Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 83 (501331)
03-05-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Granny Magda
03-05-2009 4:30 PM


Re: The Hymn to the Aten
That a religion would independently decide that God was the sun or like the sun isn't too surprising at all. It is clearly both special and important to life.
That a hymn describes god as pretty wonderful and all isn't surprising either.
Other poetic imagery may or may not be borrowed. I agree it is slightly interesting but still would call it weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Granny Magda, posted 03-05-2009 4:30 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 17 of 83 (501394)
03-05-2009 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Granny Magda
03-05-2009 10:12 AM


Re: The Hymn to the Aten
quote:
Interesting that you should mention Akheneten there Caffiene. One rather interesting piece of evidence of cross-cultural pollination is the hymn to the Aten, found in the ruins of Akhenaten's capital. It bears a striking similarity to psalm 104.
Another example in this vein is the similarity between the proverbs of Solomon in Prov 22:17-23:11 and the Egyptian proverbs of Amen-em-Opet (also spelled Amanemope). I wrote a paper on this many years ago for a biblical archaeology class. (I concluded that Solomon probably DID borrow ideas from Amen-em-Opet. I also argued that this does NOT conflict with divine inspiration, which I'm sure Granny Magda will like. ) It looks like I found Amen-em-Opet's writings in James B. Pritchard's The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, vol. I (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958, 1973), ch. XI, "Wisdom, Prophecy, and Songs".
It is also interesting to compare the Genesis creation account with other near eastern creation accounts. There are many common descriptions and concepts. But the underlying theology is radically different, as the OP stressed.
I believe that the Hebrews did get many cultural ideas and concepts from the surrounding nations. But I do not believe the same can be said of most of their theological ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 03-05-2009 10:12 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 83 (501405)
03-06-2009 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
03-04-2009 9:17 AM


Coragyps writes:
Chaos is first, right? Doesn't that sound a bit like this?
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
i dont think it sounds at all like that.
Hesiod's account presents each element of the universe as a god, night is a god, day is a god, the earth was a god, the sky was a god etc etc
the Hebrew account of creation is an account of 1 God creating all things in a controlled and calculated way. How is that similar???
My source does not 'fib' lol
there are multiple translations of the Hesiod creation account and they all have slightly different wording. Its called paraphrasing.
Wiki puts it like this 'Chaos arose spontaneously. 'Chaos gives birth to Eros[4] and Gaia (Earth), the more orderly and safe foundation that would serve as a home for the gods and mortals, came afterwards...' WikiSource

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 03-04-2009 9:17 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 83 (501406)
03-06-2009 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
03-05-2009 4:06 PM


Modulous writes:
as far as I can tell, some scholars believe it was the likes of Elijah's policy of "Only Yahweh has power" that really gave birth to absolute monotheism. So although there is evidence that Ba'al/Hadad/Adad/Asherah was worshipped by the Israelites within the text - this is definitely not (in my opinion) one of the examples of 'don't worship those other real gods' but is one of the examples of 'the other gods are made up nonexistent fictions and only Yahweh is God'.
this is true, not only elijah but all the writers. this verse from Isiah shows how the Hebrew writers viewed the gods of the nations around them.
quote:
Isiah 44:15'And it has become [something] for man to keep a fire burning. So he takes part of it that he may warm himself...He also works on a god to which he may bow down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself to it... He prostrates himself to it and bows down and prays to it and says: "Deliver me, for you are my god".
quote:
Jerimiah 10:14'Every man has behaved so unreasoningly as not to know. Every metalworker will certainly feel shame because of the carved image; for his molten image is a falsehood, and there is no spirit in them. 15They are vanity, a work of mockery.'
quote:
Habakkuk 2:18'Of what benefit has a carved image been, when the former of it has carved it, a molten statue, and an instructor in falsehood? when the former of its form has trusted in it, to the extent of making valueless gods that are speechless?'
quote:
Psalm 115:4Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of the hands of earthling man.
5A mouth they have, but they cannot speak;
Eyes they have, but they cannot see;
6Ears they have, but they cannot hear.
A nose they have, but they cannot smell.
7Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel.
Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk;
They utter no sound with their throat.
8Those making them will become just like them,
All those who are trusting in them.
The christian view of Idols was that it amounted to the worship of demons.
quote:
'This is the reason, my dear brothers, why you must keep clear of idolatry. ... You cannot take your share at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons.'1Cor. 10:14,
1Cor 10:19-21, ...'I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons...'
Acts 17:29'... we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man...'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 4:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 7:27 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 20 of 83 (501407)
03-06-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by caffeine
03-05-2009 10:00 AM


