Let There Be Man

i just call 'em like i see 'em. i test all my ideas, and only keep the ones that stand up. and anyhow, i seriously doubt we agree on the specifics, as your more direct route probably includes a bit more divine intervention than mine, and is likely part of a package regarding total accuracy.

---

Thanks for the history lesson Padre.Arithmatic is propaganda as well. Designed to help the ability of humanity to cope with the mathmatical problems of life.Hadn't we strayed off topic enough jar? Or must every thread be turned into an attempt to cut the legs out from under the implicit assumptions in an argument?As I have always maintined... it is unavoidable! that is why the Admins job is so difficult.

Tested as they should be. Otherwise our ideas would be the result of a cult that protects it's propaganda and believes blindly without challenge.Matthew 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

precisely.

Cart before the horse, Limbo. Before we READ the Bible, let`s find it first. Which version/versions do you regard as approximate to the autographs?

i hate to say it, but that's a bit pedantic. we have several incarnations of a group of texts we are arbitrarily saying that we are reading. there are some slight variations between the "source" manuscripts for translations, and new translations are coming out or being revised all the time, yes. and there are a whole slew of other texts we could read in association with "the bible." why these texts? because they're the ones people talk about. the other ones are interesting too. part of that reading should really include all the other available resources. history books and academic papers, and apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts. lost gospels and fragments and the dead sea scrolls.your question really presupposes that there is a version that is approximate to the autographs (perhaps you mean to argue that there is not), and that the autographs are something special. it's really just an arbitrary choice -- why not read gilgamesh instead? or beowulf? or the vedas? or catcher in the rye for that matter? what is and what is not "the bible" doesn't precisely matter. what matters is that some people hold this book to be valuable, and that this arbitrary selection of texts is actually quite integral to our own western cultural context.

---

Pot? Meet Kettle.My evolving guideline as to whether a thread is straying off topic is whether or not the originator of the thread is participating in the dialogue as it wanders. IF you are not the originator of the topic, you are expected to participate without directing the argument.Carry on.

Au contraire, Arach, it gets to the heart of the matter. How can any discussion of what Hebrew word/expression/sentence/verse means, or which Greek word/expression/sentence/verse conveys anything sensible if we don`t know what was originally written.
When folks bet their life on a reading, and it may well be spurious, then there is no call to throw it at me as 'gospel'.
Bible-believers, in the main, tend to be lazy researchers. Rote is the only thing they consider. Elementary study will show the great lack of provenance in both OT and NT.
So no one gets away with throwing possible Bible verses at me without the challenge to put up or shut up.
Whether there ever were autographs per se, or existing texts were conflated from a variety of sources, may (or may not) be discovered in the future. Till then, the pedants are all on the Bible side.Even then, the various Christian groups can`t agree on what should constitute a 'Bible'.

we don't have that. we only have what we have, and some ability to extrapolate what has changed and what (probably) has not. so maybe you shouldn't bet your life on readings. i'm just talking about the text, and using the text that we have. i can't do anything else.but that decision is always faith. even if we have the original documents, who's to say it's not all bs anyways? i'm not sure what you are demanding, or what you think i am trying to say. let me rephrase. suppose for a second that we are not talking about the bible. suppose we're talking about beowulf. now, i have a copy here of beowulf in anglosaxon/old english, and a translation into modern english. we're talking about some concept or other, and someone is failing to understand something in the story.now, someone else comes trotting in, and mentions that we don't have the original manuscripts of beowulf, and that the anachronism of christian content indicates a significant modification of the text. which is true, btw. so what, exactly, should we do? should we stop talking about beowulf? should we not read it, because it's been tainted? should we just assume that since we can never determine the minutae of the original author's intent, it's not worth discussing any of the finer points as written? should we take beowulf out our libraries and burn it?no, we're just going to aknowledge that you're correct -- we don't have the original beowulf, and it's obviously been tampered with -- but it's still the oldest written work in the english language, and the english tradition, and is thus important to our history and culture. and we're going to keep reading this version because it's all we have, and we can't read the version that hasn't been altered because it no longer exists.my question, basically, is "so what?" why is the bible any different? because people believe in it? does that mean we should let this "where's the original?" argument derail our discussion of literary elements, when it no serious person would raise such an objection, and so fervently, over a book like beowulf, which no one believes in? it's still a book, and it's still the oldest written document in hebrew, and in the hebrew tradition. and it's still integral to their culture -- and our culture. and we're still only able to read what we have. yes, we know the originals are lost, and we know there have been changes. so. what. no use crying over spilt milk, here.your objection is simply ridiculous.

