|
Author
|
Topic: Genesis 1:1-3
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
i'll probably end up jumping in here a little later when there's a dispute of some kind. but for now, a question. do you think that genesis (or anything else in the hebrew tradition) presents the idea that god also created the primordial, chaotic state of things prior to genesis 1's creation?
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 7 of 114 (258285)
11-09-2005 8:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Brad
11-09-2005 6:44 PM
|
|
If you want to go with the gnostic view then the true God created the nature of the universe. The God in genesis is the cruel god who holds this world captive. i suppose we could actually justify that perspective biblically, but what i meant was if the op thought there were any hints at prior creation of the null state, or whether its eternal existance was just assumed.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Brad, posted 11-09-2005 6:44 PM | | Brad has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Brad, posted 11-10-2005 10:27 AM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 18 of 114 (259240)
11-12-2005 11:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Brad
11-10-2005 10:27 AM
|
|
Good question arach, and I don't think we can know without looking at the culture of the day. I don't know too much about this time period. What was the consensus amongst the culture of the day? i think i can forward a guess: i think genesis is based on earlier traditions, but the culture that wrote it probably thought god created the void as well. i think you can pick up hints from the other contemporary books of the bible.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Brad, posted 11-10-2005 10:27 AM | | Brad has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
barashit
It is interesting that the Etz Hayim commentary notes:
The first letter of the first word in the Torah, "b'reishit" is the Hebrew letter 'bet'. This prompted the Midrash to suggest that, just as the letter 'bet' in enclosed on three sides but open to the front, we ae not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation [Gen. R. 1:10]. The purpose of such a comment is not to limit scientific enquiry into the origins of the universe but to discourage efforts to prove the unprovable. ... The Torah begins with 'bet', second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, to summon us to begin even if we cannot begin at the very beginning. i don't give much thought to such kinds of hebrew mysticism and tradition. genesis starts with "bet" because that's the character that signifies of, in, or at. the word for "beginning" is ראשית (rashit) but if i wanted to say "in the beginning" i would write בראשית.
ב- simply means "in-". it's standard to but that sort of prepositional word at the beginning of a sentance. the stylistic thing i think is more important is the kind of repition between בראשית and the very next word, created: ברא "create" and "in the beginning" fit together perfectly, "create" is part of the word "in the beginning." i dunno if that MEANS anything, but its aestheticly pleasing to me.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 20 of 114 (259247)
11-12-2005 11:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
11-10-2005 3:12 PM
|
|
In Gen 2 we see a very local, parochial view of creation. It is very similar to many other creation myths with no detail. It starts with:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. no no jar, that's the tail end of genesis 1. the second half of that verse begins chapter 2. genesis 1 refers to "the heaven and the earth" and genesis 2 refers to "the earth and the heaven." This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-13-2005 12:17 AM
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by jar, posted 11-10-2005 3:12 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by jar, posted 11-12-2005 11:49 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 26 of 114 (259507)
11-14-2005 1:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
11-14-2005 1:05 AM
|
|
Re: The Eternal Universe Implied In Genesis One..
since god creates through spoken commands in genesis 1, it is fair to say that is a good analysis. the origin of "the word" can be found in one of the aramaic targums, which refers to god as the word meaning "to speak."
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 1:05 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: barashit
Midrash tells us how Jewish sages perceived the text; to dismiss it impresses me as sophomoric. i don't mean to play the wise fool here, but. i'm just saying that i've never seen much point in analyzing things like the shape of letters, which letters, equa-distant letter spacing (the "bible codes"), numerical significances of hebrew letters, etc. i don't think there's much to any of that.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: barashit
The Midrash is helpful, not because it is methodologically sound, but because it reflects how the text was understood by respected teachers who had spent their lives studying Torah. It is my contention that this Midrash suggests that Genesis 1:1-3 was understood as addressing the creation of order out of pre-existing chaos. oh, ok. sorry. i guess i misunderstood. yes, seems reasonable to me.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
israel
When God renamed Jacob He was sharing His glory. "Israel" literally means "Prince that has power with God". not to be a pain, but just about every translation i've ever seen except the kjv renders שָׂרִיתָ עִם-אֱלהִים ( sarit im- elohym) as "fights with god." this would make sense with the constant mosaic goadings about "stiff-necked people." indeed, "power with god and people and have prevailed" doesn't really make sense. [edit] moved to new post This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 12:14 AM
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
elohym and plurality
Other "Gods" (in the singular): angELs. MichaEL. GabriEL. RafaEL daniEL, ezekiEL, samuEL. want me to translate every one of them? they're all statements ABOUT god, like israEL.