caffine writes:
It's also worth pointing out that Israelite culture wasn't wholly monotheistic. Some scholars have thought that the different names for God (Yahweh, Elohim, El-Shaddai etc.) may have stemmed from previously independent gods; in much the same way as Allah was part of the polytheistic pantheon of early Arab culture.
Yahweh is a personal name but Elohim is a title and is translated 'God' as is El-shaddai which means "God of the mountains," (according to wiki) and so is Allah..its a title and if you ask a muslim the name of their god, it doesnt have a name , they only know him as Allah.
Zoroastrian was a good pick up... i didnt know a lot about them so i had a dig around. They were the principle religion of ancient Babylon which was a city full of various gods. I looked at some of their beliefs and there is a huge difference in beliefs about life and death and creation etc... so i really cannot see any connection between them. The Zoroastrians believe in the immortal soul so that in itself is a huge divergence of belief.
[quote=caffeine]Also, an injunction against worshipping other gods doesn't necessarily mean the religion is monotheistic. Many ancient cultures worshipped their own god without doubting the existence of foreign gods. It's entirely possible the early laws were not 'don't worship fictional gods', but 'don't worship other gods like that Ba'al chap - I'm your god.'[/qs]
i must say , its pretty clear in the laws that they were not to worship other gods and they only had 1 Almight God who was the 'only living God'
this and the scriptures i just quoted about Idols shows that the writers beleived that no other gods were in existence. Sure people worshiped other gods, but these gods were 'false' and without life... they believed the worship of such images were a waste of time becasue they did not believe the god was alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by caffeine, posted 03-05-2009 10:00 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 AM Peg has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 83 (501417)
03-06-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
03-06-2009 3:41 AM


this is true, not only elijah but all the writers.
So you are conceding that the Israelistes were in fact influenced by surrounding nations (in that they worshipped Asherah/Ba'al/Hadad etc)?
However, you are doing the very thing I criticised you for in your earlier post. You can't say 'all the writers' and then cite a few pro-monotheist positions. Nobody is in doubt that there are strict monotheistic passages in the OT.
Exodus 15:11, HNV writes:
Who is like you, LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Yahweh here is said to be 'among the gods' implying there is more than one.
Exodus 18:11, HNV writes:
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods because of the thing in which they dealt arrogantly against them.
Exodus 20:3, HNV writes:
You shall have no other gods before me.
Exodus 23:24 writes:
You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor follow their practices, but you shall utterly overthrow them and demolish their pillars.
And that's just the book of Exodus. I'm not saying this is concrete proof that the authors believed other gods existed, but it is evidence that it might have been implicitly assumed by them. By steadfastly ignoring these weak and passive statements about polytheism and only referencing those which are polemically absolute monotheism you don't give the impression of someone who is looking at this subject with an entirely objective eye.
Now - I have conceded several of your points, indeed argued one point on your behalf, perhaps you'd do me the favour of commenting on the pile of evidence in Message 7? Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 03-06-2009 3:41 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 5:58 AM Modulous has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 22 of 83 (501431)
03-06-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
03-06-2009 4:03 AM


Yahweh is a personal name but Elohim is a title and is translated 'God' as is El-shaddai which means "God of the mountains," (according to wiki) and so is Allah..its a title and if you ask a muslim the name of their god, it doesnt have a name , they only know him as Allah.
This is all correct as to how these things are interpreted now, but that doesn't necessarily mean they all used to mean the same thing to the people of many many centuries ago. Taking Allah, for example, it's true that it just means 'The God'. However, Allah didn't appear in Arabic religion with the arrival of monotheism. In polytheistic Arab culture, Allah referred to the chief God - the creator; but he was not the only god. There were a whole host of other, subordinate, gods; including his daughters - the local deities al-Manat, al-Uzza and al-Lat.
In the same way, Yahweh may have been the chief God amongst a pantheon of lesser gods originally. The fact that the Bible shows Israelites worshipping other Gods and prophets having to convince them of monotheism would confirm this as a near certainty, in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 03-06-2009 4:03 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 6:06 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 23 of 83 (501845)
03-08-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
03-06-2009 7:27 AM


