Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical question for original version scholars (Rrhain, doctrbill,etc)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 11 (51553)
08-21-2003 1:30 PM


I have a question for Biblical scholars (specifically those that have read its original versions) which has kind of nagged me for a while.
Let me start by admitting that I see the bible as mainly a hodge-podge of earlier (and some contemporary for that time period) mythological stories. Some of course are based on historic realities, even if biased accounts of them, but other passages much less real.
The mythic portions I believe to be allegories, or perhaps better termed "fables" or "teachings" rather than literal accounts. I assume most of you will be with me up to this point.
Now here's the deal... The "fall of man" and his redemption by Christ has NEVER read to me the way I have always heard it interpreted. I have read it many times and simply do not see what religious types claim is being said. Granted this is helped by my not taking it literally, but even taken in a literal sense that only really effects the Christ portion.
.........
1) The "Fall" of man: From the Bible Adam and Eve start out in the "paradise" of Eden. Whether literal or figurative makes no difference. They live here free and naked and fully sexual, and one must assume having children as God's curse later is that from then on childbirth would be painful.
In other words they were living a very free existence that is almost verboten by today's religious standards. In fact, there are no proscriptions against any sexual behavior (and obviously incest is a necessity at this point of the game).
Yet I almost universally hear that while Eve's "eating the apple", brought sin upon all of mankind for having disobeyed God, their nudity was really bad, their sexuality was bad, and they only properly realized it after eating the apple.
That just does not make sense to me. Literally God tells this couple he has set nude and sexual into paradise, not to eat from the tree of Knowledge. But what was that Knowledge that they gained from eating its fruit? Not knowledge of sex or nudity (which obviously they had been practicing) but the knowledge that things like sex and nudity are wrong.
Doesn't that, even taken literally, mean that it was man's learning to judge God's creations as right and wrong (and therefore to judge God himself) which is the only sin which concerned God? Like He was insulted to have his own creations feel upset with the way he has them living?
That would make the curse he set upon man all the more meaningful. Essentially he made their newfound judgements and fears about his--- up to that point--- beautiful creation, concrete.
Even taken literally the rest of the Bible makes sense, albeit in a different tone. First he creates basic rules to bind his "chosen people" closer to himself (once again saying "don't eat at the tree" and judge me from some other standard) as well as rules of basic conduct which would make sense given their judgemental attitudes.
Taken allegorically it is almost Eastern in flavor, or true Epicurean if we think of Greek culture. Essentially man is in a state of paradise until he learns to judge... which man mistakes as knowledge. Without judgements of right and wrong life just is what it is.
But man does judge. It appears to be a fact of nature that most men choose to judge, or impose their judgements. And most of them are in relation to sex, property, and what the nature of the world really is. So unite under one common belief, and live according to these rules of behavior which will end conflicts based on feelings of jealousy or hatred (which naturally arise from judgements about the state of the world).
2) Christ's redemption of man. Although God's 10 little lessons should have worked, they did not. Instead more judgements have continued in the name of those rules. Paradise has not rematerialized.
So God sends down a son to help man reattain the nonjudgemental attitude once held in paradise. Kind of cutting to the heart of the problem. Look at all of Christ's teachings. They are about not worrying about one's condition in life and not judging others. He specifically does not say hey cut out all of that sexiness and sinfulness so you will be better off (ie lets stone the prostitute). He says stop imposing rules and judging others, look to yourself and trust that love of God and his creations will be enough.
Again, the allegory fits along these same lines. Seek peace in trying to attain inner calm no matter what the world and others toss at you.
.........
Now am I totally crazy in coming away from the Bible with this interpretation? Literal or allegorical?
What does the original text use for its words regarding that "tree of knowledge" whose fruits brought sin down on mankind?
I'm sure to catch hell for this post, but I just gotta know.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-21-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-22-2003 5:50 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 08-22-2003 6:09 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 4 by doctrbill, posted 08-22-2003 10:27 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (51906)
08-22-2003 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
08-21-2003 1:30 PM


Forgive any ignorance on my part, but I think I recall my Divinity teacher at school telling me that Aramaic formed a lot of Biblical books' original language.
Does this mean some Aramaic versions of Genesis, etc. exist, and that scholarly individuals here speak it?
------------------
quote:
All the boys think she's a spy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2003 1:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2003 1:04 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 11 (51911)
08-22-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
08-21-2003 1:30 PM


