Let There Be Man

The whole Creation story in Genesis 2 and on is a collection of fables, Just So stories. Yes, A&E were simply characters in the story.But we are wandering way away from the topic which is on plurals, references to singular character or indicative of a multitude?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That would be implicit then, not explicit. And implicit means open to interpretation. So, do you have anything other than John 1 to indicate that there was a plethora of gods in Genesis 1?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi Sean,Yeah, but in the Improved Testament, due out later this year, limbosis states that jesus was goofy. He was so goofy, he had people believe he actually felt pain. The man was GOOFY. Here's an excerpt (limbosis 1:2-3)...And, the godlord declared that the word was goofy. And it was so. The lordgod then said that the whole idea of jesus was stupid, and began to take is back, lest the sheep uncovered the truth of the firmament. And, it was so...So...I don't know who you want to believe. All we know is that is wasn't written into the Ol' Testament.Sean, did I mention goofy?

This is more or less how jesus will be depicted in the Improved Testament (IT). It is unclear whether he will have any more followers after this. But, one thing is certain. He sure is goofy.
... ...
(Okay, I feel a little better now.)

Thank you for the information, Arach. That's the kind of thing I was fishing for when I asked for readers' thoughts. You give us details and a helpful start on context.I see two comments about the general situation to be made as we move ahead.1 Something here seems to have been misunderstood. No one made 'an argument from traditional art.' You were responding to a post that pointed out a discrepancy between the wording of the text and common pictorial representations. The post then solicited comments.Your response supplied details about the discrepancy between the wording of the text and common pictorial representations.This isn't refutation. It's support and elaboration.2 This is fine provided one recognizes that ultimately no wedge can be driven between matters of text and matters of art. The text is art.Texts are works of literature. Literature is art. Texts therefore come with the same advisory label all art does. They possess all the susceptibility to 'bias, dogma, nonsense, anachronism and embellishment' thereunto pertaining. No difference exists in kind.When we discuss the different conceptions of cherubim that have existed in history, we inevitably refer to works of art for the evidence. Each creation carries forward images drawn from earlier conceptions. Yet often they show departures from what came before, too. This is as true of the Genesis text as it is of medieval European painting.The first tellers and hearers of the Genesis stories knew what cherubs looked like. They knew it the same way anyone today does. They had encountered cherubs--in art.In their case the information was conveyed at least as often through visual images as through verbal images. As you show us, the picture they carried in their heads was no Raphael-esque babyface. Knowing the details of their cherub--its animal body, armless--helps us understand better the account given in Genesis. It provides context. It makes us more culturally literate. The culture, of course, was theirs. They were more literate in it than we can ever hope to be.A similar process helps us understand works of art from any culture, from any time.Which cherub is definitive? It depends on what you want to define.Each image tells literary truth, symbolic truth, cultural truth. None possesses biological truth. The ancient Babylonian image is as culturally skewed as the ancient Hebrew one which is as culturally skewed as the medieval European one. An image from medieval Europe may tell us little about ancient Mesopotamia, but it is definitive if we want to understand medieval Europe. The reverse is also true. And all these cherubs enjoy the same amount of biological proof of their existence: none.When we talk about cherubs, we are talking about the evolution of a symbol through history.

ancient Mesopotamian sculpture--> ancient Hebrew literature--> medieval European painting

It's all art.__Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair (aaurgh!)

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

limbosis:This is a Bible Study forum. Even though you don't appear to want to study the Bible, please do not disrespect what others believe. Messages 78 and 79 were unwarranted and did not serve to further the discussion.As per the guidelines, "Always treat other members with respect."Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

Archer writes: I think you're really mincing words here. If you want to reduce all of history down to artistic interpretation, including the bible, then there's no point in discussing it. You're invoking a kind of chicken and egg approach when it isn't necessary, if it even applies. You're saying that sculpture and other visual art evolved separately from the art of bible text.What does the bible say that the Cherub looks like?Think of it this way, accepting that it must look like something, why would a sculptor choose such a bizarre combination of forms? Talk about fertile imagination, that would go well beyond mine, because I would have at least given the thing a pair of arms.Now, please don't revert behind the notion that Cherubim do not exist, because that would be begging the question. Once you admit, for the sake of this discussion, that the Cherubim must look like something, ANYTHING, you effectively concede that the visible features of this creature would be duly subject to a consistent definition. This situation lends itself to categorization, and it is indeed one aspect of biological classification. There's no need to dance around the issue.And, please don't say that the angels are shape-shifters, because that would be a totally different ball of wax.

quote:

---

Who is this US that the "lord god lord" refers to, on the first page of the "holy" bible?