Modulous writes:
So you are conceding that the Israelistes were in fact influenced by surrounding nations (in that they worshipped Asherah/Ba'al/Hadad etc)?
However, you are doing the very thing I criticised you for in your earlier post. You can't say 'all the writers' and then cite a few pro-monotheist positions. Nobody is in doubt that there are strict monotheistic passages in the OT.
i dont deny that some of the population got involved with the religions around them, the bible is full of examples of such... but as this discussion is on the bible 'writers' then all the evidence suggests that they were not influenced by other nations.
the writers of the OT always had the same stand no matter what time period they lived in and no matter how many of the population were involved in idol worship. they always stood opposed to it. In this way the 'bible' was not influenced by the religions around.
Modulous writes:
Who is like you, LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Yahweh here is said to be 'among the gods' implying there is more than one.
of course there are other gods....it doesnt mean they are the Almighty Creator though.
The Almighty Creator is God of the bible and of the Hebrews and Christians. The other nations worshiped gods that they had devised for themselves. Hence why the bible calls them 'false' gods.
You may have noticed the capitalisation of 'God' in the bible along with the many occurrences of the non capitalised 'god'...wherever you see it capitalised, its referring to the Almighty, where ever its not, its referring to a false god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 7:27 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 24 of 83 (501846)
03-08-2009 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by caffeine
03-06-2009 9:30 AM


caffeine writes:
Yahweh may have been the chief God amongst a pantheon of lesser gods originally. The fact that the Bible shows Israelites worshipping other Gods and prophets having to convince them of monotheism would confirm this as a near certainty, in my opinion.
yep, i dont deny there were other gods. Marduk Baal Ra... the list is endless.
But the Hebrews did not worship any other god besides Jehovah. Its evidenced by the writings that he was single ruling God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Archer Opteryx, posted 03-23-2009 9:34 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 83 (501848)
03-08-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
03-04-2009 8:43 AM