HI,
Do you mean the 'earliest' versions, because there are no original versions of ANY biblical book, Old testament or New.
We do not even know who wrote ANY Old Testament book, we do not know who wrote ANY of the Gospels, even some of Paul's letters have been taken off him , Hebrews and the Pastorals for example.
So do you mean the earliest extant texts?
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2003 1:30 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2003 1:19 PM Brian has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 4 of 11 (51946)
08-22-2003 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
08-21-2003 1:30 PM


I think I know what you mean holmes. Your assessment is quite good but reference to the earliest texts is not likely to solve your mystery. There is much that we will never understand of them:
Vague words. Mysterious metaphors. Elusive idiomatic expressions. Allusions to other literature, now lost. Errors in translation. Errors in copying. Purposeful alterations. And things which simply cannot be translated into a flow of modern thought. Beauty which will never be accessible to the masses. Embedded yet irretrievable factoids which might lead to a better understanding of the ancient mind.
Most of these difficulties will be discounted or denied by "shepherds" of the modern "flock" but to me represent a deadly blow to hopes of discovering "God's own truth" therein.
Theologies purportedly built upon the Bible cannot endure the kind of piercing intellect which you bring to bear upon them. Theology is for the gods to impose upon ignorant masses of fleece bearing manimals and their innocent cannon-fodder whelps. There are gods and there are men. Let us, therefore, be godlike that we may be served by men.(let's make that women, in my case).
P.S. - I know your question is serious and sincere but this quest goes better with a modicum of levity. You don't have to be crazy to seek god but if you are, you may find him sooner.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 08-21-2003 1:30 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 11 (51974)
08-23-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-22-2003 5:50 PM


agent U writes:
Does this mean some Aramaic versions of Genesis, etc. exist, and that scholarly individuals here speak it?
From what I understand it is still in contention whether aramaic formed a lot of the original language. While spoken by many, it is thought that greek and hebrew formed most of the writings.
But that's a totally different topic altogether.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-22-2003 5:50 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by truthlover, posted 08-31-2003 11:40 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 11 (51976)
08-23-2003 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
08-22-2003 6:09 PM


brian writes:
So do you mean the earliest extant texts?
No offense but isn't the answer to your question pretty obvious? I only meant "original" in reference to what versions were used to translate the Bible into latin and/or english. I feel safe in asserting that no latin or english translations were made from the original-and-ancient text which is not around today.
But just in case I am wrong about that, the answer is yes... I meant earliest KNOWN AND EXISTING versions of the Bible.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 08-22-2003 6:09 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 08-27-2003 7:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 11 (52549)
08-27-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
08-23-2003 1:19 PM


