Writers of Scripture carried along by the Spirit?

As part of my research from Message 275 in this thread into the mythology of the serpent in ancient pre-Judaic religions, I've come across a few key points that I felt I should inquire further. In general, Christianity and Judaism regard the Holy Scriptures as the revealed word of God. However, widespread variation on what this revelation means (or to what extent or what books) it applies to can become very confusing. For example, although Orthodox Jews generally believe that the Torah was given to the Children of Israel at Sinai "Min Hashamayim", from the heavens -- that is, that God actually dictated the words of Torah to Moses atop Mount Sinai -- most Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, as well as many Christian scholars, now accept the documentary hypothesis.From my own perspective, as is prerequisite for response in this thread, I'll say that I do believe that the Scriptures are in some way authored by God. Refining this more clearly in my own Christian perspective, I believe the authors of the Scriptures wrote as they were directed by the inspiration of the Spirit of God.However, when I say that I believe this, I'm not saying that I believe that the individual books of the Scriptures were penned at one time as a whole. I believe the Scriptures were, for example, subject to expansion and editting by the Holy Spirit as the times and cultures changed around the Hebrew culture which embraced them-- permitted so long as the editting did not contradict the primal revelation. As another example, I also believe that God allowed a remnant of a primal revelation in man's distant past to disperse via the Holy Spirit thoughtout the cultures of humanity. This is to say, I believe the naratives of ancient religions carried a distant memory of the primal revelation -- albeit, a distant memory distorted over time. In addition to this, in confirmation with the Scriptures themselves, I believe that, since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.In other words, in my own opinion, I think there are different levels of revelation. And although all levels, each with their own corresponding level of responsibility, are inspired by the Holy Spirit, I still nonetheless believe that the Holy Spirit can communicate to us by various mediums and peoples, including other monotheists, polytheists, and atheists. He most especially, notwithstanding their religious or non-religious background, presents himself to us through the the poor. He indwells us by his Holy Spirit, allegorically speaking, bringing about birthpangs in our soul much like a woman bearing a child. And, manifesting the primal sacrament of Christ on the cross like a tesseract transfigured thoughout time and space, he is truly present to us in the Eucharist. Coming back to the initial composition of the Scriptures during the time of Moses, however, my own personal opinion is that when Moses was called by God in Egypt, God allowed Moses to be educated within the cosmopolitan philosophies of Pharaoh's court for a unifying reason. In Egypt, Moses had access to an extensive body of ancient writings by which God brought together the most primal themes of humanity's distant past. Orally, I believe that Moses carried with him the traditions from the time of Abraham -- so he was most familiar with this information. Academically, when the Israelite traditions were coupled with the distant memories contained within the written archives of humanity's ancient past, he was also familiar to a lesser degree with our primal origins. Spiritually, as moved by the Holy Spirit, he was in communion with the Lord Jesus and placed firmly within a position whereby he could clearly grasp the Lord's will and unify all these sources. Although I don't believe the world has been around for merely 6,000 years, in the scope of recent human history since the last ice age, this quote noted above does somewhat capture what I believe as far as the earliest peoples of the world rising out of am initial period of darkness. I believe God inspired Moses to whittle away the multiple layers of alternative thinking to recapture -- whether by poetic utterances, prophetic statements, or moral instruction -- the primal historical revelation of man's common origins once again. And this is the dialectic that I believe the Holy Scriptures have undergone over the course of human history.In other words, although I don't believe the Scriptures are a gradual invention of humanity's collective "unconscious" religious thinking over time, they still nonetheless appear to be a progressive "dialectic" revelation of God's original will by the Holy Spirit-- the same Spirit which has been calling all of humanity from the very beginning.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-05-2006 07:56 PM

