of grammar, the hebrew language, etc -- as opposed to just making stuff up, translating by way of concordance, or bending the language to suit their religious needs. it's not a piece of wood, but it's a lot more rigid than some of these people make it out to be. you can't just change the meanings of words as you see fit.
If you insist on every word in the Bible being a precise fundamental reflection of modern science then you assume that God would telescope into the future of Planet earth to 2006AD and implant that knowledge into the Hebrew scribes heads.
i don't believe i have ever said anything about reflecting modern science. quite the contrary. the hebrew bible is a book that was written over about 400 years, by probably about as many different authors, more than 2600 years ago. the only thing even remotely modern about is the fact that a language very much like the original hebrew is still spoken. even that's really a fluke -- modern hebrew is based nearly wholesale off of the bible, with a few new words added from english and arabic (slang) when needed.
we should never expect genesis to line up with modern science, or modern anything. it's not modern at all -- we have to look at it and understand it in terms of the height of hebrew civilization 2600 years ago, and their downfall at the hands of the assyrians and babylonians. the creation story will not be a modern person's creation story, and the cosmology will not be what we know of the universe with our telescopes and satelites. if it was, it would be next to miraculous. this is why so many people continually try to demonstrate the "secret accuracy" of the text. it's not an accurate text -- but some of the meanings and themes are still important.
Not exactly a respectful expectation of ancient scribes since we know that the world 3000,4000, and 5000 (...) years ago wasnt technological to the extent that it is today.
yes, i agree. that is not very respectful of the authors. and it's every bit as disrespectful to say that (as "god's word") every last bit must be true. i respect my friends enough to tell them when they've got something in their teeth, or toilet paper stuck to their shoe -- and i respect the bible enough to recognize when it is factually inaccurate. but expecting perfection is not only disrespectful to the text, but it takes all meaning and flavor from the individual sources as an effect of the required homogenization.
You may say that God could have given the "perfect words" that fit the official NASA Astronomers Pocket Dictionary 2006 editionTM for the Hebrew scribes BUT......
...you also overlook that Babel event
people wrote the bible in hebrew. god's name is a conjugation of a hebrew verb. if the book is what the fundies say it is, god must have spoken hebrew. what good is an omnipotent god who can't speak the local language anyways?
(BLL not Babylon, I think that was a scribal error,but I dont want to get into that)
ooh ooh i do. i know this one. the name of the place is ‘‘— (babel, "gate of god") but the verb in the sentance is ‘—— (balal, "confuse"). it's a translational pun. i'm not kidding, it's a joke. a crack on the babylonians. there's an even better one in genesis 19, a crack on the ammonites and the moabites, by distorting the names of their eponymous ancestors into two different slang terms for "bastard."
yes, the authors of the bible had a MEAN sense of humor. but it's not really funny, unless you know the hebrew. if you don't know any hebrew, you don't get that "moabi" sounds like "m'abi" (from my father) and "ben-ammi" (the name of the amonite's traditional father) literally means "son of my family."
Im NOT demanding anyone believe in such an event mind you.But I am going to say that a debate with Bible believers must consider that point of view especially when there is a (clearly mistaken) assumption/demand that the literal words in Genesis 1-11 must be up to speed with 2006 scientific terminology.
no, i just demand that people stick to the text, and what it says. if the conclusion is that it's wrong, that's not my problem. clearly, the language of the bible is incompatible 2006's scientific terminology, something even the most fundamentalist people here will recognize (see, for instance, faith on why we can't define a "kind"). but changing the bible to mean whatever you want is not a solution to this disconnect. most people are concerned with the bible being literally true, and are willing to fudge things a little to prove their point. i'm only concerned with the bible being mostly literal, with no regard to whether or not the statements are even right. if it makes sense, it's a plus, but there's some obscure stuff in the bible we might never fully get.
Lets assume that God handed text straight to Pre-Babel Hebrews with every last word penned by the creator himself.You seem to demand such an extreme assumption so Ill assume such for the sake of argument.
i do not in the slightest. i typically play off the assumption made by fundamentalists that the torah was handed en total to moshe on mt. horeb ("sinai"), by god himself. but i do not hold this assumption. the only assumption i hold is that the people who did actually write the bible meant what they said -- at least as the very basis for understanding. thematic elements and metaphor and allegory were likely included, but it starts with what's on the page, the grammar, and the vocabulary. if you don't get these right, what hope do you have of understanding the more hidden meanings?
no, i'm just irked by people who say that god handed them something in writing, but "god didn't really mean this part..."