Hi Holmes,
No offense but isn't the answer to your question pretty obvious?
No offence taken, and none was meant in my reply. The reason I asked was that there are people out there who think that there were original contemporary texts, and what we have are copies of them. By original contemporary texts I mean that, for example, that Adam actually wrote the events that concerned him down onto tablets, Noah wrote his down and so on. Then it was Moses who apparently gathered all these tablets together and compiled the Torah! Sounds crazy I know, but there are people who believe this. I apologise if my post seemed silly.
Anyway, you are in luck, here is the Hebrew Text from the Masoretic Text, which was the oldest Text available until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. I don’t know if your computer has Hebrew fonts installed so I scanned the Masoretic Text and added the English translation underneath on a white background.
The commentary is from the Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz.
I am really pressed for time tonight and tomorrow, but hopefully we can discuss various interpretations, and what I think are blatant contradictions in the text, from Friday onwards?
What does the original text use for its words regarding that "tree of knowledge" whose fruits brought sin down on mankind?
Since your question is in relation to the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, I have copied out the text where this is introduced and the first sin occurs. If you need anymore texts, or if I can provide you with any resources at all, just ask I will be more than happy to help.
I thought a good place to finish would be Genesis 3:16 as this allows the inclusion of 3:15, which I think has been taken out of context by some Christians.
Genesis1.jpg starts at Genesis 2:7, up to Genesis 3:17 in Genesis7.jpg
I hope this isnt too inconvenient.
Commentary:
7: formed. The Heb. is vayyitzer from the same root, yatzar, as is used of the potter moulding clay into a vessel, possibly to remind us that man is " as clay in the hands of the Potter." The Rabbis point to the fact that in this verse the word for " formed " is written with two yods, whereas in v. 19 when relating the creation of animals, it has only one yod. Man alone, they declare, is endowed with both a Yetzer tob (a good inclination) and a Yetzer ra (an evil inclination); whereas animals have no moral discrimination or moral conflict. Another explanation is, man alone is a citizen of two worlds; he is both of earth and of heaven.
dust of the ground. " From which part of the earth's great surface did He gather the dust? " ask the Rabbis. Rabbi Meir answered, " From every part of the habitable earth was the dust taken for the formation of Adam." In a word, men of all lands and climes are brothers. Other Rabbis held that the dust was taken from the site on which the Holy Temple, with the altar of Atonement, was in later ages to be built. That means, though man comes from the dust, sin is not a permanent part of his nature. Man can overcome sin, and through repentance attain to atonement with his Maker.
a living soul. The term may mean nothing more than " living entity." The Targum, however, renders it by " a speaking spirit " ; viz., a personality endowed with the faculty of thinking and expressing his thoughts in speech.
8. garden. The ancient Versions translate it by the Persian word " Paradise," lit. enclosure or park.
eastward. Either, " in the East," the home of the earliest civilisation ; or, situated east of Eden. The Targum translates it, " aforetime."
Eden. The Heb. word means " delight " ; but it is probably the name of a country, Edinu (signifying " plain, steppe ") ; and may denote the extensive plain watered by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The phrase Garden of Eden " became in course of time descriptive of any place possessing beauty and fertility. In later Jewish literature, it signifies the Heavenly Paradise where the souls of. the righteous repose in felicity.
9. tree of life. The fruit of which prolongs life, or renders immortal. The phrase also occurs in a purely figurative sense, e.g. Prov. 3:18.
the knowledge of good and evil. The Targum paraphrase is, " the tree, the eaters of whose fruits know to distinguish between good and evil." The expression good and evil denotes the knowledge which infancy lacks and experience acquires (" Your children which this day have no knowledge of good or evil," Deut. i, 39). Knowledge of good and evil may also mean, knowledge of all things, i.e., omniscience ; see 3:5.
10. it was parted. After passing through the Garden, it divided into four separate streams.
11. Pishon. Nowhere else mentioned in the Bible. Havilah. Cf. x, 29. N.E. of Arabia, on the Persian Gulf. Arabia was famed in antiquity for its gold.
12. bdellium. Possibly the pearl.
13. Gihon. Like the Pishon, the identity of this river is a matter of conjecture.
Cush. Usually rendered Ethiopia ; but it may also denote some territory in Asia.
14. Assyria. Which lies some distance to the East of the Tigris and may possibly also include Babylonia.
Euphrates. No further description is given, because it was universally known as " the great River " (Deut. i, 7) and " the River " (Exod. 23: 31, Isa. 7:20).
15-16. to dress it and to keep it. i.e. to till it and guard it from running wild. Not indolence but congenial work is man's Divinely allotted portion. See, what a great thing is work! The first man was not to taste of anything until he had done some work. Only after God told him to cultivate and keep the garden, did He give him permission to eat of its fruits " (Aboth di Rabbi Nathan).
17. thou shalt not eat. Man's most sacred privilege is freedom of will, the ability to obey or to disobey his Maker. This sharp limitation of self-gratification, this " dietary law," was to test the use he would make of his freedom ; and it thus begins the moral discipline of man. Unlike the beast, man has also a spiritual life, which demands the subordination of man's desires to the law of God. The will of God revealed in His Law is the one eternal and unfailing guide as to what constitutes good and evil-and not man's instincts, or even his Reason, which in the hour of temptation often call light darkness and darkness light.
thou shalt surely die. i.e. thou must inevitably become mortal (Symmachus). While this explanation removes the difficulty that Adam and Eve lived a long time after they had eaten of the forbidden fruit, it assumes that man was created to be a deathless being. A simpler explanation is that in view of all the circumstances of the temptation, the All-merciful God mercifully modified the penalty, and they did not die on the day of their sin.
18. it is not good. From this verse the Rabbis deduce that marriage is a Divine institution, a holy estate in which alone man lives his true and complete life. Celibacy is contrary to nature.
an help. A wife is not a man's shadow or subordinate, but his other self, his " helper," in a sense which no other creature on earth can be.
meet for him. To match him. The Heb. term k'negdo, may mean either " at his side," i.e. fit to associate with ; or " as over against him," i.e. corresponding to him.
19. Better, The LORD God, having formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of heaven, brought them unto the man (S. R. Hirsch, Delitzsch and W. H. Green). See 1, 21, 25. The fishes are not alluded to because they are precluded from becoming man's companions.
call them. Man alone has language, and can give birth to languages. In giving names to earth's creatures, he would establish his dominion over them (1, 26, 28). The name would also reflect the impression produced on his mind by each creature, and indicate whether he regarded it as a fit companion for himself.
20. but for Adam. The dignity of human nature could not, in few words, be more beautifully expressed (Dillmann).
21. a deep sleep. As in xv, 12, the word implies that something mysterious and awe-inspiring was about to take place.
