The Bible Mystery
Posted By: jcl
The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 10:42
Some months ago someone posted here a thread about bible self-contradictions, and Dan Silverman did his best to explain them away. However, maybe they are not meant to be explained away. What if they were intentionally placed in the bible, for a purpose?
Just like a good novel the bible begins right with a mystery. Genesis 1 describes how the Gods created the world step by step in the following order:
Light -> Heaven -> Earth & Seas -> Plants -> Water Animals -> Land Animals -> Men & Women.
Right on the next page, there's a different creation story. It's only one God this time, who created the world in this order:
Earth & Heavens -> Man -> Plants -> Animals -> Woman
Obviously, Man was now created earlier. Plants, animals, and a woman were created to serve the already existing Man. However in the first story they were originally created to please the Gods, who agreed after every creation step that they did "good".
Is it possible that the editor of the bible didn't notice this apparent contradiction? Hardly. So we have to assume that it was intentionally planted to transmit a hidden message to the reader. But what message? When we look closely at the first creation story, we notice the following:
1. It's not one god but a pantheon that created the world. (This part was censored from your King James Bible, but the original text uses the word 'elohim' which is plural). This is not a Christian belief, as the Lord forbids to believe in other Gods.
2. The description of the heaven - a vault with water above it - was exactly the Babylonian world view, which in turn had roots in cuneiform writings of the Sumerians from 1500 years earlier. So we have an essential heathen creation story here.
3. The order of creation - from the simple to the complex, starting with light - mimics the Big Bang and Evolution Theory. In fact Darwin could have got his ideas from the bible. However, evolution is also seen as non-Christian by some, otherwise the US fundamentalists weren't so scared of it.
So we have to conclude: more than 2500 years ago someone smuggled a heathen, evolutionist text to the very beginning of the bible! He even led our attention to it by putting standing out contradictions next to it. The question is now: what did he want to tell us? Is Evil everywhere?
Or might there be another explanation?
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 11:26
Very Interesting
I was not aware of such evident self-contradictions
I must confess that I have never picked up the bible again, after my school days , but I have been taught the second version only
One question.
Are the two versions included in the official text of the Genesis approved by the chatolic church ?
I mean , the existence of an other God is included also in some gnostic gospels which have been rejected
Abou your question
Well , talking about evolutionism theory it seem to me excessive , there are only a few words, after all
What it is evident and more realistic it is the different role of women
Even though religious people would , for sure disagree, it is a matter of fact that the christian religion has alwayes discriminated women both in thoery and in practice
Man has been created before the woman, woman comes from a rib...etc
Posted By: jcl
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 11:42
Yes, the two creation versions were approved, first for the Torah and later after the council of Nicaea for the catholic church.
However the question of approval indeed also plays a role in our mystery. It's the reason why the unknown editor put the heathen version, which treats man and woman as equal, at the very beginning of the bible. This made it very hard to reject that part later - it was just too widely known.
Posted By: Damocles
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 11:54
Many people wrote on the bible retelling and making up stories, how they thought earth and man was
created.
Of course there are contradictions arising then, as this was not one collective taskforce
at a single time writing the stories in the bible.
Shows more the historic development of the current version of the bible.
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 12:03
Damocles
Ok, but the key question is :
Why such evident contracditions ?
Just an oversight ? it is unlikely
Posted By: Damocles
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 12:25
I guess that not every person that wotes parts of the bible had full access
to all the previous writings, or if they did, did not totally confirm (had a different idea) previous writings.
This way it is more impressive to have little contradictions, than to wonder about
(naturally acurring) contradictions
Now it is easy to just say, that contradictions are due to the "mortals not fully understanding the
thougts/ways of god".
Even Tolkien did have contradictions in his work, even though this was just one man writing on
this story.
Posted By: broozar
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 13:52
so what?
what does the story of creation mean to you? what do you think does it mean to a christian? do you really think it's such a key story? did you ever ask yourself why it's located in the old testament?
Posted By: Ambassador
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 14:03
There are a lot of places in the bible that many don't understand, but note that even Jesus spoke in parabels.
Also take into account that hebrew (the orginal language of torah, the old testament) contains many words that are not easy to translate to english, thus some of the text might mean something different in the orginal text than the english version or other translations. This applies to the new testament also since it was written in Greek. And translators are human also, they make mistakes too.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 14:55
I'm sure the order of things is easy to figure out when translating, that's the number one thing you start with.