If the Babel event was (slightly)more than 5000 years ago, it would have been when then there are no extant texts of ANYTHING around today in any language(so far found to date).
i think this babel logic is highly flawed. the bible was written post-babel -- any reasonably historical book anywhere was written after the events it describes, and the source that tells the babel story runs all the way through numbers. it was certainly not written by the people before or during, or it would have been a very different book. more like a journal -- one person's lengthy story, told strictly chronologically. the traditions may have existed back to dawn of civilization, for all i care. but versions we have were copied off of hebrew documents.
anyways.
have a look at the languages of the region, for a second. hebrew is very, very similar to aramaic. both are highly similar to arabic. all three were adapted partially from sumerian, partially from phoenician (the alef-bet, at least). the people of ugarit spoke a language very much related to hebrew. it turns out that ever major language in the area, short of babylon, is basically hebrew with slightly different grammar, and some different vocabulary. and LOTS of cognates. of even assuming the babel story is precisely true, and genesis 1-11 was written before then, the language didn't really change THAT much.
for all intents and purposes, genesis is a hebrew text, written by 10th-6th century bce jews, copied from original hebrew manuscripts. there is no evidence that it ever existed in any form prior to this. and even the intensely similar passage from gilgamesh, in akkadian, shows that the changes are simply inconsequential. i see no reason to even regard this babel idea, except as a very, very obscure point of faith, not held by anywhere near the majority of christians or jews. for most believers, the bible starts with moses.
You demand that the Hebrew words be a perfect and scientific("literal")reflection of what we know today.
i do not. i require that they be intentional, and having meaning, and that we obey the rules of grammar. i demand that context and connotation play a role. and heavily imply that the words are certainly human in origin, though it's actually irrelevant to the argument.
But you will then at the same time not be able to give us a pagan proto-type text, that the "P document" drew from,
p? no. p is mostly redactory work in joining j and e, and genealogies.
And that c500BCE Akkadian source document would have been in a language that Hebrew scribes would have easily understood there.
depends. are you saying that no hebrew scribes could read akkadian? especially the later sumerian writing was actually phonetic, using a derivitive of the phoenician alef-bet (hebrew is a 2nd generation derivitive of the phoenician alef-bet). it's very possible that some could read it, and very possible that some read it in translation into a third language.
So maybe the literal demand should be canned?
which literal demand? that it be literally correct? by all means, read it yourself. it's quite far from it. as far as being read literally, yes. i see no reason not to. even if it was a translation of something else, and imperfect one at that, the translators would have chosen their words for reasons.
in fact, and this of course ultimately destroys your point, the oldest version of the tanakh that we have, by 400 years, is a translation. it still tells a heck of a lot.
Maybe Genesis 1 COULD (for the sake of argument) be a rough translation or paraphrase of a text from God or inspired by God.Maybe the verses before day 1 were, first the title(in the beginning God made), and then a description of an universe before the Big Bang when the Earth wasnt formed yet.Tehom may have been the "Hebrews" best word for outerspace.Maybe the "Hebrew" scribes didnt understand the words in the original Pre-babel document,when translation into a post-Babel text, and thought that it said something slightly different about the earths "form".
ad-hoc. and if god is continuing the inspire the hebrews to write books, and the rest of these sources in genesis, why not just inspire them there too?
there is a loose conceptual framework in genesis that indeed MUST match reality. before stuff, there was nothing. the fact that genesis contains this idea is not a surpise. as ecclesiastes put it, there is nothing new under the sun. it's all been done before. but i want to point something out here -- i am not the one attempting to fit genesis to modern science. you are. and you are very openly doing it by saying it's a bad translation.
Maybe day 1 could have described the time from Big Bang all the way till the complete formation of the earth after 13 billion years of cosmic debree crashing and being drawn into a snowballing rock that would become the earth 4.6 billion years ago?
no.
even assuming your point regarding translation is true, you are overlooking the function of genesis. this is something that people often do, when they replace the desire to understand with the desire to believe in something that's correct. genesis is a book of origins, it explains how things came to be as they are. that is the function of the book of genesis. it tells us how places got their names, and how people got their names, and how cultures came to be grouped as they were at about 600 bc. it tells us the origins of many cultural practices in judaism, patriarchal lineage, marriage, etc. these "tada" etiological statements are found at the end of the story, and genesis 1 is no different.
what's at the end of genesis 1? shabat.
genesis 1-2.4 describes the origin of the hebrew work week. that is the function of the story. we work 6 days, and rest 1, because god worked 6 days, and rested one. it explains why evening comes before morning in the hebrew day, a custom still followed to this day. all the other stuff is secondary. yes, it explains how we got plants and animals, the sun and moon. but that's just the story of god, at work, for six days. genesis 1 is not about 4.5 billion years. it's about 7 days. it's a controversial view, i know, especially since i know full-well that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and i avidly attack any "gap" or "day-age" theories. but they do not stand the test of the text. i don't especially care that genesis is not about the big bang, or the birth of our galaxy, or the 4.5 billion years of earth's history. the reason the text was written is simply more important than trying to crowbar it into astronomy. so what if it's wrong?
