The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?

Jar, why not just quote any of the hundreds of examples from the rabbinic literature itself where the sages state "read not this word, but rather that word"...?

quote:

---

R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the wise increase peace in the world, as it says, 'And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children.' (Isa. 54:13). Read not banayik 'thy children,' but rather bonayik 'thy builders.' - Berakoth 64a.

---

This was a perfectly acceptable re-translation of Isaiah 54:13 for the Sages. Too bad PaulK wasn't around back then to tell them that they couldn't do that because replacing the word "children" with the word "builders" is just too far of a stretch to make.Until someone with a working knowledge of Hebrew and the Rabbinic Literature comes along ... these attempts to refute and take pot-shoots at my presentation aren't even going to make a dent. It's a Semitic text and needs to be read in Hebrew and it can be re-translated to present an "other-than" King James reading. :sigh:Anti-Creationism I can handle; however, there's no reason for anyone to deprecate the Jewish sages and/or their exegetical techniques. Not that anyone here would dream of doing that.

quote:

---

It's refreshing to see the original Hebrew discussed here and the exploration of what a familiar narrative can mean as well as what it is often taken to mean. This obviously took some time to research, type up and share.

​

I'm hardly sharp enough on Hebrew to debate points, but I've enjoyed reading. We'd be living in a better world if every interpreter of a sacred text considered the matter of genre as seriously as smadewell does. An ancient narrative is not a scientific treatise, as s/he notes, nor a newspaper article. Literalists, by reading texts in just such an anachronistic way, betray not just an insufficient understanding of how science works, but of how literature works as well. It mistreats the very texts they want to revere.

​

Many thanks.

---

Well, many thanks to you for those kind words and for appreciating my efforts.Actually, I can't take all the credit here. This material was presented at the University of Texas at Austin by Dr. Roy Blizzard over 30 years ago. He likewise maintained that the Hebrew words are flexible enough to jive with Creationism or Evolution or even Re-Creationism, if one so desired.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. Additionally, I've taken this Genesis story and distilled it down to the aggadhic lessons being taught - advance life, study life and reverence life.I no longer count myself to be a Christian or a Messianic. I'm just a student of Judaism, Jewish History and comparative religions. I do respect the scholarship of Christians who are fully open to the world of Jewish studies. If more people viewed this material in its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context ... we might not be in the mess we are now with regard to the present polarization.

quote:

---

BIO: Dr. Blizzard is president of Yavo, Inc. and biblescholars.org, nonprofit organizations dedicated to Biblical research and education. Dr. Blizzard attended Oklahoma Military Academy and has a B.A. degree from Phillips University in Enid, Oklahoma. He has a M.A. Degree from Eastern New Mexico University in Portales, New Mexico, and a M.A. Degree from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Ph.D. in Hebrew Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Blizzard has served as an instructor in Hebrew, Biblical History, and Biblical Archaeology at the University of Texas at Austin. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor of Union Graduate School of the Union for Experimental Colleges and Universities in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Blizzard continues serving on various graduate student committees at the University of Texas at Austin for students working on their doctoral degrees. Dr. Blizzard is the founder of Biblescholars.org.

---

Well, that isn't really the way it works though, is it?Nobody has to make "a dent" in your presentation. It's up to you to make a case for your thesis - and not just a case that convinces yourself. If somebody doesn't understand your points, it's up to you to explain them better.Two bits of advice:

1. Your attitude is holding you back. Play nice and (some of) our posters will be nice to you.
2. Your insistence on everybody reading Hebrew is holding you back. If you can't make your case in English, I suspect you can't make it in Hebrew either.

Be patient. It'll take more than one thread to get your ideas across.Judging by your website, you've got the time. At least here you'll have the audience too.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

This was a perfectly acceptable re-translation of Isaiah 54:13 for the Sages. Too bad PaulK wasn't around back then to tell them that they couldn't do that because replacing the word "children" with the word "builders" is just too far of a stretch to make.

---

Of course this simply demonstrates just how much you rely on misrepresentation. You will note that the Rabbi did not simply take a word out of context - or in fact offer an alternate translation as such. Rather he suggested that one of the words should be replaced by a very similar word. This is an important point because the Rabbi was not simply fishing for alternate meanings of a word as you did - especially meanings that would not be accessible to the intended audience as you have done.So already it is less of a stretch than some of your examples. So far as I can tell the Rabbi may have had a good reason for suggesting the substitution. Which would again put him ahead of you.If he did not then his suggestion could rightly be rejected as your "readings" were rejected.

hey ringo, i'm sorry i missed the first bit of this thread, as i was out of town. now, i can read a little bit of hebrew, emphasis on "little." and most of what i've seen looks really, really wrong. but i haven't looked too closely. i find that when people talk about the hebrew, and link to blueletterbible's concordance, or use it to "retranslate" something, it's usually an attempt to hide poor logic defending a baseless ideology.