one of his ribs. Woman was not formed from the dust of the earth, but from man's own body. We have here a wonderfully conceived allegory designed to set forth the moral and social relation of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man, her close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature for the attachment springing up between them. The woman is formed out of the man's side ; hence it is the wife's natural duty to be at hand, ready at all times to be a " help " to her husband it is the husband's natural duty ever to cherish and defend his wife, as part of his own self " (Driver).
22. made. lit. Builded; This teaches that God has endowed woman with greater intuition than He has man."
23. bone of my bones. The phrase passed into popular speech (29:14).
woman. The Heb. word is Ishshah ; that for man is Ish. The similarity in sound suggests the spiritual identity of man and woman.
24. shall a man leave. Or, "therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and doth cleave .... and they become one flesh." Rashi says : These words are by the Holy Spirit; i.e. this verse is not spoken by Adam, but are the inspired comment of Moses in order to inculcate the Jewish ideal of marriage as a unique tie which binds a man to his wife even closer than to his parents.
The Biblical ideal is the monogamic marriage ; a man shall "cleave unto his wife, not "unto his wives." The sacredness of marriage relations, according to Scripture, thus goes back to the very birth of human society ; nay, it is part of the scheme of Creation. The purpose of marriage being to preserve and sanctify that which had been made in the image of God.
one flesh. One entity, sharing the joys and burdens of life.
25. not ashamed Before eating of the forbidden fruit, they were like children in the Orient, who in the innocence and ignorance of childhood run about unclothed.
Chapter Three
1. the serpent. According to the Rabbinic legend, the serpent in its original state had the power of speech, and its intellectual powers exceeded those of all other animals, and it was its envy of man that made it plot his downfall.
subtil. The same Heb. root signifies both " naked " and " subtle, clever, mischievous." Seeming simplicity is often the most dangerous weapon of cunning. The gliding stealthy movement of the serpent is a fitting symbol of the insidious progress of temptation.
yea, hath God said, lit. " Is it really so, that God (Elohim) hath said "a statement expressing surprise and incredulity with the object of creating doubt in the reasonableness of the Divine prohibition.
2. the woman. Guileless and unsuspecting, she falls into the trap-even enlarges on God's command.
3. neither shall ye touch it. There was no word concerning " touching " in the original prohibition. This exaggeration on the part of the woman, says the Midrash, was the cause of her fall.
4. ye shall not surely die. The serpent boldly denies the validity of God's threat.
5. God assigned no reason for the command ; the serpent suggests one; namely, when God gave His order, it was not for man's benefit, but because God was envious of what man would become, if he ate the forbidden fruit.
opened. To new sources of knowledge, hidden from ordinary sight-a strong appeal to the curiosity of the woman.
as God. i.e. you will become endowed with a power which is at present reserved exclusively to Himself, viz., omniscience (Sforno) ; and, having acquired omniscience, you will be in a position to repudiate His authority.
good and evil. A Heb. idiom for " all things " (Cheyne, Ehrlich) ; cf. II Sam. xiv, 17. The same Heb. idiom occurs in a negative form in 24:50 and xxxl, 24, 29, where it means nothing at all." The ordinary explanation of the phrase "good and evil" in the literal sense, assumes that God would for any reason withhold from man the ability to discern between what is morally right and wrong-a view which contradicts the spirit of Scripture. Moreover, Adam would not have been made in the image of God," if he did not from the first possess the faculty of distinguishing between good and evil. And if he lacked such faculty, his obedience or disobedience to any command whatsoever, could have no moral significance. None of these objections holds good in regard to the temporary withholding of ordinary knowledge from Adam, pending his decision to work with or against God.
6. the woman saw. Though the tempter did not tell the woman to eat the fruit, he had woven the spell. The woman looked upon the tree with a new longing-it was good to eat, a delight to the eyes, and it would give wisdom. She turns her back upon the impulses of gratitude, love and duty to God. The story mirrors human experience.
with her. Either, who was with her," or, " to eat with her." The desire for companionship in guilt is characteristic of sin.
7. were opened. The knowledge attained is neither of happiness, wisdom or power, but of consciousness of sin and its conflict with the will of God (Ryle). Next come shame, fear, and the attempt to hide.
naked. They forfeited their innocence. Rashi gives a metaphorical interpretation to the words: They knew that they were naked "-naked of all sense of gratitude and obedience to the Divine will: one precept alone had they been asked to obey, and even this proved too much for them!
fig-leaves. Because they were the largest and best suited for a loin-covering
8. the voice. Or, " sound."
in the cool of the day. i.e. towards evening when, in the Orient, a cooling breeze arises (Song of Songs, ii, 17).
hid themselves. Conscience makes cowards of them. 9-21.
9. where art thou ? The Midrash explains that this question was asked out of consideration for Adam to afford him time to recover his self-possession. Where art thou ? is the call which, after every sin, resounds in the ears of the man who seeks to deceive himself and others concerning his sin " (Dillmann).
10. because I was naked. The Rabbis maintain that " one sin leads to another sin." Adam commits a further offence by attempting to conceal the truth by means of this excuse.
11. hast thou eaten? An opportunity is given Adam for full confession and expression of contrition. A sin unconfessed and unrepented is a sin constantly committed.
12. Finding his excuse useless, Adam throws the blame upon everybody but himself. First of all it is " the woman"; then he insolently fixes a share of the responsibility upon God-" whom Thou gayest to be with me."
13. Instead of a question, the words may be taken as an exclamation, What is this thou hast done " !
shalt thou go ... shalt thou eat. Better, upon thy belly thou goest, and dust thou eatest.
"Till the eighteenth century, it was the general belief that the serpent had been walking upright and was now reduced to crawling. This is quite un-Biblical. The meaning is, Continue to crawl on thy belly and eat dust. Henceforth it will be regarded as a curse, recalling to men thy attempt to drag them to the dust (B. Jacob).
15. enmity. The sight of the serpent will create loathing in man, and fear of its deadly sting will call forth an instinctive desire to destroy it.
bruise. The serpent strikes at the heel of man ; while the man deals the fatal blow by crushing its head. Therefore the victory will rest with man.
16. Better, wilt thou bring forth children, and thy desire is unto thy husband, and he ruleth over thee. (B. Jacob).
This is no sentence upon the woman. It does not contain the term " cursed." Moreover, God Himself pronounced the fruitfulness of man a blessing (i, 28), and therewith woman's pain and travail are inexecrably bound up, being part of woman's physical being. The words addressed to the woman are therefore parenthetical and signify in effect, " Thee I need not punish, and a sufficiency of woe and suffering is thine because of thy physical being " (B. Jacob).
[Adjusted image size to make page a standard width. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2003 1:19 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2003 7:29 PM Brian has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 11 (52744)
08-28-2003 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
08-27-2003 7:41 PM