---

God! How do I say this...You're BOTH right. You both have a seriously legitimate point. And, the way to substantiate one point with respect to other all depends on the framework within which one chooses to regard the bible. Arach, we already know that we couldn't impose a particular framework for everyone. So, right, we may as well get the most out of the object in question, regardless. On one hand, the bible could be taken as a guide, without necessarily even acknowledging the actual presence of any god, per se. It may have merit as a fiction novel, if nothing else. (But, by the way that most believers talk of the bible, that would be doubtful, though. Pragmatic individuals are more disenchanted by the preponderance of believers than they are enticed by any value the book has to offer.)On the other hand, what nighttrain (I think), and many others insist is this:The bible, for lack of a better word, makes somes pretty bold claims, starting at page 1 of the old testament. If a rational person makes a gesture of good faith in believing those claims, then the utmost in veritability would be a fair trade. It would reasonably be in order, for many. Now, since there is a whole laundry list of things, textual and otherwise, which support the idea that the bible is uncontrolled, it could be considered an imperative to reject any literal claims made by the bible, if only to enjoy it as said fiction novel. This isn't an all-or-nothing approach so much as it is a SOMETHING-or-nothing approach. That's why shrewdly scrupulous people stop at page 1, and don't go any further. They don't NEED to know who wrote the rest of it.Not only that, but there is no evidence of a benevolent god. There isn't really anything to SUGGEST a benevolent god. People assume because we were afforded with life, something so mysterious in its very nature, that we are indebted somehow. Well, science would be quick to tell us that these euphoric experiences that we all enjoy from time to time in this life, are simply a product, a programmed result, of biological configuration. But, more importantly IMHO, we don't know that these "gifts" we've been given weren't simply devised to disguise some greater truth, something far greater than the one that "god" has supposedly outlined in the bible.I'm actually not a pessimist. And, I know this gets more into philosophies, than religion or science. Yet, somewhere out there is that truth, and it doesn't appear to have been well-managed by ANY god.

It always disappoints me when an apologist trots out the old 'How can we trust any ancient literature?' Whether it`s the Iliad or Beowulf or any historical tome you care to name, it matters not a whit (except to scholars of ancient texts, maybe). The point being that people in power today control your and my life with a value system under the control of a shaky ancient document which may or may not have included those words. They justify their actions with reference to unverified lines from one of a number of versions. They condemn other parts of the human race with their biased and unsubstantiated assertions. You even have the most powerful man on earth with a finger not far from the nuclear trigger, spouting Biblical nonsense as a justification for his actions. No other ancient tome poses such a risk to this world so we can disregard their purity, or lack of it. Now you may not see that as much of a threat and prefer to work on an original meaning of a Hebrew word as your mission in life,but I`m more concerned getting through to lazy Biblical folk that the surety they place in their 'Book' is under question at the very least. Quoting 'Jesus said this' or 'Matthew, the apostle said that' shows the complete lack of knowledge of scholarly work over the last century or so. Ignorance might be its own reward, but I prefer to go down fighting it.