I think the contradictions are the evidence of a pre-christianity history of the bible that doesn't quite make it more creditable, infact in my opinion this makes it even harder for Christians to claim the bible wasn't changed much over time, which is a totally unrealistic view, considered the evidence.
Quote:
contains many words that are not easy to translate to english
Which is irrelevant, because wasn't the first text translated to Latin??
Cheers
Posted By: Damocles
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 15:17
I have just seen a documentation about the "3-Kings"
not beeing Kings, but so called "Magie" (Priests) from Persia, probably Babylon, that
brought the 3 Gifts to Jesus.
They where following an Astrological coincedence/calculation the proposed that
a "new King was born", not actually following a star.
There are so many translation and rewritings of the books of the bible, that
it is hard to say what was its original content.
The contradictions are simply the result of textual evolution. The bible is not a single text, but a number of texts combined and convolved.
That is, certain parts of a text are obviously accorded importance by different people at different times, and so the various sections are always included, even if they are from very different original sources.
The "contradictions" are neither accidental nor intentional, but rather circumstantial...they were there in the texts, the texts are holy, so there they are still.
Posted By: Little3D
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 16:59
I belive JCL wants to point out a greater conclusion from this, bibel contains beliefs and thoughts that borrowed from older religions which is obviously possible... and they are identical to today evolution but its maybe just pattern matching not more...
but an active mind may solve the puzzle
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 17:21
Quote:
The contradictions are simply the result of textual evolution. The bible is not a single text, but a number of texts combined and convolved.
This is true but it was the same situation also for the Gospels
Some gnostic Gospels claim that the snake was the good guy
He was not trying to cheat the man, on the contrary he was trying to arise humanity from ignorance
Should this gnostic Gospel be considered as the first "illumist" document of history ?
The point is that in Nicea council all these gnostic gospels have been banned
Why did they not purge also the bible ?
Maybe because it was a so old and traditional document
They simply did not dare to touch it even though they realized there were some contracdictions
Posted By: Inestical
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 17:46
Note also that bible was decided by vote. This means, that the editor(s), who then wrote the bible, did vote how to hide all the hints, so that they can lie about them and so, still giving straight hints, manipulate people.
If you'd read the koran and bible, you will see many, many similiarities.
To put this simple: there is arcitech who created all this. Then s/he made some people as keys to the truth of him/herself. People like Jesus. People who have seen the creator. Everything written in, happened, done are all part of Lords will. The books (new testament, old testamnet, koran) are books that include the thruth. Not forgetting monolith, or keychain, that is also part of the truth.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/03/06 23:40
Aah, so simple psychology and a big bunch of errors suddenly becomes a big devine conspiracy, I get it.
The similarities are the most striking when it comes to the method of indoctrination they use, yes some or a lot of events may also appear in the Koran, but that's not relevant when it all comes down to just one thing anyway. (-> control & power) And nope, it's not the work of (one?) God in my opinion, I don't believe in a conspiracy by a God when there's zero evidence pointing towards the existence of even such a God, hence believing in a conspiracy led by it would be insane imho, a well ...
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 02:20
Quote:
Some months ago someone posted here a thread about bible self-contradictions, and Dan Silverman did his best to explain them away.
You speak of it as if Dan Silverman's un-scholarly objections were the end all of any intelligent objections to supposed contradictions. Which I assure you isn't the case.
No offense to Dan, or in any case myself since I also tried, but he simply isn't qualified to refute such nonsense. Not that it takes much qualification, but it takes more than your average believer. The half-baked ideas of skeptics desperate to find any contradiction at all in the bible, actually do require some work to overcome if only because their crock is, on the surface, somewhat convincing to the uninformed (without exception this seems to include nearly every single atheist on the planet, though they make no attempt at humility on the subject as is showcased in what you said here).
Quote:
Just like a good novel the bible begins right with a mystery. Genesis 1 describes how the Gods created the world step by step in the following order:
Light -> Heaven -> Earth & Seas -> Plants -> Water Animals -> Land Animals -> Men & Women.
Right on the next page, there's a different creation story. It's only one God this time, who created the world in this order:
Earth & Heavens -> Man -> Plants -> Animals -> Woman
This argument is aged, but unlike a fine wine it only gets worse.
