Would discovery of the story behind Genesis 1:1-6 annul the Creation concept ?

Genesis (in part) in the Hebrew Old Testament describes what is known as 'The Creation Myth'.
From the perspective that this same myth existed in other cultures prior to the 1230BC date given for this story it is not unique.Would the discovery of the source behind this story make people change their views or question the basis for their chosen beliefs ?I would like to commence an investigation into a claim made by Ronald Pegg from Australia who asks:If the word cited does in fact mean "gods", then the idea that one God was responsible for the 'Creation' is therefore incorrect.What do you think ?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

To be honest, I think biblical scholars would agree that infact the hebrew word for God, means,....God.I read your "proposed" topic though and it was interesting. Especially the part about the "gods" creating the "partial earth". Would that then mean the flood was local? But the fact is the interpretation you given was radically different from the norm. What makes you think this bloke could have found the "actual" meaning of Genesis, and not hundreds of scholars stretching back over the centuries?What do you want with this topic though? Do we assume your premise, "gods" is correct? Does that then mean Abraham, Izaac and Jacob in actual fact referred to gods? How far do we take it? Did Isaiah infact mean gods? What about Christ? Or Daniel? - Is it the actual name in the Hebrew you want to debate about, because I doubt we have many Hebrews here. You never know though.

I've heard of Kabbalistic translations of Genesis that agree with the idea that the in the original Hebrew, certain mentions of 'God' are actually plural, but that in most cases the word 'God' is singular.One interpretation of this is that "gods" refers more to existence or oneness or endlessness - much more of an Eastern religious concept, and not a pantheon of god-like entities.In Genesis the singular 'God' is created by or from this conceptual oneness or "gods" - "God" the entity is created to serve as an fathomable condiut between humans and the oneness of the universe ('gods').Historically, the accepted version of Genesis used the uniformity of the singular God, since the apparently plural mentions were few, and the clearly singular mentions were in the vast majority.I'm no scholar of Hebrew - so this is intellectual hearsay, but I think it is interesting to speculate upon...

Eddy writes:>>Why have we been led to believe that the Hebrew word for God (as found in the Old English Bible as Word # 430) is a singular word; when Strong’s Concordance clearly shows it is a plural word, meaning gods ?<<This would affect the concept of one God as the one creator of all at Genesis,but the connotations of the plural Hebrew term Elim from its singular form El and the plural Elohim and its singular form Elohah are more far reaching than simply referring to the plurality of the word God / Gods. Its plural meaning can refer to the power and majesty of the God depending on the context in which the plural term is found.The Hebrew term Elohim is also used in the scriptures for other beings such as angels(Psalms 8:5) or even men (Psalm 82:1,6)

Not really. It's something that has been the subject of study and discussion for a decade of centuries or more.No big deal.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no, "god" is plural throughout the bible.the word in question is 'elohiym which losely translated means "spirits of the air" or "people from the sky." it's used 2606 times throughout the ot. it's a plural of 'elowahh, which is long for 'el (curiously enough, the name of an elder wind god in other cultures). 'el is from 'ayil, which ram, leader, or strong man. 'ayil is from 'uwl, which is means "prominence" which is from an unused root meaning "twisted" or "strong"in other words, you'd have more of a case if you claimed god was a group of space aliens, who looked like big strong rams with twisted horns, than you would for time travelling.however, it fits soundly with qabalistic doctrine (multiple, gendered facets of a single of god), christian doctrine (the trinity), and just about any other reading (elohiym could include seraphim, cherubim, the sons of god, and other angels)

The scholars to whom you refer were mostly religious people, with preconceived religious ideas, who are looking for the religious meanings of the Bible. Even when they use a concordance to check each word, they are only finding the meaning that the "hundreds of scholars stretching back over the centuries" have decided the words meant - and from their religious perspective and context.Mr Pegg is using the original prim root and known Hebrew meanings as stated by Dr James Strong in his mid 1800s concordance, and not the 'given' meanings that are also included. ie. he is not making it up himself, he is using the stated meanings from a concordance that was written over 150 years ago specifically for the OE KJV Bible.Yes, the interpretation he gives is radically different, but it uses the original word meanings.
Religious scholars have not identified many biblical places, people or events, but Mr Pegg has done so when the original Hebrew meanings are employed. It is not my premise - it is what the original Hebrew word meant - but Yes.
All the ancient people who report trying to converse with GOD whether in 'a dream state' or through a priest or via temple oracle itself, are referring to a particular 'set of gods' - actually a visual representation of these gods. Historically, people used to 'accept' that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth - until their misunderstandings were pointed out to them. Yes, and all the other similar creation myths mentioned by other cultures throughout man's history.
Mr Pegg's research presents evidence that traces the source of this Creation Myth.
He found that in the first three words of the Old Testament, words two and three have had their order changed from the original Hebrew written text, and the meaning of 'gods' has been changed to GOD to explain the following story (being a sequence of images) into a religious "creation myth".The fact that the original meaning of GOD is plural already indicates the religious interpretation is somewhat different to what the original language was trying to portray. This is exactly where the 'set of gods' are seen - in the sky of the introduction sequence of the Ancients cd-rom. To an ancient person viewing the oracle in an Egyptian Temple or the Jerusalem Temple, they were literally seeing 'spirits of the air' and 'people from the sky'.
This is what is being reported in Genesis 1:1 - first the gods, then the sky, then the earth - exactly what is on the cd-rom. The reason there is a wind god in other cultures, is that they have not taken one of the first set of five 'gods' as there icon, but the subsequent red "Windrose".
In the Hebrew creation story it is the 'gods' (GOD) that form the sky, sea, and land.
In these other creation myths, it is the "windrose" (Wind God) that forms the land and animals etc.From their perspective and understanding, the sea, sky, land, and the information seen and heard from the Ancients cd-rom came into being due to the former images - the 'gods' or the 'windrose'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