Thanks for you excellent post.
If anything, your excerpts and translations support exactly what I was saying, even if some of the interpretations did not always do so.
The tree of knowledge appears to be what gives man the ability to "know" good and evil... i.e. it does not seem reasonable that it is about omniscience.
Again, this indicates the idea that in our pure state, humans were free from concepts of right and wrong, and that (whether in God's eyes or as an allegory) gaining such knowledge is what leads us to death (mortality).
I am not quite convinced God's proscription was as simple as a test of man's will, and willingness to observe proscriptions. It seems much more important, especially as a tale of meaning that it was the tree of knowledge from which man could not eat.
In fact I should mention at this point that several of the Rabbis interpretations of meaning, based on the translation of wording seem sceptical to me.
While it seems pretty obvious that A&E were innocent and naked as children are, I don't see the serpent getting them into hot water because it will make God jealous with how knowledgeable they will become. It is only a specific level of knowledge they will be granted, the knowledge relating to judging others and themselves, which is it seems God feels (as many Eastern and some Greek philosophies suggest) is the beginning of trouble for men.
Specifically the discussion of "good and evil" in Chapter 3 number 5, there seems to be missing an idea that God may very well have given A&E all they needed to know morally, which is simply that they live. And that the tree of knowledge is not real knowledge but false knowledge... i.e. good and evil are ultimately unknowable and so deceiving. All other fruits provide nourishment, the fruit of judgement provides only death and suffering. And how seductive it is. One can know what is right and wrong just like God, rather than simply living as he has allowed us to do.
That is a logical way out of the possible contradiction/conundrum posed by this passage toward the "spirit of scripture".
The statement that God was not putting a "curse" on womankind seems patently false. If God says "I will" that tends to indicate he is going to change something. And the word "multiply" leaves empty any suggestion other than change. The fact that God is refering to the pain and sorrow related to childbirth, when he says "I will multiply" sounds like a curse on women to me.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 08-27-2003 7:41 PM Brian has not replied