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
I wouldn't put my stock in skeptics who refuse to take themselves out of their own cultural context, and who instead read the bible more literally than even fundamentalist christians do.
Quote:
Is it possible that the editor of the bible didn't notice this apparent contradiction? Hardly.
You seem to have the right ideas, just the wrong conclusions. Did it ever occur to you that the reason they didn't notice the 'contradiction' is that, because in the right context it actually isn't a contradiction? No, instead they purposefully added the contradiction, hoping no one would notice a reversal of order and the number of creators. Right...that sounds reasonable.
Quote:
1. It's not one god but a pantheon that created the world. (This part was censored from your King James Bible, but the original text uses the word 'elohim' which is plural). This is not a Christian belief, as the Lord forbids to believe in other Gods.
It never occured to you to possibly examine what happens during the translation process?
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/monoelohim.html
Furthermore, I have a New King James Version sitting right in front of me, that isn't censored (according to your standards). Of course, the censorship charge only applies if the bible really refers to multiple gods as having participated in creation week. Which is probably doesn't, unless a conspiracy theory is more likely than examining the writings in the proper context. I would rather not ally myself with atheist conspiracy nonsense, but to each his own.
Quote:
2. The description of the heaven - a vault with water above it - was exactly the Babylonian world view, which in turn had roots in cuneiform writings of the Sumerians from 1500 years earlier. So we have an essential heathen creation story here.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/babgenesis.html
Quote:
3. The order of creation - from the simple to the complex, starting with light - mimics the Big Bang and Evolution Theory. In fact Darwin could have got his ideas from the bible. However, evolution is also seen as non-Christian by some, otherwise the US fundamentalists weren't so scared of it.
Its differences speak more loudly than its similarities. For instance, the fact that it only took a week to create everything.
Quote:
So we have to conclude: more than 2500 years ago someone smuggled a heathen, evolutionist text to the very beginning of the bible! He even led our attention to it by putting standing out contradictions next to it. The question is now: what did he want to tell us? Is Evil everywhere?
Or might there be another explanation?
There is another explanation. You're just plain wrong.
By the way, if you have any objections to what Tektonics has to say, feel free to e-mail them and be thoroughly embarrassed.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 03:37
The tektonic guys are wrong by the way:
Quote:
Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context.
While linguïstically they are right, this isn't completely 100% true. The order in which things have been written do infact still matter. Even in Hebrew it wouldn't make sense to say something like this: "God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!! Because exactly this is the case in the original Hebrew text.
By the way, about that 'plural God' thing, the site doesn't quite refute anything, this still stands in my opinion;
Quote:
But the actual verb plural-form (which in Hebrew is the tiny vav -- "u" -- tacked on the end, as we add "s" in English to form the plural of nouns), although mostly missing, is a number of times to be found, and is undeniable proof of the plurality of ha-elohim.
Infact angel in Hebrew is mal'ach. The Bible refers to Mal'ach Yahweh, which is the only 'angel' referred to in the earlier biblical literature. Most even assume that with Malách Yahweh is infact simply God meant. So there goes the 'angels' argument in my opinion.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 04:04
Quote:
While linguïstically they are right, this isn't completely 100% true. The order in which things have been written do infact still matter. Even in Hebrew it wouldn't make sense to say something like this: "God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!! Because exactly this is the case in the original Hebrew text.
Its about perspective, in any case.
Besides, outside of linguistics, what other way is there to look at these accounts to consider them innaccurate?
Quote:
"God creates Adam, God had created Earth, God had created Light" and still assume 'light' has been created as first!!
You don't have to assume anything! The exact order is given in the first account. Besides that, if there is no earth, where do you put the man? And besides even that, the second account starts out by stating that the heavens and the earth have been created. It doesn't mention light because a detailed description of the account has already been entailed. At that point, its about mankind, and that is where the perspective comes from in a sense.
There are only two ways I can think of someone being confused by this:
1). They don't know of the other account of creation.
2). They're looking for ways to be confused by the text.
Quote:
By the way, about that 'plural God' thing, the site doesn't quite refute anything, this still stands in my opinion;
Like I said, e-mail tekton and see how it turns out. As for myself, I can't (at the moment) refute you. Not enough time.