---

Perhaps this exchange from another forum will establish once and for all what I've been trying to get at.

quote:

---

GS: Just because god created man from dust, or whatever, doesn't mean it has any corrolation to reality. Trying the word game, of "oh, gee! it's totally true! I mean, dust could mean particles, and certaintly humans are made of particles, therefore, this is all true!!"

---

Not my intention at all, GS. Nevertheless, I am saying that the text is vague enough to allow for that interpretation. HOWEVER, I'm not saying that in order to justify the "It's all true!" position.Rather, I'm saying, "Look! It's a very basic story that can mean many things; therefore, stop looking at the medium and look at the message this story is trying to convey." See?I know, that's a very fine line to walk, because the impulse is for one to jump up and down and shout "It's all true! Eureka! I've stumbled upon the key to unlocking universal truth!"That's what I'm trying to get people away from. It's not the story that's important, but rather the message it conveys:1. Be fruitful and plenish the Earth = Advance life, because the meaning of life is the continuance of life, period.2. Take dominion = Study life, before you even attempt to conquer anything, because you're stuck in this black and bloody universe, so you might as well learn more about it, eh? If you don't, then you might just end up on the bottom of the all too obvious food chain instead of the position that mankind presently enjoys on the top of the food chain.3. The knowledge of Good and Evil = Boundary setting has advantages and disadvantages. Learn what is good and what is evil, preferably, in order to make wise choices rather than foolish ones. Choose wisely and reverence life, because the life you save in the process ... might be your own.

— is NOT plural. this is quite a major pet-peeve of mine. genesis 1:1 says:

quote:

---

‘, ‘ —

---

NOT:

quote:

---

‘, ‘ —

---

see the difference? it's grammar. when you have a plural subject, you use a plural verb. if the verb is NOT plural, neither is the subject. thus, in this instance, and every other instance refering to adonay, — is not plural. there is no good argument that i have ever seen that says one way or another whether or not ‘ can/must mean ex nihilo. i have argued both ways, so you'll have to take my word for it. neither side is defendable. literally means "the land." you've probably heard of the israeli newspaper of the same name, "ha'aretz." in modern hebrew, it's "land" in the sense of country, and so the israeli newspaper connotates a sense of national identity. in the bible, it's used to describe physical ground, countries/nations/kingdoms, and possibly the entire earth. the modern word for "world" — appears to have been used to describe something different in biblical hebrew (eternity). the land was blank and featureless. ie: there were no mountains, no plants, and no animals. no, exclusively refers to the open ocean and the water that exists under the foundations of the earth. not the water table. picture an inside-out snow-dome. flat ground, half-spherical dome that seals in a bubble of air. outside that bubble, above and below, is water. this is why there is a flood when god opens windows in this dome. no, not matter in general. clearly, in genesis, the heavens are also solid matter. it is not talking about a spiritual and physical plane (although one might say it parallels that idea) because the "spiritual plane" has to serve a physical function -- keeping out the water above.in judaism, we do not find an spiritual component lacking a physical component. in parts of genesis and exodus, we even learn that god has a physical presence.anyways, the hebrew eretz is explained above. let's not go wild here, already HAS a figurative meaning, "evil." i see a lot of these things, and they're all basically metaphorical readings. "this means that" and "that means this." generally, they are unsupported by the actual hebrew. you can read it as being about those things if you like, and nobody's gonna stop you, but you have to remember that there is still a literal story in there. and the literal story has to make sense as it's written. it's not merely a code. in one reading, god takes the material he's given -- darkness and water -- and transforms it into something else by means of separation. god separates the water to create land. god separates light from dark. the "primordial element" here is water, which is (surprise!) exactly in line with first millenium bc alchemy. we're not seeing anything even remotely special here -- other than people reading stuff into vagueries that aren't really even there in the first place. implies . there was indeed a source for the light, and many midrashim claim the source to hashem himself. yeah, this is my other big pet-peeve. has four acceptable usages that i am aware of:

• a 24-hour day
• the time in which the sun is in the sky "daytime"
• the day's of someone's life "year"
• ‘ "in the day (that)..." idiomaticall meaning "when."

the last usage is the ONLY period of indeterminant length. for instance, look at genesis 2:4

quote:

---

‘, —--

​

"when" [the lord] god made earth and skies

---

further, the text becomse increasingly meaningless when you remove it from it's 24 hour context. genesis 1 literal describes the reason for the hebrew week, ending in shabat, a day of rest. take a look at how it refers to every day besides the first and last. here, for instance, is day two: . that literally means "monday." this is how the days are actually named in hebrew. or, you could just be familiar with the fact that in the semitic world, the day starts are sun-down (instead of midnight or sun-up.) this causes all kinds of problems at the university here when they try to schedule graduation or some other event for a friday night, forgetting that it's shabat and none of our more orthodox jewish population can come. for jews, the day starts at sunset. so from about 6pm on friday, they're on saturday.Edited by arachnophilia, : borked tag