I realize it's long. But I was trying to cover all the general topics that would be involved in this discussion.Admittedly, this section could probably come off from the OP: As far as potential controversy is concerned, however, I have attempted to treat the topic with as much respect as possible. And I would welcome your input. Hmmm...I have to admit that I've never seen this topic as being overly controversial. Certainly more sensitive topics have been brought up here. I've never seen this being an objection to other potential threads being started. Taking your point and putting it in regards to the topic of evolution, one could just as easilly retort, "We doubtless have our in-house creationists who will use a thread such as this to go on and on about why evolution is a lie and why it is false and why the plain understanding of the geological record and fossil evidence of the earth is plain." Yes. But with a catch.The authors of the Scriptures apparently did not believe they were carrying mythical traditions. At least the Scriptures themselves never seem to make this claim about themselves. My inclusion of the II Peter passage was placed there to capture a thought that many Jewish people over the millennia indeed felt were true as well. It jives very easilly with a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures such as this... Or again... Clearly, those Israelites who carried the traditions of Moses did not believe they were following cleverly invented stories. Consequently, in a Christian context, this is precisely what the II Peter passage is saying as well. I kind of already did-- as breifly as I could without going more overboard than I apparently already did... When I refer to a progressive "dialectic' revelation, I'm proposing a kind of inverse dialectic where the end is already known from the beginning-- even if those who carry the traditions do not actually realize this. It seems to me that TS Eliot expressed this best when he said: In a nonchronological theory of literary history, T.S. Eliot proposes a simultaneous existence and order of all written art. This manifests itself in the evolution of a continuous string of exposition so that earlier work is always being altered through the introduction of later work.Coming back to Hegel's dialectic, Jim Meskauskas notes in his article: Whereas Hegel proposed his dialectic as a synthesis between thesis and antithesis leading ultimately toward greater perfection, an inversed dialectic would likewise contend that there is a synthesis between thesis and antithesis-- but it's ultimate synthesis would be the result of returning toward the primal conditions from the beginning. But that's the main starting point of the Scriptures composition. In fact, I specifically started the inquiry exactly at Moses because he is precisely where many believe that the scribing of the Scriptures from oral traditions began. The main thrust of my research is to examine the cultures, religious beliefs, and philosophies of the nations that came prior to, alongside with, and departed from Judaism.In other words, I want to find out what the human authors of the Torah were thinking when they were guided by the Spirit of God to use their human intellect and choose the most appropriate symbolism for the first five books of the Bible.If I can't begin my inquiry with Moses, then any examination of what the 'plain text' of the Genesis account meant seems to be funadmentally uselsss. I've given my feedback. What do you suggest I do from here?

Although this thread assumes that the authors of the Scriptures were inspired by God when penning the words of the Scriptures (a view that was indeed considered essential to the Israelites themselves), it has been nonetheless admitted that the Israelites most likely communicated their messages using the popular phrases, concepts and vernaculars of their time.Just as Christianity seems to be influenced by previous cultures when scribing their ideas (such as the Stoics for example), so too does it seem to me that the Israelites were more than likely influenced by cultures which existed prior to them.Starting with Genesis, this thread has been ignited in an attempt to critically examine which ideas were borrowed from other cultures when the Israelites penned their words.I have some ideas, but I would like to hear what others have to offer before I get into the nitty gritty. For example, concepts very similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of angels seem to have existed well before the Israelites appeared within the scope of human history.Since it has been admitted that the Israelites, like all other cultures, were not immune to synthesis with other cultures that surrounded them or came before them, it needs to be asked, "What influence, linguistically speaking, do you feel was passed onto the Israelites by these previous cultures?"This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-05-2006 05:55 AM

Yes. I think so.The reason why I say this is because the people who carried these traditions apparently did believe that God conveyed these messages to them in some way.In other words, they didn't seem to think that that they were just 'making stuff up' to explain things they didn't understand-- so the initial point still seems valid.Maybe I should rephrase the original statement from 'respond only if you believe that the Scriptures were authored by the Spirit' to 'respond only if you believe the authors of the Scriptures believed their own writings were given to them by God'.Would that make it clearer?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-05-2006 07:27 PM

This is spot on good Faith.I've set this thread in motion for this exact reason, to examine the relationship between God and those who believed they received his message. I'm also examining, however, the infusion of other cultures that may have influenced the language they employed when conveying what they believed to be God's message. Can the initial meaning be expanded upon so long as the initial message is not contradicted? What cultures do you think might have influenced the Israelite's thinking? Can these progressive stages of revelation be linked up successfully with their interaction with other cultures around them, such as Egypt or Babylon for example?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-05-2006 08:24 PM

Some seem to be having some difficulty understanding what I'm getting at, so I've decided to follow up on the concept of 'plain text' readings as applied to dialectic research. In my opinion, this leads me to an investigation of the etymology of ancient Hebrew, the "true sense" of the very words used by the Hebrews themselves.Some of my etymological inquiries probably begin well with a portion of this article... Key points to note:1) Ancient peoples tended to consider it dangerous to pronounce the names of certain beings, for to do so might arouse the anger of the immanent spirit.2) Some taboo names eventually dissapeared through silence or substitution, because ancient peoples tended to avoid calling things, beasts for example, by their true names.3) Other names were perhaps felt to be too sacred to pronounce and likewise fell into disuse-- leading at times to a loss of the true meaning of the word (or, at least, leading to a loss of the proper pronunciation of the word).This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-06-2006 01:24 AM