The explosion of light called the Big Bang did seem to divide (I have read that bara can mean divide)the elements and begin the process that would lead to a planet that could eventually have a evening and morning.
...the other problem is that people fudge science to do this too. the big bang was an expansion of matter from a singularity. that matter was likely hydrogen. all of the other elements come from stars.
and "bara" does not mean divide. in a particular usage, it describes cutting down trees. but that's just a quirk of the language. again, translating by concordance is bad, and that's why we don't do it. however, it is also fundamentally true that god creates by separation, in genesis 1.
I think the "firmament" could be a primitive *best* word NOT "literal" word for atmosphere which was when the gasses formed around the earth.
no, the english is actually bad. the hebrew (raqia) comes from the word (reqa), which literally means "stamp" or "hammer" as you would a metal plate, forging something. the noun form is something that has been forged. ie: the sky is made of metal. the best translation the kjv could come up with was a (made up?) word that meant "solid object." you lose the sense of metal in the english, though. it's actually important in part of job:
quote:
Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky,
which is strong as a molten looking glass?
looking-glass being a mirror, traditionally made of a solid metal plate. like i said, do not expect to find a modern concept of space in the bible.
Day 5 seems to indicate that the first significant intelligent life "evolved" (we will use that term since we must be "scienific")around the time of plants or slightly after.It seems to put sea life as being the first intelligent life.With evolutionary assumptions, it seems that it would describe sea animals "evolving" into land animals perhaps reptiles like crocs(or whatever) that are bridge between sea and land.Perhaps it is saying that birds would come from reptiles? Perhaps amphibious reptiles? Maybe that could explain what (theoretical)reptile/birds transitionals did with their feathers while evolving for milions of years? They swam with them?
no, birds appear in the skies with the sea-life. in reality, birds evolved from land animals.
The general chronology isnt too bad so far.
look a little closer. no sun until day four. yet plants before then. the chronology is not accurate on ANY scale. trust me, i've tried it before.
Perhaps pure land animals werent the subject of day 5 and a seperate category closely related to the "day 5" of non-land life would be used for them(like day 6,the closest day).Surely there would be an overlapping line when "kosher science" of Evolution (dynamic changes at times but not evenly distributed and uniform) is in effect.Birds however do have hollow bones which dont preserve well. And the dates keep getting pushed back for the oldest bird fossels. Back to 130 million years ago then about 150 million years ago. yet Reptiles existed long after the evolutionary change into the first bird.Infact they still exist.
there is not a good solid line between theropod dinosaur and bird. technically, birds today are, in fact, dinosaurs, and archosaurs along with crocs. the fact that reptiles still exist doesn't mean anything, this is quite a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. and birds did not evolve directly from reptiles, as dinosaurs are not reptiles in the best sense of the word. dinosaurs were very, very likely warm-blooded. (show me another bipedal endothermic animal)
and bird fossils preserve wonderfully. we're just having some issues with what to call what, since all these darned dinosaurs with feathers keep popping up. it's actually a little bit complicated -- some suspect that certain groups like dromaeosaurs actually evolved from flying birds, back into something we'd call "dinosaur."
Day 6 menions the non-human land animals BEFORE man.Man was described as being a late comer in the Bible.
the culmination of god's creation. genesis 2 is backwards, man first, and then everything as he needs it. on a trial-and-error basis. god... error? doesn't sit too well with the fundamentalists, but there he is with "it's not good..."
Maybe Genesis 1 shouldnt be held to a 100% literal scientific standard and literal Lexical and textual standard that uses words and terms we use in the Space Age.
But it should be held to a common sense standard and then judged based on and according to a critical examination.That takes all relevent issues into consideration.
common sense, yes. common sense that when we read something that's archaic, and completely in line with every other text of the area and time, we don't expect it to be godly accurate, or contain information regarding our current understandings of the universe. common sense in that we shouldn't try to bend science or the text to get them to fit. the bible is what it is -- all i want is for people to not do what you just did -- try to mix it up with science. it doesn't go, and it's utterly disrespectful to text, and damaging to science. just stop worrying about whether or not it's accurate in any sense of the word, and worry about what you can learn from it, or what messages it contains that are important to your life.
ultimately, this strive for accuracy is what undoes faith. if the bible has to be true in every little scientific regard like this, or the stories have to reflect reality, and they simply don't -- what do you with the faith that demands these things? there is simply nothing more challenging to the christian faith than the bible itself.
and that's why nobody reads it anymore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Nimrod, posted 09-07-2006 5:34 AM Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Nimrod, posted 09-13-2006 11:09 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 103 by Nimrod, posted 09-14-2006 1:55 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 133 (348631)
09-13-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nimrod
09-07-2006 5:37 AM


Re: bottom line....
