|
Author
|
Topic: Can fundamentalists explain Job 26:12-13 for me?
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Text of Job 26.
LNA writes:
Here we have Psalms 89:9-11 and the context of creation of the heavens. "You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm. The heavens are yours, the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in ityou have founded them." Just like Job 26:12-13 "By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent."
Note that these are poetic passages. This is poetic imagery, saying that the true God is more powerful than the gods and fearful monsters of the other nations. The OT has quite a few such polemical statements against the gods of Egypt and Canaan.
The evidence is like 99.9% that the Israelites saw the creation story as part of a myth involving a mythological dragon being slayed to create the heavens.
You have not showed this, and I disagree. I think these are just poetic ways of saying that the true God is stronger than the gods of Egypt and Canaan.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-05-2016 3:35 PM | | LamarkNewAge has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Text of Job 26.
LNA writes:
Tell me this. Which verses in Job are literally true? Which use poetic imagery that feature unhistorical mythological events from the primeval period placed in the hands of the Israelite God?
The book of Job is essentially all poetry, filled with poetic imagery. All of Job is "true". But I don't know what you mean by "literally true" in this context.
LNA writes:
Place the Rahab serpent in its Genesis 1 context. Place the rest of Job 26 and its 14 verses in context (if possible). Which verses (that can be placed in Genesis 1 or not) are historical and which aren't?
I'm not sure that the Job passage matches exactly to Genesis 1. But if it does, it's probably to verse 2, where "darkness was over the face of the deep". The word "deep" here is the Hebrew "tehom", which means "abyss". The word "yam" ("sea") could have been used and probably would have been a more normal word choice. I think "tehom" was used because it sounds somewhat like "Tiamat", the pagan sea god. The ancients were afraid of the sea and the dark, both present in Gen 1:2. The true God steps in and defeats these elements. There may also be an allusion to Rahab/Leviathan/SeaMonster in 1:21, where God creates the great sea monsters. They are nothing to be afraid of, they do not challenge God for power, they are just His created playthings. Similar in Psalm 104:26 where God created Leviathan to play in the water.
LNA writes:
I'm wondering if the Rahab verses are the only ones you discriminate against in this way.
??? Where have I "discriminated against" any Rahab verses?? Or any other verses?? I'm simply trying to explain what I understand them to mean. Perhaps my interpretation "discriminates against" your interpretation, but I don't believe that it "discriminates against" the text in any way. (P.S. I would NOT call myself a "fundamentalist", so perhaps I should not have answered your question at all.) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-06-2016 11:06 AM | | LamarkNewAge has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Phat asked about "Zoroastrianism to any degree" in peoples beliefs.
You use the term "fundamentalist" in very strange ways. N.T. Wright is not a "fundamentalist" by any normal usage of the term. Among conservative Christian (non-fundamentalist) scholars, there are a variety of opinions on the date of Daniel and on belief in the resurrection.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-10-2016 5:22 PM | | LamarkNewAge has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Phat asked about "Zoroastrianism to any degree" in peoples beliefs.
quote:
But it is not mentioned in the massive Psalms.
Moses didn't mention it (Genesis-Deuteronomy). There might have been a temporary raising of the dead, but every person soon died. Then no resurrection. Joshua to Esther didn't mention it. It just wasn't mentioned. Only the very late book of Daniel and possibly Isaiah. It was a late comer. And the conservative Sadducees who ran the Temple felt the idea of resurrection was contrary to the scripture.
—LNA
Most liberal (unbelieving) scholars will agree with you. But many conservative scholars disagree. They see numerous hints of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, including in Moses and Psalms. There is certainly not unanimity among scholars on your claims above.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Phat asked about "Zoroastrianism to any degree" in peoples beliefs.
Most conservative scholars disagree with you actually. I'm not surprised that you say this. You use the term "fundamentalist" in odd ways, so I'm not surprised that you do the same to "conservative".
Where did Moses and Psalms possible mention the afterlife?
This is not quite what I said. I said that many conservative scholars "see numerous hints of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, including in Moses and Psalms." For starters, take a look at Gen 22 and read the account carefully. Then take a look at Psalms 49 and 73. Edited by kbertsche, : Added Psalms.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Zoroastrianism is the reason the Ols Testament has ressurrection (albeit late).
LNA, let's stick to the question at hand. I claimed that many conservative scholars "see numerous hints of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, including in Moses and Psalms." You asked for examples from Moss and the Psalms. I responded, "For starters, take a look at Gen 22 and read the account carefully. Then take a look at Psalms 49 and 73." You did not comment at all on Gen 22. Did you even read it? You complained that the Psalm 49 reference was not clear and unambiguous. Did you not read or understand what I said?!? I said that many see "hints" of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible. This means that these passages are NOT clear and unambiguous. You did not find a hint of resurrection in Psalm 73. Try re-reading it again in different translations until you see it.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Zoroastrianism is the reason the Ols Testament has ressurrection (albeit late).
LNA writes:
What is wrong with this conservative source?
Why do you characterize it as a "conservative" source? (Their notes don't seem very "conservative" to me.). Why do you only look at this one source, and refuse to look at other translations and sources? I suggest looking at a number of good, modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, HCSB, etc). Most of these can be found at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.; the NET Bible with notes can be found at Matthew 1 | NET Bible.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
Re: Zoroastrianism is the reason the Ols Testament has ressurrection (albeit late).
LNA writes: Catholic Bishops have been packed packed packed with conservatives since John Paul II was Pope (the one from around 1980 to around 2005 or 2006), and Ratzinger was even more conservative. Even the 20 years (or so) of liberal Popes from the late 1950s to the late 1970s saw not so liberal Bishops appointed by them. Like John Paul II. Catholics have always been one of the conservative churches anyway.
"Conservatism" vs "liberalism" is not a simple question. Catholics are very conservative in some areas, but liberal in others.
I was attacked by a fundamentalist earlier for using the NIV for Is. 27 and the Leviathan verse.
Yes, some fundamentalists think that the KJV is best, and that anything else is inferior. They won't be any happier with your use of a Catholic translation than the NIV. (Most Protestants are very skeptical of Catholic translations and interpretations. The Catholic Church has elevated "tradition" to have an equal authority to Scripture, so they allow their tradition to color their interpretation of Scripture.)
Anyway, I do use multiple translations, but I don't "translation shop".
I'm not at all suggesting that you "translation shop". I'm suggesting that you try to understand what the text is really saying. The best way to do this is to read it in the original language (Hebrew, not KJV!). But for those who don't read Hebrew, the second best is to read the text in multiple translations. This is NOT for the purpose of "translation shopping" to pick the one that you like best; it is more for "translation averaging" and for getting an idea of the possible range of meanings of the original text.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
™ Version 4.2