Re: Influences
Modulous writes:
In Enuma Elish, Marduk commands a wind that rushes over and into the waters (Tiamat) in order to slay her and from this he creates the world. Likewise Genesis 1 has the "wind of God" moving over the 'deep' and some suggest that the deep, tĕhowm is linked to the word Tiamat - but this is disputable.
I dont agree that it resembles the genesis account.
Various other passages in the Bible have a giant sea dragon monster including (Isaiah 51, Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in days gone by, as in generations of old. Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces, who pierced that monster through? NIV) being subdued by God, but why would God need to subdue such monsters? It is a clear allusion to the Marduk story of the battle with Tiamat.
sorry, i cant see the link here either. Its generally used in a figurative sense and is applied to Gods enimies as can be seen in Ezekiel 29:...Here I am against you, O Phar′aoh, king of Egypt, the great sea monster lying stretched out in the midst of his Nile canals..'
Enuma Elish and the Lights is not at all similar to genesis. Genesis simply calls it what it is, a luminary whereas Enuma Elish says the moon was a creature as if it was an animate object.
In the creation of man with The Epic of Atrahasis may seem similar but they are still quite different.
The loss of innocence had nothing to do with sex in genesis. Actually Adam & Eve didnt have sex until they had left the garden of eden so to try and link sin with sex is a bit ignorant of the account which clearly showed that the serpent tempted Eve to 'become like God' ... it had nothing to do with sex and the serpent is in no way a phallic symbol.
Eternal Life
Modulous writes:
Clearly the intended audience for the Genesis story was familiar with this story of the hunt for the plant of eternal life
this is an assumption. Just because the epic of gilgamesh mentions a plant of life, does not mean that the genesis account is a copy of it or was influenced by it. Perhaps the epic of gilgamesh is influenced by the original story which had been written down. There is evidence that Adam himself wrote an account of the events of his life...this is how Moses was able to write about Adams decendants, his children, Cain & Able...the things Eve said and did etc. Moses said he wrote from a 'book of the history of Adam'
I'll say the same for the flood account. Most nations have a flood account. Lets say the flood really did happen, then its likely that when the sons of Seth spread out in the earth, they took that story with them...as it happens over time the story changes and after thousands of years we have some very different versions of the story, but the same story nonetheless.
Yes I agree that some of the laws as similar. Justice is a fairly consistent concept...if someone does something bad to someone, they must pay compensation in order to balance the scales of justice. So its not strange to find similarities there.
Modulous writes:
Asherah, a Canaanite goddess was worshipped by the Israelites too as a consort of Yahweh, "Queen of Heaven". William G. Dever, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Archeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona, writes that it seems to be the case that Monotheism was really only followed by the elite Israelites, whereas Joe the gleaner would be plenty into folk religions. . The OT even confirms this to have been the case:
Jeremiah 7:18, NIV writes:
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.
Once again, the writers position was one of condemnation for such pagan worship. In many instances the Hebrews were punished with death for such practices because it was NOT a part of their religion. The Queen of the Heavens were not a god in co-existence with Yahweh...according to the bible it was just another false god.
You see, thats the differnce with the OT. It doesnt write about these gods as if they were real...it writes about them as if they were fake. So the writers of the OT did not adhere to the religious practices of the nations around them even if some of the people did.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2009 8:43 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2009 9:31 AM Peg has replied
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 03-08-2009 10:43 AM Peg has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 83 (501864)
03-08-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
03-08-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Influences
I dont agree that it resembles the genesis account.
I know I agreed that this reference was disputable, but that was a pretty poor response Peg.
sorry, i cant see the link here either.
You can't see the link between Marduk slaying a sea monster and Yahweh slaying a sea monster? Why not? I suppose you can't see the connection to calling Ba'al (or sometimes Hadad) the "Rider of Clouds" and the connection to calling Yahweh he who 'rides the clouds'
Its generally used in a figurative sense and is applied to Gods enimies
The question is, is it figurative in Isaiah 51:9, the verse I referenced? Is it figurative in Psalm 74 when God is spoken of as destroying the sea monsters?
quote:
For God [is] my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Or Isaiah 27:1
quote:
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.
The fact is that Yahweh is pictured slaying a dragon or serpent that lives in the seas. Is it always a metaphor? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe it's a metaphor in the Babylonian world too. Either way there is clear evidence that imagery of deities smiting sea demons/dragons/serpents isn't entirely unique to Israelite culture.
Just as when the Lillith crops up in both is also evidence that there is cultural overspill taking place.
Enuma Elish and the Lights is not at all similar to genesis. Genesis simply calls it what it is, a luminary whereas Enuma Elish says the moon was a creature as if it was an animate object.
But we can agree that both Enuma Elish and Genesis are both agreed that the Creator of the World also created the moon which is a source of light?
In the creation of man with The Epic of Atrahasis may seem similar but they are still quite different.
Seems the same but in fact different. Great argument there Peg. Very compelling. Either way, mankind is created by mixing clay and some kind of divine essence. I'd say that was more similar than it is dissimilar.
The loss of innocence had nothing to do with sex in genesis. Actually Adam & Eve didnt have sex until they had left the garden of eden so to try and link sin with sex is a bit ignorant of the account which clearly showed that the serpent tempted Eve to 'become like God' ... it had nothing to do with sex and the serpent is in no way a phallic symbol.
More gainsaying, at least try and put up an argument Peg. Even I can argue against my position better than this!
. Just because the epic of gilgamesh mentions a plant of life, does not mean that the genesis account is a copy of it or was influenced by it.