I would say that the Theological Dictionary Of The Old testament is the best as for each word it covers (some definitions are 4-5 pages long).
i hate to say it, but if the dictionary is longer than the text you're reading, it's practically useless. it's great to know cognates (i'm ot being sarcastic here, it is), and it's great to know backgrounds and usages. but a certain degree of it is figuring it out. and that's a bit too much info to process.
i also get laughs out of specific biblical dictionaries (see, for instance, the dictionary attached to blueletterbible.org's concordance) which fill in some definitions out of nothing but pure dogma.
wanna know what dictionary does me?
default.aspx in Hebrew | Morfix Dictionary ’ ‘ ’ | default.aspx ‘
i'll warn you though, you have to know how to type in hebrew to use it. but if the biblical usage is different, it provides both biblical and modern. no big to-do about the language itself. take a class in that, it'll help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nimrod, posted 09-07-2006 5:37 AM Nimrod has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 102 of 133 (348956)
09-13-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
09-13-2006 3:28 AM


Some quotes and responce
Whew.I never learn my lesson.I come here to read posts but then end up getting into a discussion where I need to explain myself lol.Nice post.The point I want to show is that the Creation and Flood myths are worldwide (most professors have this incorrect box they put themselves into,saying that these are "Ancient Eear Eastern stories") and I will use works from non-believers to show what I am saying.Ill also respond and clear up some points I was making.
History of The Ancient Near East (William Hallo,1996 updated edition)
Page 32
"The Golden Age:Early Dynastic I ca.2900-2700"
"Native Mesopotamian sources and their deritatives, including the "primeval history" of the Bible (Genesis 1-11), are in impressive agreement that at about this time there ensued a natural catastrophe that threatened the extinction of all of mankind, or at least of those elements of civilization that the previous 8 generations (more or less) had painfully elaborated.Since these sources derived man and his attainments from divine inspiration, they generally regarded castrophe as evidence with divine displeasure with "what God had wrought"--a rueful case of second thoughts.And all agree that a "saving remnant" was found worthy to continue humanity, or civilization, in the nick of time, thanks to intercession of a more benign deity.In their earliest form, these traditions centered around ancient Shruppak(modern Fara in southern Iraq), whose king rode out the Flood in a boatand,in one version, ultimately achieved immortality.His names in the various traditions are suggestive of his role and fate.In the earliest Sumerian version, he appears as Ubar-Tutu, "friend of the God Tutu", or as Ziusudra, "life of long days".Later he is simply (and perhaps erroneously) called after his city , Shuruppak.The earliest Akkadian sources call him Atar-hasis, "exceeding wise" , while the later ones , incorperated in the canonical Gilgamesh epis, refer to him as Uta-napishtam, "he has found (everlasting) life".In the Bible his name is Hoah, explained as "this one will cause us to repent from our [contemplated] deed and from the grief of our hands [which we meantnto extract] from the earth, for the Lord had laid it under a curse"--although his name is related linguistically to a root meaning "to rest" and is semantically more nearly equivalent to his contemporary Na'amah, whose name is "pleasant".
The pervasiveness of the flood motive, which found its way into Greek mythology and recurs, perhaps independently, in much of the worlds folklore, has led many to seek corroboration for it in the archaeological record" (Hallo adds a footnoe here refering people to Alan Dundes ed. The Flood Myth, 1988)
Flood Shock
The Drowining of Planet Earth by Anthony Milne (1986)
The entire human race possesses extraordinary written legends about a catastrophic flood that engulfed huge areas of the planet earth.....The Bible commences its narrative of earthly history with Noahs flood, and Chinese history also starts from a simila great flood....The connection of the great flood with the dawning of history derives from the central place the Tigris Euphrates Valley has in providing the first evidence of cities, temples, and a literate civilization.These stories from what is now the Middle east probably first reached the Hebrews and Greeks from seperate Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories, both of whom incorporated a Deluge legend into their own sagas about the origins of the earth."
He says some things I STRONGLY disagree with,like saying that the Amarna letters somehow prove that Syrians got the flood legend from Babylonians.However,he then goes on to spend many pages talking about endless flood stories around the globe in ancient folklore.
Here are some snips
So was Noah's flood merely parable, myth, legend? many Anthropologists believe not, because many flood legend desscribing cataclysmic inundations are to be found scross the world.They have been discovered in India, China, The East Indies , Polynesia and most significantly in the Americas. What is puzzling is that they eminate from great continental land masses where the inhabitants have never seen the sea, nore great rivers or lakes.
Under various aliases Noah hauntingly reappears from every corner of the globe, with his poetic message of deep,stormy waters and doves and ravens.Indeed, the flood researcher might be excused for assuming that the inundation first occured in the western hemisphere, to be later transmitted to the east. From the canadian North-West south of the Arctic Circle, down through North and Central America and into southern continents,virtually every tribe and ethnic group has a legend refering to a worldwide flood.
