tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post4227824346141162796..comments2023-06-21T02:30:06.647-07:00Comments on Project: The King and I: Genesis 1-3 In the beginning...Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08310824690509335801noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-91558864503279754062011-03-01T18:07:31.823-08:002011-03-01T18:07:31.823-08:00"The sequence doesn't match up, and what ..."The sequence doesn't match up, and what the hell is a firmament anyway?" <br /><br />The word "firmament" comes from the Latin root word "firmus," meaning durable, solid, steadfast, strong. In other words, a SOLID object. In ancient cosmology, the sky was seen, not as a gaseous envelope surrounding a ball-like Earth, but as a solid dome over the Earth, like an inverted bowl. There were windows or gates that could be opened to let out the rain water, which was inside a great reservoir inside the dome. Above the dome is where God lived. The dome separated the "waters above" (the reservoir) from the "waters below" (seas, rivers, and the primal ocean).<br /><br />This is the view that Fundies would have us all believe has a scientific basis.<br /><br />"If we do not have this radical corruption in our own natures then Jesus, as the focal point of Scripture, and his rescue mission make little sense."<br /><br />You would think Christians would wonder why Jesus never talked about Adam and Eve and original sin. It is never mentioned once in all the gospels.Elvee Kayehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09062863555965835644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-33267794522789559682011-01-19T21:31:38.880-08:002011-01-19T21:31:38.880-08:00Further to my posting on the Documentary Hypothesi...Further to my posting on the Documentary Hypothesis, this theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) is even accepted by Conservapedia: "The great majority of Bible experts accept one or another version of the Documentary Hypothesis. However it is rejected by some Fundamentalists." One of the two versions of the creation myth in Genesis appears to have been written in the Kingdom of Israel, and the other in the Kingdom of Judah. (For a period of about 50 years these two kingdoms were united under King David, and then under his son King Solomon.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356923386171604653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-734855513131881722011-01-19T21:22:57.331-08:002011-01-19T21:22:57.331-08:00Several people have commented on the fact that the...Several people have commented on the fact that there appear to be two versions of the creation myth in Genesis, but no one has explicitly mentioned the Documentary Hypothesis. Quoting from Wikipedia: "The documentary hypothesis (DH) (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis[1]), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). ... The hypothesis developed slowly over the course of the 19th century, by the end of which it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P." (Note that one posting on this blog referred to "P", so evidently that poster is aware of the Documentary Hypothesis.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356923386171604653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-82747568233344089692011-01-07T12:18:33.462-08:002011-01-07T12:18:33.462-08:00I think it is important to mention here, in Genesi...I think it is important to mention here, in Genesis chapter 3, the account of the fall. Most Bibles have a section heading for this chapter called just that and it sets up a most critical doctrine: original sin. The question of what is man is answered here and will inform everything you read in the Bible after this point. If we do not have this radical corruption in our own natures then Jesus, as the focal point of Scripture, and his rescue mission make little sense.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08973448438167246907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-15039495909056034282011-01-06T11:14:15.592-08:002011-01-06T11:14:15.592-08:00"Accepted Scientific theory" about the s..."Accepted Scientific theory" about the shape of the earth 500 years ago was that the earth was flat. And so your question about "Accepted scientific theory" regarding origins assumes man has all the answers (like he did about the shape of the earth). A vote of scientists about something that can't be measured/tested is more about what they put their faith in (materialism) than about anything testable/repeatable. As for me, right here in the middle of an infinite universe, my Faith is in the infinite God-Elohim. Here is how Genesis 1:1-3 touches upon science. Light being mentioned before the creation of the Sun means that God is speaking of the creation of time itself. This is logical when you consider that God was creating the space-time-matter universe from nothing (literally). Genesis 1:1 records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. Light was not created, since God Himself dwells in light. On the other hand, He created darkness (Isaiah 45:7). Credit for this goes to the late Dr. Henry Morris of www.icr.orgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10739913572991122653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-10803819105575199292011-01-05T16:24:59.975-08:002011-01-05T16:24:59.975-08:00Watchful, I haven't removed any post from this...Watchful, I haven't removed any post from this blog.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08310824690509335801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-2117657142318991442011-01-05T15:26:05.874-08:002011-01-05T15:26:05.874-08:00Bruce: Did my earlier post get removed? If it pos...Bruce: Did my earlier post get removed? If it posted twice, that was an error. I have not done this before and was confused.