Agreed. However, that the two tales both have a 'flora of eternal life' motif is interesting. That the Tree of Life seems entirely extraneous in Genesis since it plays no role whatsoever in the story would seem to suggest that the audience are familiar with it (and I think it would be folly to argue that the Israelites were ignorant of the Babylonian and Canaanite myths, even the Bible disagrees with that position). I posit that the Tree of Life only made it in there because people already believed there was such a thing and they needed a story like Enuma Elish to explain why they couldn't get to it (ie., they needed an explanation for their mortality in terms of a plantish metaphor).
Is it conclusive? No. Nothing is in this discussion, and to claim otherwise is silly. It is evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis.
I'll say the same for the flood account. Most nations have a flood account.
Right. And the ones near the Israelite's homelands were very similar accounts. That means that one group started telling the story and this story transmitted to many people (or common ancestry as we like to say ). That there are flood stories that predate Israelite's version is evidence that the beliefs of the Israelites were inherited from their neighbours. Even if those beliefs happen to be true.
Yes I agree that some of the laws as similar. Justice is a fairly consistent concept...if someone does something bad to someone, they must pay compensation in order to balance the scales of justice. So its not strange to find similarities there.
It isn't strange to find a universal concept of justice. However, if one group describes justice as being 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' and then a later group describes justice as being 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', this would count as evidence that the latter group was influenced by the former group's understanding of justice.
Once again, the writers position was one of condemnation for such pagan worship. In many instances the Hebrews were punished with death for such practices because it was NOT a part of their religion. The Queen of the Heavens were not a god in co-existence with Yahweh...according to the bible it was just another false god.
If they practised these things they almost certainly believed them to be true. If they believed them to be true, they were almost certainly part of their religion. There might have been some kind of Priestly tribe, some kind of Aaronite grouping, that tried to impose one religion above all others - but that doesn't mean that the Israelites didn't have Asherah as part of their religion. Where did they get that idea?
From the surrounding nations.
You see, thats the differnce with the OT. It doesnt write about these gods as if they were real...it writes about them as if they were fake.
Sometimes. Other times it writes about them almost as if they were implicitly assumed to be real, as I pointed out in my Exodus quotes....
the writers of the OT always had the same stand no matter what time period they lived in and no matter how many of the population were involved in idol worship. they always stood opposed to it. In this way the 'bible' was not influenced by the religions around.
I don't agree with this exactly, and I don't think everyone would agree with you that the writers had 'the same stand'. That view seems limited to Christians. It's not the topic though, so let's not get distracted on that point.
of course there are other gods....it doesnt mean they are the Almighty Creator though. The Almighty Creator is God of the bible and of the Hebrews and Christians. The other nations worshiped gods that they had devised for themselves. Hence why the bible calls them 'false' gods.
Again, I disagree, and the texts I quote don't imply that Yahweh is the greatest amongst 'false' gods, but that the other gods are real entities among which Yahweh is the greatest. You don't have to agree that the interpretation is the best one, but I'm not enitrely sure you can just dismiss it.
I didn't come here to prove completely and utterly, so compellingly that even a Christian would believe it to be true, that all Israelite beliefs were influenced by the beliefs of other Near Eastern cultures.
I came here to say that there is evidence, including evidence from within the OT itself that the laiety of Israelite culture were influenced by other cultures and beliefs from surrounding nations, and that extending from this, that there is some evidence left over after the author(s) and redacter(s) that even the religious cultic leaders of Israelite culture were influenced by neighbouring nations.
Nobody is disputing that there are unique aspects of Israelite religion.
You may have noticed the capitalisation of 'God' in the bible along with the many occurrences of the non capitalised 'god'...wherever you see it capitalised, its referring to the Almighty, where ever its not, its referring to a false god.
Because the ancient Hebrew language happens to follow the forms of English? Would this argument work if we were reading the OT in German?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 9:24 PM Modulous has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 83 (501869)
03-08-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
03-08-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Influences
There is evidence that Adam himself wrote an account of the events of his life...
I laughed out loud, Peg.
You know damn well there's no evidence for any such silliness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 7:02 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 9:46 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 83 (501952)
03-08-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
03-08-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Influences
Modulous writes:
You can't see the link between Marduk slaying a sea monster and Yahweh slaying a sea monster? Why not? I suppose you can't see the connection to calling Ba'al (or sometimes Hadad) the "Rider of Clouds" and the connection to calling Yahweh he who 'rides the clouds'
its because as i said, the reference to a 'sea monster' in the bible at that verse is metaphorically speaking about Egypt. Gods enemy nations were likened to such creatures because of their aggression and disposition to God and his people. The marduk account does not make a connection to any nation but to an actual sea monster therefore they are not the same.
and about the genesis account, if even you knew it to be disputable, why use it? I didnt have to go into any great detail about why I could not see a connection because you already concluded that the similarity was disputable.
Modulous writes:
The question is, is it figurative in Isaiah 51:9, the verse I referenced? Is it figurative in Psalm 74 when God is spoken of as destroying the sea monsters?
quote:For God [is] my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
have a look closely at the verse...notice it says 'Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters...'
this is a reference to the crossing of the Red Sea by the Isrealites and the destruction the of the ensuing Egyption army. The prophet Ezekiel also references Egypt as a sea monster which was the scripture i quoted before.
this is the thing with the bible and metaphors... to understand 1 scripture, you must look at several others, for they work together to reveal the answers.
Modulous writes:
