In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

I'm aware of that. My point was that IF the bible really was written/inspired by this supposedly perfect God/Jesus, it should be perfect, and it isn't.

Right - so why hold against it the fact that it's obviously not what it's claimed to be by fundamentalists?

 

[abradley]

There's little evidence that the Old Testament is historically true, but there are some great tales, like King David. Until recently there was no historical evidence for his existence. Now there may be:

New Finds Suggest Biblical Kings David and Solomon Actually Existed
Dec 26, 2014 by News Staff / Source
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-biblical-kings-david-solomon-02371.html

Six clay seals found at the archaeological site of Khirbet Summeily in Israel offer evidence that supports the existence of Biblical Kings David and Solomon, says a team of archaeologists led by Dr Jeff Blakely of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

(Continued)

And there's this summary:

History of Jerusalem:
Myth and Reality of King David's Jerusalem
by Daniel Gavron
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html

{Snip}

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.

Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr. Avi Ofer's archaeological survey conducted in the hills of Judea during the last decade, which shows that in the 11th-10th centuries BCE, the population of Judah almost doubled compared to the preceding period. The so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), a method of analyzing the size and positioning of settlements to evaluate to what extent they were a self-contained group, indicates that during this period - David's supposed period - a strong centre of population existed at the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely candidate for this centre.

To sum up the evidence then: in the tenth century BCE, a dynasty was established by David; the population doubled in the hill country of Judah, which acquired a strong central point, probably Jerusalem, a previously settled site that was important enough to be mentioned in Egyptian documents. These facts are certainly consistent with the biblical account; but, before examining the biblical version, we should consider the nature of the Bible and of the historical material it contains.

The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document. A work of theology, law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical information; but if we want to evaluate this information we should consider when, how and why the Bible was compiled.

{Snip}

My Bold and Underline.

 

[onejayhawk]

Maybe not David, but Solomon's name is prominent in Sumerian records.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Right - so why hold against it the fact that it's obviously not what it's claimed to be by fundamentalists?

Because I despise hypocrisy, not to mention poor editing. Someone should have noticed that it's internally inconsistent.

 

[timtofly]

Therefore, the Old Testament is a book of primitive myths.

A tremendous amount of intellectual, cultural, and spiritual development took place between the genesis (no pun intended) of the OT and the NT.
The OT's god is hellfire-and-brimstone, eye-for-an-eye, vengeful and jealous. The NT's god is love, the golden rule, and forgiveness, and most importantly eternal life. The culture that produced the OT was far less concerned with eternal life and the kingdom of heaven than the culture that produced the NT.
One can easily see the influences of the Hellenistic and Persian spirituality/philosophy that entered into the tradition between the period that produced the OT and the period that produced the NT. Perhaps it's stretching the point to say they are opposites, but the cultures that produced them are clearly of very different character.

This argument does not make sense. How can writings be primitive? Even in the book of Judges it mentions schools and education and writing as a daily occurrence. What is your definition of industry? They were brick makers. Would you consider agriculture an industry, if it produced an economy?

God named the dry land Earth, if it aint dry land it aint Earth, its without form and void. And Heaven is the firmament placed amidst the waters...the waters were there first. Heaven cant be the universe. Heaven and Earth were made on the 2nd and 3rd days. Gen 1:1 cant be the first sentence of the story because the earth wasn't dry until the 3rd day. In the beginning refers to the beginning of Heaven and Earth, not the beginning of water or the world it covered, or the sun and moon... etc.



By what? The universe? No, by Heaven... And this happened on the 2nd day. So this world (not Earth) acquired a new orbit/spin on the 1st day - the separation of darkness and light. On the 2nd the firmament or hammered bracelet called Heaven divides the waters above from the waters below (and the waters below become our oceans). If Heaven is the asteroid belt, it does divide the waters - it splits the solar system in two and occupies the snow line.