---

The bottom line is that no one knows. Only the writers or storytellers know what they meant at the time.But I'll add a few more guesses to the pile.The Torah which, according to legend, was created before the heaven and earth. Then there's the possibility that the writer's or storytellers developed the original stories by drawing on cultures around them and didn't dump all the polytheistic verbage.There's also the thought that God was talking to the universe he had already created.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I like that one: God and the universe together created man in the image of God and the universe.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Why?One of my favorite architects is Frank Lloyd Wright. If you look at his career you find that his concept of the HOUSE changes over time.The visualization of Cherub too has evolved over time from that found in Mesopotamia as shown to the cute little chubby babies found on todays Valentine's Day Cards.Not only has the visualization, the picture of the cherub evolved, so has the concept. In the beginning Cherubs were among the baddest boys on the block. Now they seem relatively harmless little critters.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

On the contrary. It has been established that the only evidence we have for cherubs comes from art. Take away artistic representations and you have no data about cherubs to discuss. I have no idea what you mean by this. Your thought process appears to be scrambled. On the contrary: I clearly spoke of the debt of one artwork to another. No distinction was made based on medium. An interesting question. Arachnophilia helped establish that the picture of 'cherub' in any given culture and age may differ. The concept certainly evolved.The Bible is an omnibus of writings from a number of centuries. We may expect its portrayals of cherubs to reflect the evolution of the idea within Jewish and early Christian culture. Is this a rhetorical question intended as an argument from incredulity? Or are you really asking me?I can share a few comments about how artists come up with these things if you are genuinely curious. So? Sure you would have. Many artists have. You have been influenced by these interpretations.But if you had never heard of a cherub before, you would not think of arms at all. You would say 'What's a cherub?'As we have seen, this anthropomorphic idea of the cherub evolved later. The prevailing image in Mesopotamian idea at the time Genesis was written is closer in concept to a sphinx. I already said that they do exist. The evidence is overwhelming. It is also firm in its parameters.Cherubs exist as ideas, as symbols, as cultural icons, as artistic figures.Cherubs do not exist as physical, biological phenomena.The question of whether cherubs exist as metaphysical phenomena remains open. As long as we occupy a physical universe, the metaphysical possibility remains open. Cherubs exist as an idea. We can say that for certain.We also know that human beings conceive of ideas in some form. We make mental images--we 'imagine' a concept. We do this whether or not we choose to express our idea through artistic media.But your wording 'must look like something' limits the options. Some images tend toward the concrete and some toward the abstract. The law of gravity is an idea. Serendipity is an idea. Jazz is an idea. What 'must' these things look like? How so?In the 1920s the idea of 'jazz' would have evoked a different aural image than it does today. In the minds of some people today it will evoke a different image than it does in others, depending on the jazz music they have encountered.It would be very silly for me to argue that, because 'jazz' exists, the idea must look like something (its medium is sound) and that this picture may never alter or change. That's an unwarranted series of assumptions. It bears no relationship to how these things really work. There is nothing about cherubs to classify biologically because no biological evidence exists.You may as well try to come up with a biological classification for serendipity or the law of gravity. The project would make as much sense. You assume a biological reality you have no evidence to support. Until such evidence can be produced, a serious discussion of cherubs in biological terms cannot proceed.All you have are representations in art. Art is therefore the only evidence we can seriously discuss. It would have to be a soft one.Art, once again.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