He found that in the first three words of the Old Testament, words two and three have had their order changed from the original Hebrew written text.

---

Hello Eddy,I registered onto the site provided by your link, but I must confess that I soon found Mr. Pegg's arguments unconvincing and have found it difficult to wade through any more Mr. Pegg's speculations.If you could save me the trouble, then, would you please briefly explain Mr. Pegg's criteria in determining that "words 2 and 3" at the beginning of Genesis have been transposed?Also, would you briefly explain why the verb ברא (bara) is in the QAL 3rd person singular masculine form?As an aside, without going back to find the precise post, you made a previous statement regarding the use of את (eth) which precedes the direct objects "shamayim" and "eretz". You do realize that the use of "eth" here is simply as a direct object indicator which is vocalized but not translated?Thanks in advance for your response,Amlodhi

actually, a good percentage of the people who study and translate the bible are secular historians and literary linguists. the book has enormous historical impact, even for those who don't believe in it.and people still speak hebrew today. what about people who speak hebrew today? they do exist you know. why don't they come to mr. pegg's conclusions when they read the book in their native language?granted, they do have interesting and varied views. one of them states that since god is described as talking through the first bit of genesis, the seven days of creation are actually seven days over the course of which god describes how he made things to moses.not one midrash anywhere says anything about time travel, and many of them contain ideas that would get you labeled a heretic at a christian church. trust me on this one. no, he's using language in a stupid and incorrect way. he even ignore context entirely. it's unclear what they meant, specifically. whether they were refering to different aspects of god, or god and the angels, or what. it is plural, but the actions ascribed to the title are all singular. curious, no?

quote:

---

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.

---

last time the hebrews worshipped a visual representation of god, moses made them eat it. the greeks and egpytians would disagree. they knew the world was round around the time the earliest bible was written.and to correct the part you quoted, historically, the acepted version of genesis the jewish people have read has ALWAYS been plural. yes, but do they talk? umm. no. the earlier culture, the ba'al worshippers. 'el was the name of wind god. it's the same in hebrew. they'd have the same origin, not a different one.

It is a direct comparison between the word order when written in English to that of the Hebrew text.Genesis 1:1 in the KJV Bible reads in English as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth".From the KJV Holy Bible cd-rom (Media Graphics International, 1998) with the "Strong Concordance" feature activated, it reads as "In the beginning (7225) God (430) created (1254) (8804) (853) the heaven (8064) and (853) the earth (776)".This sentence therefore consists of 5 words (and two untranslated particles):
1 = "In the beginning" 2 ="God" 3 = "created" 4 = "heaven" 5 = "earth".Checking to the book version of Strong's Concordance, we find his meanings for
"In the beginning (7225)" re'shiyth = the first in order.
"God (430)" 'elohiym = plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense.
"created (1254)" bara' = (absolutely) to create.
"heaven (8064)" shamayim = the sky (alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move).
"earth (776)" 'erets =the earth (at large, or partitively 'a land').
(8804) is not in the book form of Strong's Concordance; but in the electronic form = a verb pattern, that expresses the 'simple' or 'casual' action of the root in the active voice.
(853), the (2) untranslated particles = generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb.In the Hebrew text, when an interlinear edition is consulted, it is found that the original text (written right to left) follows this order - In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth - that's words 1 3 2 4 5.Now when Strong's Hebrew meanings are used in place of the Old English word in their original textual order, we have - the first in order, gods; to create the sky, a land. I assume you are telling me that it is. As far as I understand, the QAL references have been added later and are not part of Strong's original work. I know not, and can not comment on this as it does not appear in the book form of my 1995 concordance. Yes I did, but only once I read it in Strong's Concordance for myself. And this is one of Mr Pegg's main points.
This indicator is associated with the singular words "sky" and "land". The verb "created" is also singular.
Mr Pegg deduces that in this verse, the singular verb refers to the (two) singular nouns, and not the plural noun.So using the original word order the verse describes a sequence of (what have become to be known as biblical) images in precise order - "first in order, created, gods {next} the sky {next} a land. The first of the five gods that is seen in the introduction sequence, is the icon for the lowest civilization on the "land" of the cd-rom's 'map page' (contents page) that follows the "sky (and sea)" page (once we have sailed there because the 'wind' blew the 'sailboat' to a new land). When this 'underworld' is selected, we are taken to another map - of Egypt - whereon seven cities as seven large red dots are placed (the firebrands of the seven hells). When any of them is selected, the voice of a male narrator is heard.
So YES, to an ancient person, the god speaks to them personally. We actually agreed on this, and it is one of the main points that Mr Pegg is making. Let me remove the confusion, and explain what I meant.
Yes, they ARE the same origin. What I was saying, was that the Hebrews use the idea of the gods (singular GOD) {that were seen from the cd-rom} to represent their one and only god concept, while the cultures worshipping 'el (the wind god) took their association, not from the five god images, but from the red windrose (bag of winds / Storm-wind god etc.).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

It is a direct comparison between the word order when written in English to that of the Hebrew text.