Genesis calls the dry land Earth



Rotation near a star produces night and day... light wasn't everywhere, it followed the darkness. This world was further from the sun where it was much darker and the light and its separation from the darkness describes this world moving closer to the sun.



It had to have form if it was surrounded by water, it just didn't have the form of dry land.



Thats how the Babylonians described creation, Marduk arrives late in the story and slays tehom/Tiamat to form Heaven and Earth. And that chronology is found all over the world, the water precedes the appearance of God.



The universe is not mentioned in Genesis, the story is about how this world came to have continents and life. Thats ~4 bya, not over 13...

We are not talking about the Babylonians. They did not write any of the Bible. Why would you not take the words of the Jews themselves? They did not mix the account up with the account the Babylonians had, and they spent 40 to 50 years under Babylonian captivity. The English term earth includes a wider definition than you give it. Even the Hebrew definitions are wider in scope. Even you can't use dry land as the definition for earth in verse two, because the verse defines it for you.

Heaven can mean sky by itself, and that is what happened when the waters were divided. That is not the same definition as verse 1. Verse 1 is the title declaring the universe created by God. Every thing after that was God manipulating what was created.

That is not a private interpretation. That is reading the account by definitions of the words themselves.

 

[Berzerker]

We are not talking about the Babylonians. They did not write any of the Bible. Why would you not take the words of the Jews themselves? They did not mix the account up with the account the Babylonians had, and they spent 40 to 50 years under Babylonian captivity. The English term earth includes a wider definition than you give it. Even the Hebrew definitions are wider in scope. Even you can't use dry land as the definition for earth in verse two, because the verse defines it for you.

I am reading the words of the Jews, they said the Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep before God's spirit hovered over the waters. The Babylonian version also claims the waters preceded God (Marduk).

Heaven can mean sky by itself, and that is what happened when the waters were divided. That is not the same definition as verse 1. Verse 1 is the title declaring the universe created by God. Every thing after that was God manipulating what was created.

That is not a private interpretation. That is reading the account by definitions of the words themselves.

Heaven is the name God gave the firmament used to divide the waters on the 2nd day. Did God create Heaven twice? What was Heaven doing before God placed it amidst the waters? Earth's sky appears on the 4th day as lights were made to rule it.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's surely a secular perspective to talk about Jesus as if he didn't know things and would know better now. You know... given who Jesus is. To talk about him as if he's just some regular dude is the secular bit.

Not at all. It's mainstream that he was fully man, imperfect. As a man, he had ignorance. That's not secular at all.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not at all. It's mainstream that he was fully man, imperfect. As a man, he had ignorance. That's not secular at all.

That is definitely not mainstream. Fully man but sinless is the mainstream. Hence the sacrifice without blemish.

Making a whip, overturning merchant's tables, and creating a riot comes under the heading of sinless BTW.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Making a whip, overturning merchant's tables, and creating a riot comes under the heading of sinless BTW.

Since when is committing crimes okay?

Would Jesus flip out over rummage sales held in church basements today? Or would he freak out, throw tables around, and essentially vandalize the merchandise and assault the sellers?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not at all. It's mainstream that he was fully man, imperfect. As a man, he had ignorance. That's not secular at all.

Christians can be a bit all over the map in this question, but for many Jesus is/was both fully human and fully divine at the same time. that unique state would provide a complete understanding of all aspects (human and divine) of his every action and every word and as such, his words and actions would be the most perfect for every situation.

Plotinus, where are you?

 

[Farm Boy]

Since when is committing crimes okay?

Would Jesus flip out over rummage sales held in church basements today? Or would he freak out, throw tables around, and essentially vandalize the merchandise and assault the sellers?

Are the rummage sales examples of predation and greed? I can think of some board rooms debating the maximum profitability of foods and medicines within the temple of the body that would be best served, from a humanity perspective, with a literal dose of kill it with fire.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, keep on saying that, I guess. Maybe some day someone will take you at your word, since that's all you're offering.