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10739913572991122653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-17488626310317154642011-01-05T12:15:49.291-08:002011-01-05T12:15:49.291-08:00Glad I found this site, via RealClearReligion. A ...Glad I found this site, via RealClearReligion. A few points: Adam's name is a pun with "earth," but it's not exactly the same word - "earth" is "Adamah." "Adam" simply means "man" (or "human"), so it's really up to the translators when they decide to translate it as "man" or as "Adam."<br /><br />I've always been a little puzzled by thinking that "it's several sources mashed together" does away with questions of things that seem to contradict. It seems to assume that the editors were mindless clods who were too stupid to realize that they were telling two different creation stories, which is blatantly obvious when you read Genesis 1 and 2. Whoever was putting the stories together must have had SOME idea of a way that they could both be true. It's only in the last hundred years that literalism became entrenched; and there are Christians who believe that it is the Divinely inspired Word of God AND that not all of it is intended to be taken literally. Me, for one. (Although, to be fair, I'm a New Church (Swedenborgian) Christian, and plenty of other Christians would say that means I'm not Christian at all).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-49591444121862925022011-01-05T11:44:49.000-08:002011-01-05T11:44:49.000-08:00If this is the 3rd time I land this post then I am...If this is the 3rd time I land this post then I am terribly sorry!! My response - "Accepted Scientific theory" about the shape of the earth 500 years ago was that the earth was flat. And so your question about "Accepted scientific theory" regarding origins assumes man has all the answers (like he did about the shape of the earth). A vote of scientists about something that can't be measured/tested is more about what they put their faith in (materialism) than about anything testable/repeatable. As for me, right here in the middle of an infinite universe, my Faith is in the infinite God-Elohim. Here is how Genesis 1:1-3 touches upon science. Light being mentioned before the creation of the Sun means that God is speaking of the creation of time itself. This is logical when you consider that God was creating the space-time-matter universe from nothing (literally). Genesis 1:1 records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. Light was not created, since God Himself dwells in light. On the other hand, He created darkness (Isaiah 45:7). Credit for this goes to the late Dr. Henry Morris of www.icr.orgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10739913572991122653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-57149472747454616942011-01-05T11:22:55.262-08:002011-01-05T11:22:55.262-08:00"Accepted Scientific theory" about the s..."Accepted Scientific theory" about the shape of the earth 500 years ago was that the earth was flat. And so your question about "Accepted scientific theory" regarding origins assumes man has all the answers (like he did about the shape of the earth). A vote of scientists about something that can't be measured/tested is more about what they put their faith in (materialism) than about anything testable/repeatable. As for me, right here in the middle of an infinite universe, my Faith is in the infinite God-Elohim. Here is how Genesis 1:1-3 touches upon science. Light being mentioned before the creation of the Sun means that God is speaking of the creation of time itself. This is logical when you consider that God was creating the space-time-matter universe from nothing (literally). Genesis 1:1 records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. Light was not created, since God Himself dwells in light. On the other hand, He created darkness (Isaiah 45:7). Credit for this goes to the late Dr. Henry Morris of www.icr.orgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10739913572991122653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-21032646620730962682011-01-05T11:11:08.585-08:002011-01-05T11:11:08.585-08:00"Accepted Scientific theory" about the s..."Accepted Scientific theory" about the shape of the earth 500 years ago was that the earth was flat. And so your question about "Accepted scientific theory" regarding origins assumes man has all the answers (like he did about the shape of the earth). A vote of scientists about something that can't be measured/tested is more about what they put their faith in (materialism) than about anything testable/repeatable. As for me, right here in the middle of an infinite universe, my Faith is in the infinite God-Elohim. Here is how Genesis 1:1-3 touches upon science. Light being mentioned before the creation of the Sun means that God is speaking of the creation of time itself. This is logical when you consider that God was creating the space-time-matter universe from nothing (literally). Genesis 1:1 records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. Light was not created, since God Himself dwells in light. On the other hand, He created darkness (Isaiah 45:7). Credit for this goes to the late Dr. Henry Morris of www.icr.orgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10739913572991122653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-33171429162929600512011-01-05T07:09:09.705-08:002011-01-05T07:09:09.705-08:00As a recovering creationist, I have to say that fo...As a recovering creationist, I have to say that for a long time I did find the genesis account as a passable euphemism for our modern understanding of the universe's beginnings. Specifically in comparison to the more exotic pantheistic creation myths of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse religions, this idea of the universe starting with a flash of light, the creation of solid matter and the heavenly bodies, and then the (roughly) gradual appearance of life on the planet.