CA subscribes to (as do I) one of six renderings concerning the word "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1. Here are the 6: 1. Survival of early polytheism (more than one God). 2. Plural majesty. 3. Plural of deliberation. 4. A plural of the fullness of the attributes of God; His power. 5. God addressing the angelic beings. 6. The one-in-three of the Godhead. you forgot one: 7. it's actually a singular word. see, grammar matters. genesis 1:1 says בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים (bara elohym). "elohym" LOOKS like a plural word, but it's not, otherwise it'd say ברים אלהים (bar ym elohym). see? the ending of the verb has to match the ending of the noun. elohym is a singular word, that just ENDS -ym. much like we have singular words in english that end in -s: "pants" and "scissors" etc. is it a surviving word from an earlier polytheistic tradition? maybe. but as used in the bible, it's singular. if you want to look for polytheism in the bible, look for בן-אלהים (ben-elohym). much like "sons of israel" can be read as describing members of the family "israel," and thus israelites, "sons of god" can be read as members of the family "god" and thus "gods." This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-19-2005 12:22 AM
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: elohym and plurality
not a matter of opinion you're right that it's not a matter of opinion. "elohym" is used in conjunction with SINGULAR verbs. that means it's singular. period. if it were plural, it would not make sense to use it as if it were a singular. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-21-2005 03:55 PM
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
i'm not an athiest, ray.
Could one expect an atheist to say anthing else about the greatest theist scholar of all time ? i'm not an athiest. and i'm saying the same thing. seriously, i'm not even done with first semester beginning hebrew, and i can tell his argument is bunk.
Your ad hom attacks = inability to refute. so far, you've proven that you can't you refute my points. can you read hebrew, ray? can dr. gene scott? and i don't mean that in an ad-hominem way, just that if you're going to make statements about a language, it's good to have some knowledge of it beyond strong's concordance. your points demonstrate that you do not.
Everyone here at EvC knows Dr. Scott is a pyramidologist in most circles, the word "pyramidologist" conjurs images of cracked pots, and i don't mean pottery shards from the valley of the kings. the people who study pyramids, legitimately, are called "egyptologists" or "archaeologists." and honestly, gene scott's up there with ron wyatt, gene ray, and kent hovind. nobody takes the guy seriously.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: i'm not an athiest, ray.
Invoking a shield of theism or deism while arguing ordinary atheist philosophy and arguments makes you infinetly worse - a liar. At least CA is faithful to his worldview and philosophy. theism or deism? i'm a christian, ray.
When you show yourself educated, maybe I will take your replies seriously. I suggest you first learn punctuation and grammar skills. Your enraged ad hom against a Stanford Ph.D. also proves my point how uneducated/sophmorish you are. grammar nazism is the surest sign of a failed argument. is that all you can say in defense? that i don't sound educated because i neglect to capitalize correctly? how is that not an ad-hominem? shall we look up the history of capitalization? i think you'll find that originally, one used either all capitals or all uncials. AND I FIND THE OTHER WAY A LOT EASIER TO READ. but perhaps, if i play along, you'll read it this time:
quote:
So far, you've proven that you can't you refute my points. Can you read Hebrew, Ray? Can Dr. Gene Scott read Hebrew? And I don't mean that in an ad-hominem way. I just mean that if you're going to make statements about a language, it's good to have some knowledge of it beyond Strong's Concordance. Your points demonstrate that you do not have that understanding.
Could one expect a Darwinist to say anything else ? Your approval would have supported their wrongness. ray, i'm debating ray right now strictly based on the hebrew language. what the heck does this have to do with darwin? the guy doesn't know any hebrew, at all. 3rd grader in israel could easily refute his points about the bible -- that's not an exageration. my hebrew professor describes our class level as "3rd grade in israel." This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-22-2005 08:21 PM
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Admin abusing power
I must conclude what is obvious: you are daring me to expose the fact that you have no clothes/point, but are in fact defending a child who plainly wrote nonsense and rants i assume that child is me. what was nonsense about my posts? if it made no sense to you, perhaps that illustrates my point: you're pretending like you have some understanding of hebrew. you, now, have turned to calling me a "darwinist" and an "atheist" because i have caught YOUR emporer with his pants down. i'm sorry i said something against your beloved leader, but he's wrong.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
One minor interpretation of the name Israel has set you off. because it's wrong.
"Israel" was not the subject. i agree. why did you bring it up?
We know Hebrew is altogether ambiguous no, it's not. this is a lie perpetrated by those who wish to rectify the bible with science by changing the meaning of words. hebrew is only as flexible as english, and maybe less so. again, what do you (or dr. scott) really know about hebrew?
Concerning your Tanach scholars it's spelled "tanakh" in english. normally a letter here or a letter there wouldn't be a big deal. though meaning is not flexible, spelling often is. but the word "tanakh" is an acronym. in hebrew, it's תנ''ך. the two apostrophes tell you it's an abreviation, like a period in english. the ת is for תורה, torah. the נ is for נביאים, nevi'im (prophets), and the ך is the kind of כ that comes at the end of a word. it stands for כתובים, kethuvim (writings). a hard "ch" (made with a gutteral throat noise) would be ח, a chet. a kaf כ is more like a k.
Dr. Scott  must be shot! This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-05-2005 11:34 AM
אָרַח
|
™ Version 4.2