I didn't offer my word, I offered myth and science showing the world was covered by water before land and life appeared

I think a bigger issue is whether there ever actually was a beginning.

Big bang - big crunch - big bang - big crunch etc

I checked the bible on my bookshelf. The title of it is "Holy Bible." The front cover and spine don't have the first chapter and verse of Genesis on it.

Thats very informative

Land that is underwater isn't "formless and void." It's very much there, with definite contours that have been mapped in great detail.

But it aint dry land... thats why its without form

I couldn't find any articles whatsoever that state that Earth was formed in the asteroid belt.

Have you found any articles linking our water to the asteroid belt?

It's utter nonsense to say that the ancient Babylonians had any clue at all about how the solar system was formed.

They told us (Enuma Elish) and showed us (cylinder seal VA 243)

Along with the goalposts.

How did I move the goalposts? I've said all along the Earth originally formed at the asteroid belt.

Rain comes from the atmosphere, not from space.

A "fundamentalist" view of the Flood says the gates of Heaven were opened and the waters above were released. Its possible a comet was involved with the Flood.

My son acknowledged that someone like you might think the moon looks bright, but he was adamant that it is in fact not.

You said he called the moon bright

But again, the whole argument about whether the moon is bright is a clever attempt by you to change the subject. The brightness of the moon is irrelevant.

The brightness of the moon is why it was listed among the lights in our night sky. The authors of the Bible did not use your definition of a light, that does not make them infantile.

 

[Birdjaguar]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God calledthe vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

It seems that this thread has been a quibble over how to read Gen1: 1-7 and who did what when. Most folks read the verses as god created everything from scratch. Berzerker takes a different approach that says some things were already in place when god acted. And because of that we have been talking about lights and days, but missing the real point. Berzerker has package he is pushing that has earth being formed near Jupiter and moving inward, a snow belt, and a Babylonian foundation to his take on it all. I went looking for the Hebrew to see if I could figure out why we were all getting so turned around about earth, lights, firmaments etc.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Seems pretty straight forward, but it has become controversial recently because of the word “the” shown in red. It is not actually in the Hebrew and that has set off a grammar fight about what follows. Without the “the” some claim it changes the clausal relationship with the words that follow and therefore changes the meaning. Here are two takes on it all with links to their sources. They are not for the faint of heart.

Have We Misunderstood Genesis 1:1?

This guy says the old ways are best

Spoiler :

Abstract
Arguing that the Hebrew does not support the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1, a growing number of scholars are proposing a retranslation of the verse that undercuts the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe and a creation out of nothing. Dr. Wilson shows that this retranslation is unwarranted and unworkable.

Introduction
The traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 is well known, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It is called the traditional translation because it has been the dominant rendering of Genesis 1:1since the Greek Septuagint, the first major translation of the Hebrew Bible (into Greek), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC. Does the traditional translation describe the absolute beginning of the universe? Does it communicate the idea that the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing? Throughout history, Jews and Christians have overwhelmingly said, “Yes!”
However, a growing number of Hebrew scholars are now saying, “No!” For many of them, their reason for doing so is not based upon their interpretation of this verse, but their retranslation of it. Considering the historical weight of the traditional translation, what is the compelling evidence for this change? Did earlier translators misunderstand the Hebrew text? Have there been new developments in the understanding of Hebrew grammar that would cause modern scholars to reject what past scholars and translators affirmed?
The Other Translation
In order to answer these questions, let us first lay out this retranslation of Genesis 1:1, the “dependent-clause” translation. It renders Genesis 1:1, along with 1:2 and 1:3a, in a manner similar to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985, “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”1 With this dependent-clause translation, it is not possible to interpret the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe or a creation out of nothing since the rendering treats the earth in Genesis 1:2 as being in existence before God’s first act of creation, light. What then is the grammatical basis for this change in translation?

