|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can fundamentalists explain Job 26:12-13 for me? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
From Message 10 Phat...
quote: AbE: All of the evidence shows that different cultures from all over the world and all periods of time came up with similar creation myths. One recurring theme is some serpent or dragon or great fish that represents chaos and slaying the critter brings about order. In addition regional cultures adopted and exported the myths to and from their neighbors. Who has priority on some concept or image really seems irrelevant when discussing a story where such passages are used only as a plot device. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I said this.
quote: Jar then said that my creation myth issues were "just a total irrelevancy, a pointless exercise" and with wacked up contextual issues as it relates to Job. But, this scholar ,below , feels it is important.
quote: The contextual issues usually involve proving that Psalms 89:10 and Job 26:12-13 belong to the time of creation (and not some later time). Google I did this search trying to find the Anchor Bible Dictionary quote about Psalms 89 clearly being in the context of creation (not pasted here). It is in the logos discussion at the top of the google search. I found the above scholarly article (pasted in part). Jar seems to be thinking that Job should never be used to see what the Israelites thought literally, since the point of job is a morality tale or something (others say it was "just poetry" and Job was using his poet's license) That is like saying that Enuma Elish shouldn't be used since it was simply used to exalt Marduk and to establish his cult. We still have a primordial dragon myth on our hands and Job mentioned it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: The Canaanite texts of Lothan (or Littanu or whatever)are a clear cognate of Psalms 74 except for the name of the God doing the killing of the multi-headed beast. The Ugaritic texts pre-date 1200 BCE, which is before the Psalm's text. Enuma Elish could date as late as 1074 BCE, which means that parts of the Bible (including Genesis 49) could actually be older. I was more interested in what exactly the Biblical texts were saying though. Not chronological priority issues and who stole from whom. (most of the worlds creation myths can't be dated at all however, and could be just a few hundred years old, so get suspicious when one claims they are old) Also. The "plot device" claim hasn't been demonstrated. Really, why shouldn't we assume it was a belief that was taken literally? The text could very well have been based on a real, literal, rock solid historically accurate belief (with regards to the primeval age and the associated "creation")by the author of Job
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Here is a post, from another poster, that I noticed Phat agreed with.
quote: I responded with the questions. "But, can the same be said of Genesis 1? Verses 6-8 talk of the firmament (atmosphere?) being placed to separate the waters above from the waters below. Is that poetry?" "Is the sudden creation of man - as opposed to a millions of years evolutionary process - also part of the poetry and polemic?" "Would a 1000 BCE Israelite know how to distinguish the unhistorical lines from the literal?" Is every pagan concept that gets mentioned there ONLY a polemic, and not meant to be historical? Placing the stars in the firmament or atmosphere is just a polemical way to describe things? Just like the waters being above the firmament or atmosphere. It came from ancient middle eastern beliefs, as we see in Enuma Elish. The biblical text was just a polemic so as to overthrow pagan concepts?
quote: I asked if the ancient Israelites were let in on the so called "plot devices" and "polemical references" to unhistorical and unscientific pagan concepts. Martin Luther sure wasn't
quote: Then
quote: If a biblical text is proven to be unscientific, then it is just a "polemic against the pagans" or "poetic language this is simply a plot device". Gods, monsters, and cosmological conceptions that are now seen as unscientific were never meant to be literal history. So it goes now. Or are the cosmological conceptions in Genesis accurate? We now hear about "vapor canopies" which were able to project the stars into our field of vision so as to match the Genesis text with "science". A creationist Carl Baugh said that the early "firmament" might have actually sung the stars into the field of our senses in an acoustic way (I heard that somewhere). It's just the mention of pagan primeval monsters that is polemical I suppose? Genesis is both polemical and scientifically accurate at the same time? When does the mythological creature referencing polemical tactic end and the straight literal historical record begin to be used in the text? And when the heck were the ancient Israelites "in the know" when it came to the tactic? Nevermind the early, not to mention medieval, Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes: The "plot device" claim hasn't been demonstrated. Really, why shouldn't we assume it was a belief that was taken literally? The text could very well have been based on a real, literal, rock solid historically accurate belief (with regards to the primeval age and the associated "creation")by the author of Job As I have pointed out above, regardless of whether or not anyone held real, literal, rock solid historically accurate belief (with regards to the primeval age and the associated "creation") conveying that belief was not the purpose of the Book of Job. Historically the Book of Job was included in the Poets and like Proverbs and Ecclesiates part of the Books of Wisdom, the Ketuvim. It is 42 chapters long and you are picking two lines out of only one chapter and trying to weave whole cloth. It don't work. In addition, to even find any reference in those two lines to creation or some primal chaos you need to even cherry pick the translation. Here is the passage from the American Standard Version:
quote: Douay-Rheims:
quote: KJV:
quote: I will post even more if needed. The important point is that Job is a long poetic (and almost certainly incomplete) story about why bad things happen to good people and how theist should respond to their god character when shich things happen.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: Here is an English translation of the Septuagint (which is super-important when it comes to Job)
quote: Job 26:12 Hebrew issuesJob 26:12 Hebrew Text Analysis Hebrew Concordance: ma -- 3 Occurrences Job 26:13 Hebrew issuesJob 26:13 Hebrew Text Analysis Hebrew Concordance: llh -- 1 Occurrence I have only quoted from the NRSV till my Septuagint translation. I use the NRSV because is seems to be somewhat neutral when it comes to translating verses in order to match theological beliefs and also because is uses the 27th (?) edition of Nestle-Allen while the NIV (and most others) use only the 21st edition. The World Council of Churches is the largest protestant organization in the world and they attempted to have a scholarly translation. The NRSV plus Septuagint aren't exactly the translations to go to when one attempts to cherry pick. I'll use an example later to show you what the NIV does. I'll think of one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
First the issue.