my religion and my textual analysis have very little to do with each other. i am all for an honest reading of the bible, and that includes the good and bad qualities of god that it describes. everyon is free to believe what they wish, but what's on the page is fairly black and white. that's a good guess. i'll be 24 in april. oh, that's just moose. he's really picky about things on both sides of the aisle. the thread was not (briefly) closed to hamper debate, but so the title would be changed to something more descriptive of the content of the op. better thread titles actually help ensure better debate, because the interested people are more likely to realize what the thread is about. it's your thread. if you can think of a better title, please do. i don't feel this one quite describes your question, "plurals for god" just seems to imply that old "elohim is plural" canard. which is not what this thread is about. jar is no longer a moderator. i don't think he holds much sway, either, as he left over a dispute among the admins. technically, that is a babylonian (assyrian? sumerian? akkadian?) shedu. but apparently, they are often described using the adjective karubi which is semantically related to the hebrew karub, and means "mighty." at some point, the shedu were supposed to have taken on this adjective as a name, as well.in many sumerian cities, you can see them at city gates and temple entrances. they are like gaurds. which fits exactly with the hebrew description. the cherubim gaurd the tree of life, they gaurd the ark of the covenant in solomon's temple, and they gaurd the shekinah of god on top of the ark. i think it would be largely anachronistic, yes, but there is no good argument that it cannot be the trinity. personally, i feel the best answer lies with the sons of god, which might be distantly related ideologically to "the son of god" jesus christ. it is a genuine possibility. can we find similar instances in other parts of the text? i have not, personally, but i'm also not exactly a walking exhaustive concordance. yes, this might make sense, as a council does show up not only job, but in many of the surrounding cultures. i think that's a bit extreme. the problem i see with fundamentalism is that they take an "all or nothing" approach to the text. either it's the perfect word of god, or it's worthless. but this isn't realistic. even as a work of pure literature it is still a library of texts that represents 1000 years of tradition and culture of a particular society, countless points of view and works of art and poetry, and is one of the most influential texts in western society. it's worthwhile for any one of those reasons, nevermind that much of the poetry still has the power to speak to us on the human condition and the quest for understanding of our lives and of god some 2,000 years later.i see "it's not consistent, let's chuck it" everybit as ridiculous an argument as "it's the word of god and is true in every minute detail." both arguments have the same fundamental problem -- they deny what the text actually is: an evolving human library of documents, and compilations, written by scores of different authors in different regions at different times. we shouldn't expect it all to agree, or to have one consistent argument or point of view, or moral, or opinion on things. there will be argument, and there will be variety -- and that's what makes the text interesting.

---

yes, and my point is that common pictorial representations are commonly wrong. especially byzantine and renaissance ones. i didn't mean to imply otherwise. but the wedge i am trying to drive here is one of about 1400 years time-span, and at least a thousand miles. the people who paint pictures of the archangel michael, holding a flaming sword, gaurding the tree of life, are doing so from their own particular reading of the text, which already exists. often, it's clear that not a lot of thought has been put into cultural context (how often is jesus painted as a roman?) let alone reading the text carefully.the fact that someone thought "cherubim" meant a singular archangel is about as valuable an argument as anything from the talmud. it's all after-the-fact, and all personal interpretation that has been disconnected from the actual source. of course they do. and studying them, we should just be careful to keep our biases, dogma, nonsense, anachronism, and embellishments (or those of medieval and renaissance painters) separate from those of the authors. i'll give you a good example below. right, and if we'd like to understand what they were thinking when they wrote the text, we need to look at what they thought cherubs were. here's my example. you're not thinking of cherubs.these guys are NOT cherubs. they are putti. that this is what we think of as "cherubim" is yet another anachronism, and evolution in the concept. in medieval (and renaissance?) art, cherubim are portrayed as having 4 or 6 wings, generally adult, and quite strange-looking. yes. i say we go with what the authors had in mind. while texts (especially this one) tend to have a life beyond their authors, in the minds of the readers, i think a good analysis would take into account the intentions of the people writing it.

---

they have wings, and can fly. and they seem to be grouped with animals:

quote:

---

1Ki 7:29 And on the borders that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work.

---

ezekiel also provides some information, but it's highly inconsistent and very likely metaphorical. what does a dragon look like? i'm going to be a pain, because i'm really picky about careful textual analysis, and you just jumped the gun. where does it say that cherubim are angels?

---

Salibi explores the possibility of a pantheon of geographical 'gods'originating in localities in Asir. He proposes many mistranslations of titles when they actually refer to god names. Thus,El Olam is not 'for ever', but god of the region of Al al-Alam existing today,El Shaddai (mistrans. God Almighty), El Ro`i (mstr. God of Seeing),El Sabayat (mstr.gazelles), El Jabbah,El Salamah etc.all surviving as villages or regions today. YHWH has a number of appelations retained in various localities and surviving villages. El Elyon (mistr. God Most High) was a god of mountain heights attested by a village carrying the name.Re plurals, I quote Salibi:'First of all, we must remember that the word denoting the One 'God' in Hebrew, is Elohim ('lhym) which is the masculine plural of eloh ('lh) or 'god'. Now, one may safely suggest that what came to be recognised in West Arabia, at some point, as the One God was originally a pantheon of local and tribal gods. A count of place-names in West Arabia starting with AL ('l cf. Hebrew 'l 'god'), setting aside the countless place-names carrying an Arabic definite article al which could conceivably be a survival of the Hebrew 'l, would show that the ancient West Arabian pantheon originally numbered hundreds of gods, possibly including gods called by different names.' The Bible came from Arabia--Kamal Salibi p.147-148