Link

This guys says the new thinking provides a better translation

Spoiler :

The overall analysis of Gen 1.1-3 given above has a long history in biblical scholarship. It is also the analysis adopted in Baasten 2007, although with the tie-in to relative clause restrictivenes. Here is a basic English translation that would serve as a starting point for working out one that reflects whatever translation theory one adopts:
“In the beginning period that God created the heavens and earth (the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the wind of God was hovering over the surface of the waters), God said, ‘Let light be!'”

Link
The difference is that in the traditional translation god creates everything and in the second, the genesis story begins with a formless and void earth already existing when god says “Let there be light!”

 

[onejayhawk]

Since when is committing crimes okay?

Would Jesus flip out over rummage sales held in church basements today? Or would he freak out, throw tables around, and essentially vandalize the merchandise and assault the sellers?

Exactly my point.

Until you can reconcile that with sinless, you are stuck. That said, take the specifics of the situation into account.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Because I despise hypocrisy, not to mention poor editing. Someone should have noticed that it's internally inconsistent.

*shrug* It's difficult to avoid hypocrisy, and expecting good editing from a book written over centuries is a bit much imo.

The Bible is one of the most important sources for the history of the ancient and classical Near East. Some of its stories are interesting, some less so.

I think it's pretty silly to judge it because it falls short of the claims of fundamentalists. One guy I've argued with a lot on another forum I'm on is a real YEC, always comes up with "science" to justify why the Bible is right. Literally argues that the speed of light changed over the life of the universe to just make it look like stars are millions of light-years away...it's an entertaining exercise.

That he does all this, to me has no impact on the way I view the Bible. The Bible is not a science book or a history book either. It's a book of primitive myths that can tell us a lot about how the people who wrote it thought and lived, and it should be judged as such - not as the inerrant word of God.

 

[timtofly]

I am reading the words of the Jews, they said the Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep before God's spirit hovered over the waters. The Babylonian version also claims the waters preceded God (Marduk).



Heaven is the name God gave the firmament used to divide the waters on the 2nd day. Did God create Heaven twice? What was Heaven doing before God placed it amidst the waters? Earth's sky appears on the 4th day as lights were made to rule it.

Even with Birdjaguar's post, modern scholars are ignoring the point that heaven and earth together define the universe. "In the beginning period of God creating the universe, the earth was without form and void...." It does not say "before" the Spirit started to hover. The Spirit hovering was still the act of creation. Holding together the universe until light, energy, and motion worked their physics.

The point of light which was not a bang, was the introduction of instant light throughout the whole universe. It was not the sun; that light did not appear until the sunrise of day 4.

The sky/firmament/heaven/dome/fixed space between the waters was made on day 2 and was there on day 3, day 4, day 5, and is still there today. We call it atmosphere.

It seems that this thread has been a quibble over how to read Gen1: 1-7 and who did what when. Most folks read the verses as god created everything from scratch. Berzerker takes a different approach that says some things were already in place when god acted. And because of that we have been talking about lights and days, but missing the real point. Berzerker has package he is pushing that has earth being formed near Jupiter and moving inward, a snow belt, and a Babylonian foundation to his take on it all. I went looking for the Hebrew to see if I could figure out why we were all getting so turned around about earth, lights, firmaments etc.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Seems pretty straight forward, but it has become controversial recently because of the word “the” shown in red. It is not actually in the Hebrew and that has set off a grammar fight about what follows. Without the “the” some claim it changes the clausal relationship with the words that follow and therefore changes the meaning. Here are two takes on it all with links to their sources. They are not for the faint of heart.

Have We Misunderstood Genesis 1:1?

This guy says the old ways are best

Spoiler :

Abstract
Arguing that the Hebrew does not support the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1, a growing number of scholars are proposing a retranslation of the verse that undercuts the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe and a creation out of nothing. Dr. Wilson shows that this retranslation is unwarranted and unworkable.