But we can agree that both Enuma Elish and Genesis are both agreed that the Creator of the World also created the moon which is a source of light?
yes i can agree with that, both accounts say a particular God/god created the moon.
but let me just say that if the genesis account was influenced by the Enuma account, its quite a divergence in terms of what the moon actually is. It goes from being a creature to being an animate object. Seems that the genesis account was the scientifically accurate one in this case.
Modulous writes:
Seems the same but in fact different. Great argument there Peg. Very compelling. Either way, mankind is created by mixing clay and some kind of divine essence. I'd say that was more similar than it is dissimilar.
well lets put it this way, If the divine being was able to mix some of his own body with the clay, then it means the divine being must have been of a physical nature.
Even the bible says that flesh and spirit cannot mix... so the epic of Atrahasis seems to imply a physical god because a spiritual god would not have had anything physical to mix with the clay.
The genesis account simply states that a spiritual God formed a physical being from the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. It says nothign about God mixing any of his own body with the physical body.
Modulous writes:
More gainsaying, at least try and put up an argument Peg. Even I can argue against my position better than this!
If you read the bible account you will see that sex had nothing to do with Adam and Eve being thrown out of the garden of eden. Unlike the epic of gilgamesh which portrays sex as something sinful, in the genesis account it wasnt sinful
that makes a huge difference of belief between the two. Genesis 2 if you want to read it... i can tell you now you'll find nothing in there about sex.
Modulous writes:
Right. And the ones near the Israelite's homelands were very similar accounts. That means that one group started telling the story and this story transmitted to many people (or common ancestry as we like to say ). That there are flood stories that predate Israelite's version is evidence that the beliefs of the Israelites were inherited from their neighbours. Even if those beliefs happen to be true.
Yes this is true and i agree totally. But if you look at all those accounts there is always a fairly high degree of fantasy involved. Gilgamesh himself was a Demigod, he's described as being two-thirds god and one-third man who was on a quest to seek immortality.
Again the genesis is not overshadowed by warring dieties but rather its fairly simple in its explaination. 1 God who took action against the violent inhabitants of the earth. Its completely free of the fantasy of other legends.
but why would it necessarily mean that one was influenced by the other? Why could both nations not have thought up similar punishments for such crimes? I think you'd have a long way to go before you could prove that the Hebrews were influenced by them.
Most nations practiced capital punishement...even today they still do. Do you say that the American govt is influenced by the ancient nations with regards to capital punishment? Seeing the Ancients did it first, they must have been influenced by them.
Would you go so far as to say that?
Modulous writes:
If they practised these things they almost certainly believed them to be true. If they believed them to be true, they were almost certainly part of their religion. There might have been some kind of Priestly tribe, some kind of Aaronite grouping, that tried to impose one religion above all others - but that doesn't mean that the Israelites didn't have Asherah as part of their religion. Where did they get that idea?
Yes they did get those ideas from the surrounding nations. But the writers of the OT were divinely inspired to write, and their writings indicate that worship of such false gods was a sin against their own God.
So the religion, which was based on the writings of Moses and the Prophets etc, was NOT influenced by such ideas. It was wholly against such beliefs. This is why we can pick up an OT today and still read about the opposition to such false worship... It remained a part of the religion even if some of the hebrews did otherwise.
Its not unlike some professed christians to participate in very unchristian behavior. the hebrews were no different...but the inspiried writers were not influenced the same way because they were being directed by their God. If you think about it, its actually pretty strong evidence of the bibles inspiration. While many of the Hebrews were practicing false worship (even some of the kings & priests) the bible writers were free of such influence.
Modulous writes:
Again, I disagree, and the texts I quote don't imply that Yahweh is the greatest amongst 'false' gods, but that the other gods are real entities among which Yahweh is the greatest. You don't have to agree that the interpretation is the best one, but I'm not enitrely sure you can just dismiss it.
quote:
2Kings 17:29
However, each different nation came to be a maker of its own god, which they then deposited in the house of the high places that the Samar′itans had made, each different nation, in their cities where they were dwelling. 30And the men of Babylon, for their part, made Suc′coth-be′noth, and the men of Cuth, for their part, made Ner′gal, and the men of Ha′math, for their part, made Ashi′ma. 31As for the Av′vites, they made Nib′haz and Tar′tak; and the Se′pharvites were burning their sons in the fire to Adram′melech and Anam′melech the gods of Sepharva′im.
The bible is pretty clear when it speaks about the gods of the nations around them....they were created by the people themselves therefore they were not real gods. Yes, they had names and they had methods with which to worship them, but these religions were contrived by the nation
Modulous writes:
Because the ancient Hebrew language happens to follow the forms of English? Would this argument work if we were reading the OT in German?
i dont know, i dont read german...but in all the tranlsations i have, there is a clear distinction made between God and god. In the preface of the New International Version it says "In regard to the divine name YHWH commonly refered to as the tetragrammaton the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as 'LORD' in capitals to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered 'Lord' for which small letters are used"
they do the same for GOD because the hebrew text does no use the word 'God' when its talking about the Almighty Creator...it uses the 'Tetragrammaton' (YWHY) thus it is always distinguishable between any other god which is being mentioned. The tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text almost 7,000 times... Its the name of the Hebrew God 'Jehovah'
im not sure why im saying this, except i guess its how the bible distinguishes between the gods of the nations and the Almighty Creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2009 9:31 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2009 9:51 AM Peg has replied
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2009 12:51 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 83 (501955)
03-08-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coragyps
03-08-2009 10:43 AM