<br /><br />I held this idea for a long time, throughout my journey through a kind of christian-leaning agnosticism, and frankly I still don't think I've ever heard a convincing argument against it's content. It gets some details wrong, it's hazy on the details and uses terms that we don't recognise today, but in broad strokes, it still seems to me to be more or less plausible if you wanted to reconcile belief in the bible with scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.<br /><br />The killing blow for me was finding out that not only was it not unique in telling this narrative of nothing-to-something in the creation of the world, it's thought to be largely built out of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_creation_myth" rel="nofollow">Enûma Eliš</a> (the Babylonian creation myth), and concommitant with that discovered the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">Documentary hypothesis</a> model of the old testament. I actually have to put that down as the moment I became an atheist, too.chilli fiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15472577504006923443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-32671273470717180732011-01-04T15:46:24.547-08:002011-01-04T15:46:24.547-08:00Ishmael by daniel quinn blew me away . To me, his ...Ishmael by daniel quinn blew me away . To me, his story of finally answering the question, what is the "Worlds oldest profession"? Opened up the Bible as a historical document filled to the gills with TRUTH, it's just our sorry assed laziness for not recognizing it soon enough. Where were you all !!!! As a moment of reflection it is not too late for us to change. Change of this magnitude has to impact everybody atheists and agnostics . fools and sages. Do we have this courage? <br /><br />The Bible would have us sing "Don't worry be happpy" Believe in us and all is forgiven. <br /><br />Atheists would have us sing " It's the end of the world and I know it". If you didn't believe in them we wouldn't be in this mess. <br /><br />Who is taking responsibilty?<br /><br />I'm glad I found your siteUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440733073541034603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-75480309720770014742011-01-04T14:53:29.615-08:002011-01-04T14:53:29.615-08:00God is. Which is to say something is. God is the u...God is. Which is to say something is. God is the universe. It happened this way. The light is separated from the non light. Order is separated from chaos. the noise floor is separated from the signal. God is. Which is to say the writer, perhaps hundred of writers, orators, story tellers, self aware beings announce they are. They are different than the animals. They are different from the water and air. They are different than the land. They are different from what brought this to be. They are. The universe is. There is some creative force at work. For all this is. The nature of it is it started and is progressing. The water surrounds them. The water which is unknowable at the time is in the sky, under the ground, all around. It contains them and is unknown to them. It holds life and death. In the sphere of water that surrounds them only in the middle can they survive. These are the symbols they have to write about universe. Divinely inspired or not this is all they have to convey the truth they feel and see. <br />What is the process of that truth? How do they derive meaning? To understand the words we must understand them at the beginning. Not a simple task.Joe Jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506209278440756150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-7266678411140444862011-01-04T14:36:54.694-08:002011-01-04T14:36:54.694-08:00One thing I've always wondered is how would pe...One thing I've always wondered is how would people from that time period interpret a modern scientific explanation. For example take the story of Eve's creation which has parallels with the process of asexual reproduction of single cell organisms. If you had no understanding of biology wouldn't you infer a very literal translation of taking part of one body, say a rib, and using that to create a second person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-70224206352384883892011-01-03T20:55:18.543-08:002011-01-03T20:55:18.543-08:00On the quality of the actual writing, I'll add...On the quality of the actual writing, I'll add this. Shakespeare's never been a problem for me, and I've thoroughly enjoyed it even in high school (Although some of the innuendos at the beginning of Romeo and Juliet went over my head. For some reason, now my mind's even dirtier and I find that scene hilarious.). The bible isn't difficult to read because it's more complex. It's difficult to read because the grammar is clunky. Maybe that's just an issue with this translation, but shouldn't it be just as divinely inspired as the original Hebrew version? Or was God purely hands off this round?Alex Russelburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12850610730631819049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-19931287477302703192011-01-03T15:24:29.367-08:002011-01-03T15:24:29.367-08:00@Tom:
That was back in middle school. Since then,...@Tom:<br /><br />That was back in middle school. Since then, I've actually tried to read the Bible again, and I'm currently in Ephesians. (I'm reading the NIV, but I thought that I might try to follow along in the KJV as well, if I can get finished with the NIV quickly.)<br /><br />The reason I wanted to learn more about the Jewish take on the Bible was because I know that it may be different, since they don't include the New Testament. I've mostly heard about the Christian take, so I think learning about it from a Jewish perspective might be interesting, to compare and contrast.<br /><br />I can understand why the Christian interpretation would be focused on Christ, of course. What I mean is that that there are those who try to side-step questions about the Old Testament by referring to Jesus.<br /><br />-Ani SharminAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-83434237448084124372011-01-03T07:34:48.711-08:002011-01-03T07:34:48.711-08:00@Ani...