Introduction
The traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 is well known, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It is called the traditional translation because it has been the dominant rendering of Genesis 1:1since the Greek Septuagint, the first major translation of the Hebrew Bible (into Greek), produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC. Does the traditional translation describe the absolute beginning of the universe? Does it communicate the idea that the heavens and the earth were created out of nothing? Throughout history, Jews and Christians have overwhelmingly said, “Yes!”
However, a growing number of Hebrew scholars are now saying, “No!” For many of them, their reason for doing so is not based upon their interpretation of this verse, but their retranslation of it. Considering the historical weight of the traditional translation, what is the compelling evidence for this change? Did earlier translators misunderstand the Hebrew text? Have there been new developments in the understanding of Hebrew grammar that would cause modern scholars to reject what past scholars and translators affirmed?
The Other Translation
In order to answer these questions, let us first lay out this retranslation of Genesis 1:1, the “dependent-clause” translation. It renders Genesis 1:1, along with 1:2 and 1:3a, in a manner similar to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) version of 1985, “1 When God began to create heaven and earth—2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—3a God said, ‘Let there be light.’”1 With this dependent-clause translation, it is not possible to interpret the idea of an absolute beginning of the universe or a creation out of nothing since the rendering treats the earth in Genesis 1:2 as being in existence before God’s first act of creation, light. What then is the grammatical basis for this change in translation?

Link

This guys says the new thinking provides a better translation

Link
The difference is that in the traditional translation god creates everything and in the second, the genesis story begins with a formless and void earth already existing when god says “Let there be light!”

I doubt very many people accept that the "Light" was the moment of the "big bang", but it would even fit in the new re-translation. Young already used a text that was discarded a long time ago when there had already been a discussion between the early translaters. The point was mute then, because scientist had not yet theorized the big bang. The notion has always been "just about the sun" Everyone seems to overlook the universe aspect of verse 1. Scientist portray the notion that it was a lot of energy in a tiny space. The galaxies were all thrown out like bullets from a gun. But that changed to inflation theory. Now they say it has been expanding for a while, and is even excelerating. No one knows the size of the universe at the beginning, because the math does not work to that point. All we know is the light at the beginning left a view that tells us the universe is about 14 billion years.

If Genesis got it right, they were ahead of their time, because only modern science seems to think they knew what happened, and the universe is older than the earth. That is what the ancients believed. Because they say a god came along and just created this solar system.

 

[abradley]

Since when is committing crimes okay?

Would Jesus flip out over rummage sales held in church basements today? Or would he freak out, throw tables around, and essentially vandalize the merchandise and assault the sellers?

At Catholic answers there's this: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12355022&postcount=13

Who was St Jerome: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/saint.aspx?id=1154

These are Catholic views, some Christians may not agree.

 

[warpus]

I think we missed him. He showed up as Steve Jobs this time around and the iPhone was his message. It is the path the the future and our universal happiness. Do you really think that Apple was just a random pick for the company name? No siree. In just a few short years his devotees have converted much of the world without any recall of any of the world's other great religions.

Android users don't despair; the next iPhone is on the horizon.

Steve Jobs was too much of an a-hole to have been the second coming of Christ. I reckon if this Jesus story has any truth to it, and there is a genuine second coming, it won't be a leader or somebody rich. It'll just be some random guy. Maybe a factory worker in an iPhone factory somewhere.

 

[Lexicus]

Steve Jobs was a white collar criminal.

 

[onejayhawk]

Steve Jobs was too much of an a-hole to have been the second coming of Christ. I reckon if this Jesus story has any truth to it, and there is a genuine second coming, it won't be a leader or somebody rich. It'll just be some random guy. Maybe a factory worker in an iPhone factory somewhere.

It will not be what you would call a person at all. The Incarnation is a past event. The second coming will not be of an ordinary human nor from birth. It will be from outside.

J