​

. . . when an interlinear edition is consulted, it is found that the original text (written right to left) follows this order - In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth - that's words 1 3 2 4 5.

---

Unfortunately, you won't learn Hebrew usage and grammar from looking at an interlinear bible edition or a Strong's concordance. Mr. Pegg and yourself are so confused here that I hardly know where to begin.Albeit so, first off, normal Hebrew syntax is constructed differently than English syntax. This simple fact can be learned by consulting any elementary level Hebrew grammar text.For instance, you might try "Biblical Hebrew, An Introductory Grammar" by Page H. Kelley. Relevant excerpts:Page 37, Sec. 32.1 - "The normal word order in a Hebrew verbal sentence is first the verb, then the subject (plus any modifiers), and finally the object (or objects).2 Chr. 29:9 נפלו אבותינו בחרבIn English this is translated as, "Our ancestors have fallen by the sword. (i.e. - subject > verb > object)In the Hebrew, however, the order is: נפלו (They have fallen) אבותינו (our ancestors) בחרב (by the sword) (i.e. verb > subject > object)Sec. 32.2 When a different word order from the one described above is used, it is used to emphasize the part of speech that is placed first. יהוה The lord (emphatic) נתן gave ויהוה and the Lord (emphatic) לקח has taken away.Thus, as any first semester student of Hebrew could tell you, there is nothing mysterious or unusual about the word order in the first sentence of Genesis. Mr. Pegg needs to put away his Strong's concordance for awhile and learn something about Hebrew.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly

​

The verb "created" is also singular.

---

Yes, the verb ברא (bara) is in the singular form. More specifically, it is in the QALAL 3rd person, masculine, singular form. i.e he created, and not they created. Understand? This is why the appellation "Elohim" used for God in this instance (as well as others) is considered as referring to a singular entity even though "Elohim" is technically a plural form.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly

​

Mr Pegg deduces that in this verse, the singular verb refers to the (two) singular nouns, and not the plural noun.

---

If by the "two singular nouns" you mean "shamayim" (heavens) and "eretz" (earth) then this is correct. If by the "plural" noun you mean "Elohim", no one has ever suggested that Elohim is modified by the verb. In this sentence, the proper noun "Elohim" is the subject of the sentence, not a direct object noun.Hence, what the first sentence of Genesis says is:PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE - Bereshith (from the Hebrew term "rosh" meaning head; ie. "at the head of") i.e. In the beginning; then the VERB - bara (Qal 3rd, sing. masc.) he created; then (who created?) THE SUBJECT - Elohim (technically plural in form but used here to describe a singular entity as indicated by the verb "bara" = "he" created, not "they" created) thus, God; and what did he create?, the DIRECT OBJECTS - h'shamayim v'h'eretz, the heavens and the earth.Thus in the first sentence of Genesis, we have, in the perfectly normal and expected order of the Hebrew syntax, "In the beginning, God (he) created the heavens and the earth."Incidentally, the term "shamayim" (heavens) is also not properly plural. It rather utilizes a dual construct that designates things that are in pairs such as ears or hands. Some other terms that utilize this dual construct are "water" (mayim), Egypt (mitzrayim) and Jerusalem (y'rushlayim).Basically, Eddy, Mr. Pegg is leading you down the primrose path. From what I've read and from what you've told me here, he apparently doesn't know the first thing about properly translating biblical Hebrew.I have nothing against you and would be honored to consider you a friend. But I suggest that you consult some proper scholarship before you go flying off the grip with Mr. Pegg.namaste'AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-01-2004 01:04 PM

Amlodhi:I told this guy in another topic that it is the sign of a solid amateur when Strong's becomes the primary source for Biblical word meanings.

Hi Amlodhi:I've always wanted to acknowledge that you are one monster depository of Biblical knowledge !

quote:

---

THE SUBJECT - Elohim (technically plural in form but used here to describe a singular entity as indicated by the verb "bara" = "he" created, not "they" created) thus, God;

---

Care to substantiate this ?Why say "Elohim"/plural if it is not meant ?Are you bringing a monotheistic bias into this rendering ?

i've been known to use it. correctly, of course, and more updated edition.however, i am a solid amateur, admittedly, and don't have much knowledge of hebrew or greek. i would like to learn hebrew, though. but i take strongs into consideration, with idea that it, like anything else, can be fallible....but how is eddy arguing his weird strong's logic against someone who obviously SPEAKS hebrew?