The Spaniards, it seems, were overwhelmed with Deluge traditions when they arived in the America's.To the catholic invaders some of the legends, so closely resembling the Bible story and yet clearly of alien origin,seemed sacrilegious.The reason for floods in all these Amerindian fables is invariably the same:mankind became wicked, and God decided to destroy the species, but at the same time to save one good couple of family and allow them to start afresh and build a new and better civilization.The Jibaro Indians of the Upper amazon tell that 'a great cloud of rain fell from heaven,like a sheet of water, and caused the death of every living thing on earth'.This, in its most explicit form, was what the Incas told the Spanish in peu, even saying that the rains lasted for sixty days and nights
He tells of Spaniards burning many flood stories that angered them,giving examples of a few, that met that fate, that still managed to survive in the native script.Milne then covers many many more detailed accounts of legends from across the globe.In every odd corner you could imagine.
People need to start to study these things.It isnt just some local river overflowing its banks(ancient people werent stupid).It isnt some radically different story every time.Infact the common story of a chosen family cant be by mere chance.Not that Milne is trying to make these points.His book is actually very mainstream except that he doesnt blind himself by ignoring evidence, saying endlessly repeated(and untrue)things like: "only people living near major rivers have these legends" , "Australians dont have these legends" , "only Ancient Near Easterners had these myths" that Professors drill into their students heads semister after semister.
Final edit: my computer gives me too many problems.I typed ALOT drawing from the Westermann Genesis 1-11 commentary (everybody should read the 80 page introduction, if not the entire 600 pages), Sir james frazer Folklore in the Old Testament, and such.I crashed when I had type alot.I give up.Im going back to lurking.
I was trying to lay a case that Genesis had strands of information from LONG before writing.
I was then going to mention that the BLL event was in relation to the first ever Mesopotamian temple (in archaeology) from around 5000 BCE in Eridu.The name Nun.Ki "the mighty place" was the Sumerian name that not only Sumerians used for Eridu(till the language ceased around c2000BCE)but Akkadian speakers also used ,during the Old Babylonian period (c1900-1500), to name major cities.Babylon ALSO had the exact same Sumerian name.Nun.ki
Sumerian texts spoke of the language division.
Enmerkar And The Lord Of Aratta Epic
"Let the People of Aratta artfully fashion gold and silver.....build me a great temple,set up for me a great shrine of the gods..fashion for me Abzu like a holy highland.Purify for me Eridu like a mountain.........Then Enki,lord of abundance,whose commands are trustworthy,the lord of wisdom who understands the land,the leader of the gods endowed with wisdom,the lord of Eridu,changed the speech in their mouths,bringing contention into the speeh of man which until then had been one" (Ashmolean Museum fragment of Enmenkar And The Lord Of Aratta)
"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
the Encyclopedia Of Ancient Civilizations of the Near east and Mediterranian (John Haywood)
"The ubaid culture laid the foundations of the later Sumerian civilizations of southern Mesopotamia.By the fifth millennium settlements were developing into small towns with populations of between 4000 and 5000. A simple shrine established at Eridu, the cultures best know site in Ubaid times already had the distinctive features of later Mesopotamian temples: an ornamental fascade, and offering table and an alter for the statue of the God.This temple was rebuilt a number of times.By the end of the Ubaid period it had become a multi-roomed complex built on top of a platform 3 feet (1m) high. Over the centuries these platforms grew still taller and by about 2100 had evolved into ziggurats.Eridu seems to have been a religious center for the surrounding farming villages which it may have controlled through the spiritual power by a priestood or by management of irrigation ortrade."
The sumerians King list mentioned this as the first city.
The updated Cambidge Ancient History explains why Biblical Erech and Uruk are the same location.Erech was one of the kingdoms mentioned as being founded by Nimrod (indicating his ancestors founding it IMO).
The Bible would peg this as a place founded after the Babel event.Sumerians viewed it as a location where writing began.
Sumerian texts say.
"Before that time writing on clay had not yet existed,
But now, as the sun rose, so it was!
The king of Kullaba [Uruk] had set words on a tablet, so it was!"
Archaeology seems to support BOTH.
The Professors who say that there is no Tower of Babel parallel are simply wrong.Maybe its because they will have to throw away their traditional views on the Bible.The "Nun.Ki" issue really would prove that Biblical texts would have been old even by c2000 BCE.
Even Amazon "product descriptions" took notice of parallels most Professors dont get
"Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta (Writings from the Ancient World) (Writings from the Ancient World) (Paperback)
by H. L. J. Vanstiphout (Editor), Jerrold S. Cooper (Editor) "With about 280 lines, this tale is the shortest of the cycle..." (more)
Explore: Concordance | Text Stats | CAPs
Browse: Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Surprise Me!