Faith, I'm talking about the etymology of ancient Hebrew, and the linguistic concepts that may have been borrowed, exchanged, and dispersed between the Israelites and the other cultures they passed through throughout their historical development.In my opinion, this doesn't undermine the value or authority of the Scriptures at all-- because God's still the source of the inspiration. As I'll try to demonstrate in this thread, it simply compliments the very things that have traditionally been held as historically valid interpretations since well prior to the emergence of the Hebrew peoples.I realize that you might think my employing a kind of "higher criticism" places me within the more liberal camps in regards to Christian thinking-- but it really doesn't.We might approach the Scriptures from very different perspectives academically speaking. But, in the end, I think you'll see that I'm actually quite in agreement with you concerning certain traditionally held views regarding Christianity.Please have faith, bear with me, and allow me to present my thoughts. The main point of my presentation is not to undermine the Scriptures. Rather, the main point of my presentation is to present considerable evidence against those who might think our traditional ideas are preconceived notions introduced after the decline of Judaism of the Biblical era.This is an investigation into the 'plain text' of the Hebrew language as it developed over the millennia.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-06-2006 01:22 AM

Thank you Faith. For further clarification, see the excellent link provided by AdminPhat on the concept of the zeitgeist. It too is strongly related to some thoughts I'm trying to introduce in this thread.As a brief refresher, so far the etymological points that I've introduced for discussion are: I'll continue with another portion of the article I started with before... In short, the following points should be noted... This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-06-2006 07:35 PM

Well said Legend. The Biblical concepts found in the Greco-Roman cultures were just one of many points I will cover in more detail later. Points like these are directly related to my counterpoints which I'll be bringing up when addressing other posters' claims that people are 'reading more' into the Genesis account. It will specifically address the supposed 'plain text' readings put forth by some.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-06-2006 09:46 PM

Yes. I know. And perhaps the ancient Israelites called him the "serpent" for the exact same reason.PS: I haven't even gotten into the etymology of serpentine thinking in religions prior to the emergence of Judaism by the way...This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-06-2006 09:47 PM

I think these are excellent points Rainman2. They actually present a perfect place to link into a portion of thought being presented in this thread for consideration... While I think this link oversimplifies many things, it does present a basic concept of a supposed primitive monotheism dispersed throughout humanity's ancient past.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-07-2006 10:08 AM

But why do you doubt it though?Here, let me post your other thoughts after the reference to Lilith... Notice how I bolded 'other religion influences'?Actually, instead of asking why you doubt it, let me simply rephrase this in a different light: Actually, in looking to address this question further, maybe I'm wrong, but I think this leads very well into the very next portion of the article I was quoting earlier... Here's a few additioanl key points to note: Noting the development of languages as commonly presented by most etymologists, I have to again ask: __________________Extra Note: Already got that one researched (there's a few little variants of this actually). I've been doing a lot of research over the last week or so, gathering up information about worldwide religious serpents/dragons symbolism/concepts that preceded the emergence of Judaism.But thanks for the reference. If you have any more thoughts, please feel welcome to share them. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-07-2006 02:07 AM