i think you're missing the point. i realize that such an argument is ridiculous -- i'm attempting to demonstrate to you that it's ridiculous. it's ridiculous when applied to beowulf. it's ridiculous when applied to the iliad. and it's ridiculous when applied to the bible.and i HIGHLY resent being called an apologist. it sounds like you should raise you objections with the people in power, not the document. even if we could be assured that said ancient document included said words, why should we base our value systems on it?actually, the truly ironic point about this objection is that this is precisely why we should study the bible -- because it influences our society. it's important to understand that influence. yeah, good luck with that.maybe i should explain my strategy, since you've missed the subtle point of it. that's somewhat intentional -- it's supposed to get past the creationists, afterall. fundamentalists accept the bible, right? they make arguments from the bible, etc. coming out and blatantly attacking the text shuts ears and closes minds. arguing for honest, literal interpretation beats them at their own game. since the bible is such an inconsistent and misunderstood group of texts, i can effectively argue against any point of theirs, using their own accepted document.even that doesn't work very well. but simply saying "let's ignore the text!" doesn't help at all. while you're ignoring it, they're distorting it, and using it as justification for their various evils. i'm sorry, but obviously not. "we can't find the original bible, the end, discussion over" isn't exactly fighting ignorance. it's every bit as ignorant as any statement made by fundamentalists -- and every bit as willfully so. maybe it's just not your interest. and that's ok: go talk about something else. but the world of academic biblical scholarship still exists, and still continues to study and discuss the text, simply because it is there. and there is a lot of interesting information and analysis, much of it that lends creedence to the positions you are ignorantly in favor of. you are essentially cutting your own feet out from under you.now, this is not something that is contributing to the discussion. you are attempting to derail it, and very openly so. coming into the bible fora and shouting "the bible is fiction, the bible is fiction!" is every bit as rude and disruptive as any creationist troll in the science fora. they are forced to play by the rules there, and substantiate their points with evidence, and you will be forced to play by the rules and substantiate your point with evidence here. but you should do that in another thread, as it bears no relation to the topic here.you want to talk about the unreliability of the text? be my guest. open a thread and document the wonderful history of edits, redactions, alterations, typos, and even outright forgery in the bible. but do it with textual and historical evidence. i would be more than happy to participate in that discussion -- and probably on your side. in fact, i propose that i could probably document many more such changes to the text than you could. i am well aware of the point you are attempting to make here, as well as the evidence that supports it. i've had threads before that effectively argued that one entire book of the torah was a complete forgery, with textual evidence to support it.but no, this is just a weak and half-assed stab in the dark, backed with no knowledge or evidence. simply an exucse to ignore the text. just ignorance. that's all. your argument reads like a creationist troll's argument: paranoid, off-topic, blame-placing, and with utterly no understanding of the academic study they think they are invalidating.you disappoint me, sir.

---

Well, there ya go, Spiderman, another one I`ve disappointed. If you had grasped my apparently-hidden point, you would notice all along I`ve have been pushing for closer attention to whatever texts have survived and the validity of same. That`s why I proposed a new forum covering textual criticism. Or didn`t you notice? As long as creationists push their version of whatever was originally written, I will continue to ask for provenance. If that don`t belong in Bible forums, I hesitate to ask where it should go.The challenge, Jim, is to nominate a single chapter/ verse/sentence in either the OT or the NT, and lay out the full provenance. Start to finish.This message will not self-destruct in five minutes.

that did not seem to be the vane of your argument. i apologize for misunderstanding. i must not have. i agree that one is needed -- but i was under the impression that this forum filled that role adequately. ineffective. creationists have their provenance: god. they will balk at any outright attacks on such, especially if it is not being supported by evidence provided. this forum, possibly. "accuracy and inerrancy" might be better -- that's in the science fora, btw. but this thread is not the place. we are attempting to analyze what a particular reference means, and why plurality is used when god speaks of himself. "where's the originals?" does not help the discussion of what we have. you could postulate what the originals might have said, or how history and edits could have influenced the linguistics in question. but the objection simply does not go here. sure. start another thread. i'll be happy to participate.

---

First off jar you are right about the regal aspect of this verse but completely wrong about the evolution of monotheism.This passage obviously requires others to be present in the conversation. The question is then - who are they?I am not sure how familar you are with Divine Council studies but this is what this verse is about.Plainly put there are other real gods that exist but they were created by YHWH who alone is the Creator, some of these gods rebelled and others did not - hence Gen. 6 episode.The verses you quote actually show this to be the case.As far as YHWH being the God of the Hebrews your right once again - famnous in DC studies is Deut. 32:8-9. This mistranlastion of "children of Israel" for DSS "sons of God" when Israel did not even exist at the time Moses is refering to is actually why we have a problem understanding this subject. God gave up the other nations to these gods and took Jacob for Himself - this was in order to bring to pass his purpose, plan, and promises given Abraham - culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ.By the way the characterization of YHWH in the bible does not change over time to assuume so would mean you have some other characterization by the Hebrews reguarding YHWH's ontology or character. Just because the bible recognizes other lesser gods does not speak less of YHWH - He is unique in that He alone is Creator worthy of worship. By the way this is not Monolatrism nor Henotheism.There is alot to deal with on this subject but basically some scribes were trying to protect monothesim by obfuscating other lesser gods. Of course there were many other verses (Psalms 82)as well as older manuscripts that show what the text is saying. This has developed a fasle dichotomy that if your a monotheist you can not believe in any other real gods. Some call this strict momothesism. This was a problem when christians were using texts to prove the diety of Christ.
This of course exasperated the problem with the Israelites who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.There is too much to write about and explain but if someone wants more info I will try to post it. There are many works mostly scholarly, although there is a recent Phd. dissertation on the subject maybe with permission I can post it.Keep the Faith