Product Description
Epics of Sumerian Kings presents for the first time both the authoritative Sumerian text and an elegant English translation of four key epics from the Sumerian literary canon. These epics, the earliest known in any language, revolve around the conflict between the cities of Uruk (biblical Erech) in ancient Iraq and Aratta in neighboring Iran. Of special interest is erkar and the Lord of Aratta,ich contains the story of the confounding of human language, often cited as a source of the biblical tower of Babel narrative, as well as the Sumeriansn account of the invention of cuneiform writing. In addition to providing English translations of the epics, Vanstiphout discusses their intellectual and cultural context, their poetics and meaning, and the significance of the epic cycle as a whole. The volume will interest scholars and students of Assyriology and the ancient Near East, biblical scholars, and general readers and will be a valuable text for courses on ancient Near Eastern literature or history.
About the Author
Herman Vanstiphout is Associate Professor in the Department of Languages and Cultures of the Middle East at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands."
Amazon.com
A.H. Sayce LONG ago showed that Both "J" and "P" sources were in some Old Babylonian flood stories.I would quote from it,but my computer crash's too often.
Genesis 1-11 isnt "cracked" but it does seem to have much support.
Good histoy books talk about the "Uruk expansion" in the archaeological record around3500 BCE.Where major waves of diffusion and migration where taking place in the period of c4300-3100, across the entire Ancient Near eEst.It was named the Uruk period because according to common practise, ages were named after the first town was found by archaeologists and the index pottery was thus duely named.
Similar to the Genesis 10-11 expansion.
Here is a chart showing the mainstream (not creationist or anything) Ancient Near East langauge family tree.Put the (unmentioned)Ebla language inbetween Akkadian and North-West Semitic.I would say the pot babel language was Semitic,so see the top part labeled "Semitic" for my view of the language.(also put Ugaritic between Aramean and Canaanite).The various languages that came from "Semitic" would become would be perhaps the various languages the Bible would later be translated into,which ended with Hebrew (well later Greek).
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
All attempts to link the language families in an "evolutionary" way (say Semitic and Sumerian) have completely failed.Linguistic study supports "creation" ie the BLL event.Mistaken in later translations (around 2000BCE?) as Babel because of the Nun.Ki name confusion with Eridu.
One more "FINAL" EDIT:I am saying that The Genesis Biblical text that later would say "Babylon" (bab-el) actually said NUN.KI and meant Eridu.Archaology has cleared that up.Maybe the BLL issue sounding similar to Babylon was a later reason for cunfusion? Im not sure. But all the pieces have come together regardless.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2006 3:28 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 103 of 133 (348980)
09-14-2006 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by arachnophilia
09-13-2006 3:28 AM


Re: bottom line....
i think this babel logic is highly flawed. the bible was written post-babel -- any reasonably historical book anywhere was written after the events it describes, and the source that tells the babel story runs all the way through numbers. it was certainly not written by the people before or during, or it would have been a very different book. more like a journal -- one person's lengthy story, told strictly chronologically. the traditions may have existed back to dawn of civilization, for all i care. but versions we have were copied off of hebrew documents.
Maybe the Babel (BLL) segment was, but not the flood and the "P" creation of genesis chapter 1.Genesis 1-9 would have been in a lost language.
have a look at the languages of the region, for a second. hebrew is very, very similar to aramaic. both are highly similar to arabic. all three were adapted partially from sumerian, partially from phoenician (the alef-bet, at least). the people of ugarit spoke a language very much related to hebrew. it turns out that ever major language in the area, short of babylon, is basically hebrew with slightly different grammar, and some different vocabulary. and LOTS of cognates. of even assuming the babel story is precisely true, and genesis 1-11 was written before then, the language didn't really change THAT much.
Post Babel Semitic was the mother of all,but Sumerian, that you mentioned.
Nimrod says
"And that c500BCE Akkadian source document would have been in a language that Hebrew scribes would have easily understood there."
Arach says
depends. are you saying that no hebrew scribes could read akkadian? especially the later sumerian writing was actually phonetic, using a derivitive of the phoenician alef-bet (hebrew is a 2nd generation derivitive of the phoenician alef-bet). it's very possible that some could read it, and very possible that some read it in translation into a third language.
Im saying Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian WAS understodd by c600BCE Hebrews.The Bible even says as much about some hebrews knowing both languages.The Amarna tablets show that Canaanite's knew the Akkadian of their day.
Im saying that few post-Babel "hebrews" (even right after the event , though the smarter ones would figure out enough to make a translation) would understand the lost pre-Babel language,whatever it was.
and "bara" does not mean divide. in a particular usage, it describes cutting down trees. but that's just a quirk of the language. again, translating by concordance is bad, and that's why we don't do it. however, it is also fundamentally true that god creates by separation, in genesis 1.
Actually, it is one of its main meanings.I was going to use the Westermann commentary(which based his commentary on top notch scholars and linguists)but I put it away in anger after my computer crashed."divide" is actually much the the same as "cut up" and Westerman quoted the term "divide" also.
Nimrod says
"I think the "firmament" could be a primitive *best* word NOT "literal" word for atmosphere which was when the gasses formed around the earth."