quote: The NIV adds words and changes the text so as to match the Exodus text. But the Hebrew words are nowhere to be found in any text.Jeremiah 7:22-24 NIV - For when I brought your ancestors out - Bible Gateway The NIV, despite itself, seems to admit that there is a contradiction (albeit in a dishonest way) when the text gets altered in translation. The NIV is a go to translation for quote mining to change the original text's meaning. There are others for sure, but the NIV is amazingly dishonest. Not the NRSV. Especially not the NRSV when it is used alongside Septuagint translations. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: Here is a scholarly translation and commentary on text (scroll up slightly for beginning of coverage of the area of interest) God's Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery - Mary K. Wakeman - Google Books Here is a piece of Catholic endorsed scholarship
quote: Fundamentalist scholarship below
quote: See fuller quotes of the last 2 books hereEvC Forum: Evidence of a seas monster myth in Genesis 1? Even fundi scholars admit so(?)! Enough of this quote mining business. (accusations and such)Sorry for the large number of quotes. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18266 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
My belief, of course, is that Job and the Creator of all seen and unseen had a literal conversation....comments?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18266 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
This may be helpful:
quote: Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Job 26:12-13 NIV - By his power he churned up the sea; by - Bible Gateway
Here is a link where one can look at all the translations for Job 26:12-13 I think I quoted the NKJV above and said it was the NIV. The NIV might be the second. Not the NASB Computer was stalling badly when I was pasting. Here is NASB
quote: NKJV
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Job isn't in the first pages of the Bible, that's for sure. Now Job might be using stories from diverse sources but he said that the hand of God pierced the primeval serpent That would not seem to be much of a rebuttal. Job may have believed in a bunch of stuff that is not described in Genesis. If he said that God was greater than Set, would that, in your mind, elevate Set towards reality or to the same level as the Creation story as told in Genesis.
Fundamentalists use verse 7 to say that God placed a spherical earth into empty space. Fundy's say a lot of cute stuff. They are just adorable. Yeah, verse 7 is clearly a description of a creation level event. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: My belief, of course, is that Job and the Creator of all seen and unseen had a literal conversation....comments? And the evidence for that is absolutely as good as the evidence that Harry Potter had a literal conversation with Professor Snape or that between Echo and Juno (or Hera).Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And as I have said, even if true it is still just an irrelevancy and distraction from the subject matter of Job.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 739 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: Earlier you were obsessed with the King James translation. Here is the NKJV translation.
quote: "storm" was Rahab. This fits even (slightly) better with the point I am trying to make. Tiamat was the preexisting sea and primordial abyss. Here is the Hebrew cognate word from the same root. Tehom and it was in the first few verses of Genesis 1. Here is the fundi dictionary definition.
quote: Remember that it said Rahab represented the primordial chaos
quote: But back to the NKJV and 26:13a"By His Spirit He adorned the heavens" That fits even better with Enuma Elish, doesn't it?
quote: The New King James version has Rahab translated as"the storm" but then says the "heavens" were "adorned" as the "serpent" was "pierced". All in verse 13 of Job 26. In Enuma Elish the tail of Tiamat was used to make the Milky Way (I need to find a better, and more complete translation of Enuma Elish). Tiamat was the primordial sea and a serpent. The "Sea" god Yam was mentioned in Job 26:12a and Rahab was crushed in verse 12b. It fits even better with the NKJV except you need to understand that "storm" it Rahab. The parallels are striking. Job 26:12-13, Enuma Elish, and Genesis 1 all come together. In Genesis 1, the intelligent biological life didn't exist until AFTER the placing of the lights in the firmament (which Tiamat was used for in Enuma Elish), just like in Job 26, where the heavens were "adorned" and intelligent life still wasn't created yet. Just like Enuma Elish. The primordial serpent wasn't mentioned in Genesis 1 but the deep/tehom was. cognate with Tiamat and parallel to Rahab. The dragon was the deep/primordial waters, firmament, stars, ALL in Enuma Elish. The chaos matter that became the raw material for the universe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024