We refer everything to Jesus b/c it is th...@Ani...<br /><br />We refer everything to Jesus b/c it is the New Testament to which Jesus himself tells the Jews of all of their wrongdoings. All Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God so of course we will quote the Son often.<br /><br />Also...try to read a more reader friendly Bible than the one attempted in middle school. God did inspire writers to write the Bible. I am sure your reading level has improved since 6-8 grade.<br /><br />And finally...the Jewish faith does not practice the NT since they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. so you will only learn OT from the Jewish side.<br /><br />-Tom, the new guyTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10695914476049102364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-36225489204391781832011-01-02T20:29:46.310-08:002011-01-02T20:29:46.310-08:00@Brian Hitt: I listened to the first two lectures...@Brian Hitt: I listened to the first two lectures so far from the Yale Old Testament class taught by Christine Hayes, and it was really fascinating. Thanks so much for mentioning it!<br /><br />About Shakespeare being a better writer than God, I think it was Sam Harris who wrote that in End of Faith. "The belief that certain books were written by God (who, for reasons difficult to fathom, made Shakespeare a far better writer than himself) leaves us powerless to address the most potent source of human conflict, past and present." (paperback, p. 35)<br /><br />When I first attempted to read the Bible in middle school (which turned out to be an unsuccessful attempt) my first observation was that the book couldn't be written by God, since God had to be better writer than this.<br /><br />@Erp: I've always wanted to learn more about the Bible from a Jewish perspective. Too often, it seems like some Christians dismiss the Tanakh by explaining away everything by referring to Jesus.<br /><br />-Ani SharminAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-11696716696307965162011-01-02T13:45:03.523-08:002011-01-02T13:45:03.523-08:00G1:26 "Let us make man in our image"
Is...G1:26 "Let us make man in our image"<br /><br />Is there more than one god at this time?CDChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09532382638637024205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-2830375091323130612011-01-02T06:03:46.030-08:002011-01-02T06:03:46.030-08:00The test for whether any particular text "pre...The test for whether any particular text "predicts" something is whether or not people prior to the prediction coming true can accurately understand what is being predicted.<br /><br />Using the Quran as an example, it's all well and good to point to a passage that, in modern translations, seem to be very clearly describing an accurate cosmology, but you then also have you demonstrate that a) Muslims were able to derive from this passage an accurate cosmology prior to its deduction through scientific means, and that b) interpretations of the passage were the same prior to our injecting of current knowledge.<br /><br />When apologists try to claim that the Bible is accurately predicting later scientific theory, they tend to fail this test. It betrays that they are reading into the text, trying to force it to say what they want it to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-38400804265980445502011-01-01T17:55:54.034-08:002011-01-01T17:55:54.034-08:00Most of us may be familiar with the Christian take...Most of us may be familiar with the Christian take on the Bible, but, the Jewish take on the Tanakh can also be interesting. The books are arranged somewhat differently (though the first five books, the Torah, are the same). The ancient rabbis speculated on the gaps and contradictions and some of those can be interesting (one of which was the man created in the first tale was both sexes and the taking of the rib in the second tale was more a complete split of this single person into a male person and female person). Search on 'midrash' and 'genesis'.<br /><br />Also in the first tale man is given dominion and in the second tale God makes him the gardener not the owner: "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it".Erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037406583478493064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-30685192167307839832011-01-01T15:41:49.367-08:002011-01-01T15:41:49.367-08:00Helene, I'm putting the lectures on a file hos...Helene, I'm putting the lectures on a file hosting site. Anyone who would like them, send me an email at brian-hitt@fsm.northwestern.edu and I'll send you the info when it's set up. They're really worth listening to, IMO.BHitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14221255508123909911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-75542644293803885012011-01-01T15:24:30.169-08:002011-01-01T15:24:30.169-08:00Hello. I got here via FriendlyAtheist, and this s...Hello. I got here via FriendlyAtheist, and this sounds like a great idea. I'm actually already reading the Bible (New International Version) and I'm at Ephesians right now. I've been planning to read the KJV as soon as I'm done with the NIV, so I'll try to hurry up and finish it.<br /><br />"Did the Bible predict what is now the accepted scientific theory of the creation of the universe or are Apologetics force retro-fitting modern day beliefs to fit."<br /><br />I tend to favor the latter explanation. There are so many different religions and it's possible to reinterpret their different creation stories as a metaphor to make them fit with the science.<br /><br />This is a great idea, and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts as you read!<br />-AniAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4648300866401965494.post-4185274170908490342011-01-01T15:13:29.259-08:002011-01-01T15:13:29.259-08:00Brian H - thanks for the link to Yale Open Courses...Brian H - thanks for the link to Yale Open Courses - much appreciated!<br /><br />Chasia - the "Homo Divinus model" article you mentioned was a piece of work. I can't understand why someone would be compelled to make that up. The "Bible as allegory" stance is much more defensible than the "let's make stuff up out of whole cloth" stance.Skepticalihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11491725012753678802noreply@blogger.com