---

Linking to an online Lexicon = poor logic and a baselss ideology? Oooookay.What am I suppose to do with that kind of hamhanded dismissal? Turn the other cheek? Are these the kind of tactics you guys engage in here? Is that the length and depth and breadth of the debating skills here?I provided links to an online Lexicon as a convenience for those people who don't have a Hebrew-Lexicon in their personal library. And because of this I'm blown off, because someone's got a notion that people using blueletterbible's online Lexicon are doing so in order to hide poor logic and defend baseless ideologies. COME ON!Okay, arachnophilia. Pray tell, in your considered opinion, where is a "kosher" link to an online Hebrew-English Lexicon? Do you know of or do you own any Hebrew-English Lexicons other than the following? Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English LexiconGesenius' Hebrew and English LexiconJastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic LiteraturePray tell, what Lexicons do you use in your study of Hebrew?Ringo, you wanted me to take a chill-pill, right? Kind of hard to do in this Hatfields vs. McCoys atmosphere, because I ain't a Hatfield or a McCoy. GULPH!

the text is not vague. is this a misunderstanding i've seen forced countless times here to perpetuate shoddy readings and faulty interpretations. if you'd like to read the entire thing as a metaphor in — or perhaps you're more than welcome to. but the is pretty straightforward.actually, MEANS simple and straightforward.keep in mind also that no —, no and np can contradict the , and any one of those that DOES must therefore be faulty.

---

no, but it's generally a sign of poor arguments. in my experience. you can use the search feature to see some of that previous experience. i highly recommend any post of mine relating eddy penngelly's interpretation about windows 3.1 in the bible.and concordances are not dictionaries. i addressed a real argument to you. i was merely mentioning to ringo my first impression. did you miss the bit where i said "but i haven't looked too closely" ? ‘ ’ - ’ ’ ‘’ ’ | Free Morfix DictionaryEdited by arachnophilia, : more needed to be said.

---

quote:

---

arachnophilia:
there is no good argument that i have ever seen that says one way or another whether or not ‘ can/must mean ex nihilo. i have argued both ways, so you'll have to take my word for it. neither side is defendable.

---

I already stated as much. That's why I just translated it as "formed" instead of "create," which carries a lot of theological baggage with it, as does ELOHIM, which I'll get back to. Yes, I realize the "plural" argument has been used by Trinitarians, which is one of my pet-peeves. More on that later....

‘ ’ - ’ ’ ‘’ ’ | Free Morfix DictionaryI said Hebrew-English Lexicon. Do you honestly think that a non-Hebrew reading is going to be able to navigate that webiste? That's why I used the blueletterbible link. I already got slammed on other forums for linking to sites with "all them Hebrew chicken stratchings". :sigh: That's a great link for those in-the-know, but non-Hebrew readers are just going to say, "WTF?" Would that it were otherwise.

— is a singular word. it merely looks like a plural word. it probably comes from — which is also a singular word, an emphatic or lengthening of —. any of those three is an acceptable singular word for "god." some have suggested that — comes from — (ram). i am unsure of the veracity of that argument, but the word for ram comes from the word for "twisted" which implies strength. so it's pretty far to go for your argument.similarly, in arabic, god is "allah" coming from "al-ilah" (ilah meaning "god"). in aramaic, god is — means "form." ‘ means "create." one has a physical connotation, the other a planned (artistic?) connotation, as in english. supposing for a second that comes from , it means "appointments." as a in place where the things god has appointed to rule the night and day go. literally, the best translation is "skies" although in some instances it seems to mean "clouds." your view is entirely western. i see nothing fluid about the ancient oriental mindset. different, yes, but not vague and easily redefined.

---

that IS a hebrew english lexicon. so you want to understand hebrew without understanding hebrew? i promise you that you will not get slammed for "hebrew chicken scratch" here.

---

quote:

---

arachnophilia: ... or, you could just be familiar with the fact that in the semitic world, the day starts are sun-down ...

---

Correct! And why does the day begin at sun-down? Why is it that a woman lights the candles on Shabbat? I would submit that it's probably because we're conceived in the darkness of the womb and are born into the light of the world. The woman lights the candles because it is through a woman that we enter into this world of light, right? Evening marks the beginning period of the day and morning's light announces a beginning that leads to the end of the day.I apologize. I'm jumping around here. Nice to have someone with a handle on this stuff. Okay, I'll go back to the beginning and we can wrangle over these point by point. I apologize for getting all worked-up before.