That's the question I'm getting at though...why did the most ancient Israelites use a story of a "serpent" in a garden to begin with? In other words, where did they get this idea in the first place?People seem to be fond of pointing out the developments in Judaism during the time of the exile for example. However, they seem to gloss over any developments that may have existed prior to their emergence in history.It seems to me that any 'plain text' reading of the Genesis account would be incomplete without a thorough examination of what other cultures which came prior to the emergence of Judaism believed when it came to concepts similar to angels or serpents for example. Among many other things, we are talking about the serpent in Genesis, aren't we? At least, that was the primary topic of the initial thread from which this thread sprung up from.This thread that I've started is a preliminary examination of the cultures which came prior to the emergence of ancient Judaism. And, in doing so, I'm examining common themes found in religions all around the Indo-European region which came before Judaism. While the thread is put forth to suggest common inverse dialectic themes found world-wide in the ancient past, it's ultimate intent, however, in the end, is to come back to the question of the serpent in the garden as recorded within the Genesis account.Does that make things clearer? Here, let me continue with that article that I was quoting previously. Perhaps it might bring this thread into sharper focus... As a quick recap, I'll sum up an important key point here...10) There is abundant evidence in the vocabulary of many languages that words have been borrowed by those who encountered names for new ideas or objects in the languages of other peoples with whom they came into contact. In addition to this, such borrowings might be between languages totally unrelated. Maybe. Maybe not.Regardless of any conclusions at this point, the ancient Israelites did appear to have a tradition which invoked a talking serpent which in some way triggered the first two parents recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures to be banished shamefully from God's presence.In addition to this, the serpent does appear to be at bitter emnity with the descendents of these two parents-- both men and women I might add.This thread has been put forth to examine where the ancient Israelites came up with this idea. In other words, when one looks at the ancient religions which came before the emergence of Judaism, one quickly notices an extremly broad spectrum of concepts directly related to serpentine mythologies-- many of which predated Judaism by hundreds of years at least. Hmmm...I disagree.Based on religions that came before Judaism, and noting the context within which Judaism uniquely presents the serpent within the Genesis account, I think one would be hard pressed to prove that the ancient Israelites didn't feel that serpents in some way represented evil. They're definitely not presented in a good light.But I'll be coming to this part soon.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-07-2006 11:13 AM

And, as you note below, chaos = evil. I've heard this before...arach? Yes. But I think there's a bit more to it than that. So...essentially, you're saying that they 'made stuff up' to explain natural occurances?That's outside the scope of this discussion Rev.Remember my clarification in Message 9:'respond only if you believe the authors of the Scriptures believed their own writings were given to them by God' You're apparently not reading the article on etymology that I quoted extensively in this thread. Demons, angels and serpents among many other things were represented in religious thinking well before Judaism even arrived onto the world stage in ancient human history.Let me put this in perspective.Here you say this: So, in regards to the Israelite's God, it basically sounds as if you're more than willing to assume that the earliest Israelites were some kind of amalgamation of relgious thought, borrowing concepts here and there as the ideas appealed to them.But then you say this: *emphasis mine.So, in regards to the serpent, it basically sounds as if you're assuming that the earliest Israelites were some kind of self-contained unit entirely devoid of any other cultural influences-- and that this serpentine concept was unique to the point that it was nearly invented by them?If so, the problem with this, first of all, is that there is nothing new about this idea. In fact, in many ancient religious ideas prior to the emergence of Judaism the concept of the serpent representing some sort of spiritual significance, both good and bad, is extremely well documented.Second of all, as another problem with this, many of these prior religions did ascribe both good and evil moral qualities to their serpentine concepts. In fact, examining the Israelites earliest writings and comparing them to the remarkably similar symbols found in cultures that came before them, one can easilly note that these similarities, within an ancient Israeli context, did carry over many ideas which were originally employed within the sense of one's moral character in the older religions.Thirdly, as yet another problem with this, the ancient religions that most likely influenced the earliest thoughts of the Israelites did not have any kind of agreement that you're presenting when you say, "most if not all semitic religions in the middle east represented chaos with the serpent.." This is perhaps the most inaccurate statement of all the ideas you've presented so far because even the 'semitic religions' which existed with or came before Judaism employed the symbol of the serpent to represent fertility, healing, immortality, secret knowledge, death, evil, and goodness among many other concepts.
_____________________Special Note: I'll note that this is nothing new to me. I've been aware of many of these things since around 1992 when I first started to investigate the claims of many world religions and eventually was led by the Spirit to be Christian. This thread is kind of a refresher for me because I had essentially examined many of these same ideas before I became a Christian-- not after.I guess I'll be blunt here. The catch-all phrase that consistently seems to pop up in regards to the serpent is that the Isrealites were mostly influenced during their period of exile. However, in regards to the concepts of serpents in cultures that came before the emergence of the Israelites, people seem to be strangely silent-- silent almost to the point that it seems as if they haven't even seriously considered these possibilities.I am currently gathering and formating quite a collection of religious thoughts concerning serpents prior to the advent of the earliest forms of Judaism. When I start to present these ideas, I seriously hope people are going to offer more than "the snake was just a snake" -- because, Lord willing, I'm pretty much getting ready to blow that theory out of the water.