Arach says
no, the english is actually bad. the hebrew (raqia) comes from the word (reqa), which literally means "stamp" or "hammer" as you would a metal plate, forging something. the noun form is something that has been forged. ie: the sky is made of metal. the best translation the kjv could come up with was a (made up?) word that meant "solid object." you lose the sense of metal in the english, though. it's actually important in part of job:
Job 37:18
"Hast thou with him spread out the sky,
which is strong as a molten looking glass?"
looking-glass being a mirror, traditionally made of a solid metal plate. like i said, do not expect to find a modern concept of space in the bible.
You prove my point here.Even with bad translations,reflecting the primitive lexicon, the plain reading of the day 2 "firmament" verse in MODERN times easily shows us that the text would be refering to atmosphere.The friend of Job (whom God said was foolish in Chapter 39) may not have understood it, but we can.Im sure the translators post-babel would have thought much as he did.
I also think you are nitpicking at some issues (like the exact order of animals,maybe the days were simply describing certain categories, not 100% chronological) and overlooking (like the sun issue, since day 1 mentions light,and day 4 was simply mentioning plants using the seasons and heavenly bodies like the sun)others issues.
Thanks for the responces but they seem to prove that you want to hold Genesis to standards that it couldnt attain post-Babel and perhaps even before(?).I had alot more to type and quote from certain books.I am not saying that Genesis 1-9 has scientic proof but it isnt as worthless as people make it out to be.It is a folklore-ish style of primeval history.I dont want to call Genesis 1-11 "cartoony" but it is highly abbreviated, allegorical, and even symbolic.
Understood as it is,in its proper historical context (and worldwide context with similar stories),its style, plus the Babel linguistic issues (and late rtranslation issues), and it still comes off as an important divine document IMO.
I respect it as a doument God intended for us to read and take in a serious manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by arachnophilia, posted 09-13-2006 3:28 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 104 of 133 (407403)
06-26-2007 3:47 AM


3 areas of disagreement
The 3 beefs Arach has goes something like this
1) the events in the 6 days cant possibly be made to fit the record scientists have reconstructed for our universe and especially Earth.
2) the word for "firmament" cant possibly refer to the collection of gas that we call air or atmosphere and in addition the Nimrod argument that proto-Semitic texts from say 7,000-10000 years ago (not to mention the absurd claim that there were pre-semitic and pre-sumerian texts) could have actually said something similar to that (or attempted to) is completely absurd.
3) The "Waters' ( Tehom) couldnt possibly be an attempt to describe the material that makes up the universe and outerspace.Thus Nimrod is out of his crazy mind.
The first (1) I will skip but in my next post I shall attempt to cover the last 2.Clear evidence for the last 2 will give much more cover for my first claim.
I will present the conclusions of top notch scholarship from the worlds best Sumerologists (and the competent Sumerologists can literally be counted on ones fingers , but my references will refer to the 2 best ever whose penetrating studies brought us most of what we have in the realm of translations and accurate conclusions:Jacobson and Kramer) in a compact set of quotes.Infact I will just make a few selective quotes from paragraphs that are only covered in the span of a tiny albeit scholarly book.And the small quotes wont expand past the first 12 pages!
Next post.
First selective quotes from the books back-cover and preface,then the rest will be in the next post.
The Babylonian Genesis
Alexander Heidel
Back Cover
Axelander Heidel was at the time of his death in 1955 on the research staff of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
....
Preface
VI
The present translation constitutes an almost complete revision of the previous one......I enjoyed the unstinted co-operation of associate Professor F. W. Geers and also had the pleasure of discussing a number of problems with Benno Landsberger. It is hardly necessary to add that, as a member of the Assyrian Dictionary staff of Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago , I had full access to the dictionary files....
Before I quote the parts that I want to quote (next post) I need to be clear that I have a belief (based on evidence) that the only way the Bible's early stories could be "true" (reflecting some sort of actual reality in pre-history which is reflected in Genesis 1-11) is if the words were written down in a dead language from LONGGGGG ago and through repeated translations , the original meaning was lost for several reasons (primitive lexicon , scientific ignorance, corrupted branches of the primeval story used by neighboring peoples which further confused and corrupted the proto-Hebrews legends, etc.) and much was corrupted.A view that oral traditions were the main means of transmission also is compatible with the view.
One quick example would be the flood-which was perhaps the sudden melting of ice that destroyed many coastal civilizations at the end of the last ice Age- which through repeated transmissions became a story of a flood that covered every mountain as opposed to simply hills near the coasts.
I tend to hold the belif that the story could have been once an accurate record of Gods divine displeasure but the definitions, syntax,grammar, and ultimately entire sentences would be corrupted.
Nowhere would this be worse than Genesis 1 (for obvious reasons), which is all I will be covering (and not in huge detail at that)
Here is another quick example of what I mean.