Re: Influences
Coragyps writes:
I laughed out loud, Peg.
You know damn well there's no evidence for any such silliness.
I dont blame you for laughing
But you'd have to admit that all the information contained in the book of Genesis took place prior to Moses’ birth. some of it could have come directly by divine revelation (stages of creation) OR the information had been record early on by those who witnessed it. For instance, how did Moses know of things that pertained to Adam and Eve and the things they said and did in the Garden of Eden? The discussion between Eve and the Serpeant...that information came from somewhere.
Another explaination could be that the information could have been passed from Adam to Moses through just five human links, namely, Methuselah, Shem, Isaac, Levi, and Amram. Humans lived for many hundreds of years according to the bible record and if thats the case then the lives of these men overlapped.
But then there is also the possibility is that Moses obtained the information from existing writings or documents. This conclusion is based upon the frequent occurrence in Genesis (ten times) of the expression 'these are the generations of,' and once 'this is the book of the generations of.
quote:
Gen5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God...
There is no reason for us to doubt that the people from the earliest times were not interested in an accurate historical record. but this isnt to say that its 100% conclusive as to where Moses got his information from...it could have come from all 3 of the above... the evidence we have indicates that he took some information from written records though... he mentioned records and histories several times. And for all the names in the family lines, there must have been some written record somewhere.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 03-08-2009 10:43 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 03-09-2009 6:38 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 83 (501981)
03-09-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
03-08-2009 9:46 PM


Re: Influences
And the strongest probability, the one you left out, is that the folks that wrote this stuff down were collecting and selecting the stories they'd heard from their elders. And making things of their own up to fill gaps.
Please remember that Moses, if he existed and wrote the Pentateuch, wrote about his own death and some events after it. Surely that is no more difficult than writing about Eve.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 9:46 PM Peg 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