  
Raha
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (53105)
08-31-2003 7:40 PM


Very interesting and thought provoking observations, Holmes, indeed. There are other questions also:
  1. What exactly was meant by this concept of "good and evil"? This concept is not very well explained in Old Testament until Isaiah:
    Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
    001:017 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    - Zoroastrian influence, most probably.
  2. Why the hell did God plant those two trees in the garden? He did not need them. Adam and Eve were said not to eat from them. So what was the point?
  3. Doesn't that, even taken literally, mean that it was man's learning to judge God's creations as right and wrong (and therefore to judge God himself) which is the only sin which concerned God?
    Well said. And it was God who made it possible.
  4. ...possibly to remind us that man is " as clay in the hands of the Potter."
    For me it is just proof that this part of Old Testament was simply borrowed from Sumerians:
    Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
    The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
    You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
    Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
    The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
    O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
    Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
  5. thou shalt surely die. i.e. thou must inevitably become mortal (Symmachus). While this explanation removes the difficulty that Adam and Eve lived a long time after they had eaten of the forbidden fruit, it assumes that man was created to be a deathless being. A simpler explanation is that in view of all the circumstances of the temptation, the All-merciful God mercifully modified the penalty, and they did not die on the day of their sin.
    Wrong. They were quite definitely mortal. Otherwise the "tree of life" would have no sense at all. Also, expulsion from Eden was not a punishment but protective measure:
    And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
    003:023 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
    003:024 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
    So the snake was right — God simply lied.
Conclusions:
  1. There is actually very little of original writings in the book of Genesis - almost everything is based upon much older myths.
  2. God is, according to Genesis, rather chaotic and irrational fellow, who never knows what he is doing, is absolutely incompetent in foreseeing the results of his deeds and tries to correct his mistakes by even greater mistakes.
------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 08-31-2003 11:45 PM Raha has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 10 of 11 (53141)
08-31-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
08-23-2003 1:04 PM


From what I understand it is still in contention whether aramaic formed a lot of the original language. While spoken by many, it is thought that greek and hebrew formed most of the writings.
To make it simple, Hebrew and Aramaic are close enough to the same thing that they can be treated as such by those of us who can't read or speak them. The OT is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. If I understand correctly, Aramaic is basically Hebrew with Chaldean (Babylonian) influence brought in after the captivity there. There's no language controversy about the OT.
The NT was written in Greek (very likely, in my opinion), and there is controversy over whether the originals were written in Aramaic. By then, Hebrew had become Aramaic, so it is only the NT that is in controversy. I think people like Brian, who study such things, would say that it's possible Matthew or Q were written in Aramaic, but it's unlikely much else in the NT was. The rest would be Greek.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2003 1:04 PM Silent H has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 11 (53142)
08-31-2003 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Raha
08-31-2003 7:40 PM


Cherubims,
More evidence of the Mesopotamian connection. Cherubim are the winged bulls which Assyrians were fond of placing at the gate of Royal establishments. That the Hebrews utilized these images in their politico-religious practice strongly suggests subservience to the Assyrian Empire. I am reminded of the Assyrian graphic which depicts Jehu bowing to Shalmanezer, king of Assyria. When you consider that Jehu is translated He is Jehovah, or Jehovah himself), then the identity of YHWH takes on the character of a title, not a name. The word Jehovah was, of course, included in the official title of many or most kings of Israel and Judah. I suspect these dynasties were known as Jehovah's in much the same way as Persian kings were called Darius; Egyptians, Pharaoh; Assyrians, Sar; Romans, Caesar; etc.
------------------
http://www.sun-day-school.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Raha, posted 08-31-2003 7:40 PM Raha 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