My apologies Rev. It's just that it seems as thought people like to make claims without backing them up. I'm challenging these claims and not really seeing much offered to counter it. But that's the problem: the serpent in Genesis is seen as either an extension of God's will, or else somewhat in resistance to his will-- depending on how you view them. The point of this discussion is to try to attempt where the ancient Israelites got their idea of a talking snake from in the first place.In a general sense, however, I'm examining the similarities found in the Genesis text with other cultures which came before them.So, for example, as Linda Casselman points out, the Adam and Eve story seems to be strongly borrowed from ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myths. As she points out in her article, the goddess Ninhursag creates a beautiful lush garden called Edinu full of wonderful fruit-bearing trees as her refuge.One might take special note that that name of Ninhursag’s garden is Edinu, which sounds remarkably similar to Eden.Curiously, coming back to the garden, we read that one day she must leave her garden to visit An-- and she worries that the wild animals might destroy her garden. In response to this, she asks Enki to guard her garden while she is away. Enki eventually becomes famished and eats everything in Ninhursag’s garden -- effectively destroying it -- and then leaves.When Ninhursag returns, however, she is furious and curses Enki with death so that eight parts of his body become diseased. Enki apparently cannot use his powers to cure himself and the other gods cannot help him either, so Enki must confess. Finally Ninhursag forgives him and she creates eight goddesses of healing to heal and restore Enki.In this myth, as in the Adam and Eve account, we find the sacred trees bearing forbidden fruit and the punishment for eating that fruit - the same punishment, death. Though God does not kill Adam and Eve outright, he apparently takes away their chance for immortality. So, in a sense God did curse Adam and Eve with death through their mortality.In the Sumerian/Babylonian myth, however, Ninhursag changes her mind and heals Enki while in the Scriptural account God follows through with his banishment of Adam and Eve. Curiously, one of Enki’s diseased body parts was his rib-- and the goddess created to heal his rib was called Ninti, which means the Lady of the Rib. But, Ti means Life, so Ninti also means the Lady of Life.As Linda Casselman points out, here we have a likely connection with the Adam and Eve story. God made Eve from Adam’s rib-- and in Hebrew, Eve translates as Hawwah and Hawwah means Life.If this is accurate, could it be then that one whole element of the Adam and Eve story was just a linguistic borrowing through the passage and translation of the old Sumerian and Babylonian myth about Enki and Ninhursag into the Israelite version of the Adam and Eve creation account in the Hebrew Scriptures?It seems to be a very credible possibility to me. Maybe I'm missing your point here. However, I think you're missing my point too. My thoughts concerning the serpent in the garden are more concerned with what the ancient Israelites perceived when they used this serpent as symbolic of God's revelation.Many seem to conjecture that the usage of the serpent in the Genesis account is simply a literary device used by them to explain why the most ancient Israelites hated snakes. Suggestions put forth by yourself, if I recall correctly, included the idea that serpents in general were feared by many people, perhaps from seeing someone step in a nest and die from a bite, or some story about how snakes would come and kill children in the night.But I think this totally misses the reason why the ancient Israelites employed this symbolism. The earliest chapters of the Genesis is a religions/spiritual work-- not a "how to" manual of how to survive in the wilderness.In other words, I think the Genesis account was refering to the pagan practice of ophiomancy, essentially a dark parody of the pagan practice of divination based on the color and movements of serpents. I will note that all the religions that came before the emergence of the Israelites, and many of those cultures that they interacted with, did have some form of ophiomancy incorporated within their rituals.If this is accurate, then one has to critically examine the spiritual significance of the serpent as found within these other cultures. If the most ancient Israelites started their religious beliefs primarilly as a separation from the pagan gods around them -- eventually coming to the practice of only ascribing divinity to the "One True God" -- and if the cultures around them tended to view the serpent as divine and even holy or good, then it would make perfect sense that the most ancient Israelites would be loathe to describe the serpent as anything more than a disgusting, deceiving snake that leads their ancestors into shame and separation from God.Furthermore, if the serpent in the Genesis account is symbolic of the pagan religions that the most ancient Israelites were separating themselves from, then one would also have to examine what the serpent represented in these ancient religions which came before or existed during the Israelites emergence into world history.As far as references to pagan concepts of the serpent are concerned, this is coming very soon. I want to make sure I've got my bases checked. However, if you want to examine just one pagan concept in the meantime, do a search for Canaanite fertility religions and read very carefully how they imagined the serpent in their religious thinking. There's a lot more than references to chaos going on there.Finally, there's this: Fixated on serpents? You do realize that this thread is in response to a previous thread called "The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations", correct?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-08-2006 10:55 PM