The word Tehom.All used to think (and many still do) that the word was a direct port from Akkadian.
Here is what modern scholarship has conclused almost universally
(TehOm)
Koehler & Baumgartner
1690-1692
...
Bauer-Leander Heb. 473e, not to be derived from a vb., probably a primary noun, perhaps going back to general Semitic *TihAm(at) sea: so as such it is not a loanword from Akkadian!
Who knows how many times definitions and words would be borrowed.And in what ways.
Many English words have Latin cognates.One might be lead to think that English is closer to Latin than German.Nope.But our words are mostly from Latin.Not exactly.Infact most came from French after Alfred. (No wonder our highly-intelligent congress gave up on the "Freedom Fry" precident lol.A few of America's finest.. cough.. 535 patriots may have figured out that a genuine boycott of French words would render verbal communication in English impossible!)
Anyway, regardless of hoy we got Tehom , this was a good word to use an example of for obvious reasons (see next post).

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Nimrod, posted 06-26-2007 4:12 AM Nimrod has not replied

Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 105 of 133 (407405)
06-26-2007 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Nimrod
06-26-2007 3:47 AM


Phoenix Press - Babylonian Genesis-Heidel
p10
Enuma elish is the principle source of our knowledge of Mesopotamian cosmology.While the various other creation stories treat certain aspects of the cosmos, Enuma elish gives us an account of the origin an the order of the universe as a whole
p1
Aside from linguistic considerations, this widespread popularity of Enuma elish is in part due to its great significance for the study of the theogonic and cosmogonic views of the Mesopotamians, and thus for a comparative study of ancient Near Eastern religion in general; but above all else it is due to the fact that Enuma elish presents quite a number of analogies to the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis.
p3
The epic opens with a brief reference to the time when nothing except the divine parents,Apsu and Tiamat, and their son Mummu existed.Apsu was the primeval sweet-water ocean, and Tiamat the salt-water ocean, while Mummu probably represented the mist rising from the two bodies of water and hovering over them,particularly since in Tablet VII:86 he is brought in direct relation with the clouds.These three types of water were mingled in one,framing an immense, undefined mass in which were contained all the elements of which afterward the universe was made.As yet,there was neither heaven nor earth, not even a reed marsh was to be seen.
p9
Marduk ....returned to Tiamat, split her skull..... Finally he divided the colossal body of Tiamat into two parts to create the universe.With one half of her corpse he formed the sky, with the other he fashioned the Earth....
Next, he created stations in the sky for the great gods;he organized calendar, by settin up stellar constellations to determine by their rising and setting, the year , the months, an the days; he built gates in the east and in the west for the sun to enter and depart; in the very center of the sky he fixed the zenith; he caused the moon to shine forth.....
p12
It is generally admitted that Enuma elish, though it is one of the literary masterpieces of the Babylonian Semites, is undoubtedly based on the cosmology of he Sumerians, and that the central figure of the Sumerian story is Enlil, the most important god in Babylonia until Mardukes rise to supremacy.For not only do all the Gods, with the exception of Ti'amat appear to have Sumerian names but some of the Gods themselves, such as Apsu, Anu, and Enlil are admittedly Sumerian.Morever the majority of the monsters which Ti'Amat bore (TabletI:132-42) and almost all the winds created by Marduk (Tablet IV:45-46) likewise have Sumerian names.Even man himself is called by a Sumerian term,lullu wich is immediately translated by the Semitic amelu (tablet VI:6-7) 3 Furthermore, the seperation of the primeval world matter into heaven and earth is a feat is a feat which the Sumerians ascribed to Enlil, the personified air, for it is the atmosphere which, placed between the sky and the earth, holds them apart. 4 Another important point to be considered in this connection is the fact that he Semites in Babylonia became in general the heirs of the Sumerians, and as such they took over, with certain modifications, their script and literature, their religion, their culture and civilization. But how much of Enuma elish must be traced to Sumerian sources cannot be ascertained with any degree of finality until Sumerian cosmology is better known as to both content and origin ,for, as S. N. Kramer has remarked, 5 it is quite possible that there are "traces of Semitic influence in even the earliest known Sumerian mythology just as we find them in the case of Sumerian language" 6
3 ...
4cf. S. N. Kramer in the Journal Of The American Oriental Society LXIII(1943), 72, 2, ad Jacobson in The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient man pp. 169 and 178
...
6 On the Sumerian creation materials see Kramers remarks ibid, pp 70-73, his book Sumerian Mythology ....., and Jacobsens review of the latest chapter in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, V (1946), pp. 128-152.
Note 5 is from JAOS too.
Anyway,there is the most economical way I can show some of what my earlier posts were trying to indicate.Plus it serves as a responce that IMO adds credibility to my view.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Nimrod, posted 06-26-2007 3:47 AM Nimrod has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024