Quote:
Infact angel in Hebrew is mal'ach. The Bible refers to Mal'ach Yahweh, which is the only 'angel' referred to in the earlier biblical literature. Most even assume that with Malách Yahweh is infact simply God meant. So there goes the 'angels' argument in my opinion.
If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? Because context determines meaning. So therefore, I would maybe examine the way you're looking at the text.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 04:32
Quote:
Besides that, if there is no earth, where do you put the man?
Well, obviously you don't even need an earth for a man to exist. A God would be able to create in any order they'd wish anyway, right?
Besides, some things would perhaps make some vague sense physically speaking even if in a different order such as 'created light -> created earth' OR 'created earth -> created light'. It's still a contradiction though if lateron or previously there has been a statement about it in a different order.
Quote:
You don't have to assume anything!
No, just follow blindly and you'll be fine. 
Come on, you can't ignore socalled facts being in a different order. In this case it's a legit question. If something is said to you a second time, different then the first then you can think two things. 1.) Ow, what has been said previously was wrong. 2.) I think they've made an error, because I've read before ... etc. So again, it's legit.
Quote:
They're looking for ways to be confused by the text.
I don't need to look for them, they're all over the place, starting on the first page the text(s) begin.
Quote:
If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? Because context determines meaning. So therefore, I would maybe examine the way you're looking at the text.
While for the point I was trying to make it wasn't really about what it stands for, it was moreso about the fact that plurals had been used.
I came to the same conclusion as you just did; If mal'ach means angel, how can it also refer to God? That's confusing indeed, especially when Angels are not supposed to be Gods and Gods are not supposed to be Angels. I guess in this case we're both biased,
Cheers
Posted By: jcl
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 14:58
Before I post my own theory of the hidden purpose of the Genesis contradiction, some comments on the objections.
The first objection was that the numerous self-contradictions of the bible are easily explained by the fact that the bible was written by many authors. This might be true for most of the contradictions, but I do not think it applies here. While the two creation stories probably stem from different sources, they were at least put together to the book Genesis by one final editor. This editor had to be aware of the contradictions, but nevertheless decided for some reason to put both creations stories together, with the heathen one at the very beginning. It's easy to walk away thinking: "Ha, ha - those bible writers didn't even manage to get their own tales straight!" But in my opinion there's more to it.
The second objection was a link to a website that claimed that there is no contradiction. Well, the only arguments presented were a theory that the second creation story was not referring to all plants and animals, but only to a few that were created after Man as a sort of late add-on. The bible does not mention that they were an add-on, to the only reason for that theory is that otherwise we had a contradiction. Also some sentences of the second story were written in a different tempus, the plusquamperfect, which was claimed to shed some doubt on the order of creation.
However, the first creation story clearly refers to all plants and animals, and the second one introduced a different creation order not only in tempus but also in causality. Just the needs of the already created man caused the creation of the plants and animals. So the theories about the add-on animals and the meaning of the plusquamperfect are apparently nonsense. In fact the contradiction in the two Genesis stories is even more obvious in the original Hebraic text (where the number of involved gods also differs). You had to be a very fanatic believer not to see it. However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
If the bible editor had not intended a contradiction, he could have easily described the creation in a clear and consistent way that doesn't require strange interpretation theories by apologists.
So now the question is: When we assume that the contradiction between the two creation stories was intentional and meant to be noticed by the brighter part of the target audience, what was the intention? I don't have much time at the moment, but will post my theory later.
Quote:
While the two creation stories probably stem from different sources, they were at least put together to the book Genesis by one final editor.
read this article.
This has some good analysis i think. And can shed some actual light on the interesting problems of Geneis. There is no need for half-baked theories about hidden meanings. The final version of genesis comes, as i said, from diferent traditions, times, and authors.
The idea of one final "editor' making all the decisions is frankly unsupported by the text itself, history, and comparative methods.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 17:06
Quote:
The idea of one final "editor' making all the decisions is frankly unsupported by the text itself, history, and comparative methods.
Would this still be true when a small 'council' would have decided as being one final "editor"? Inconsistencies would be possible perhaps even logical. Still strange that they didn't check or perhaps doublecheck for contradictions.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 19:39
Matt, the author of that essay is so devoid of any rational argument, he doesn't deserve the time of day.
To put it in perspective. Isaac Asimov appears in his bibliography, with his book "Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible." That right there would be a giant red flag not to take anything this guy says seriously. He's parroting fundy atheists, which is apparently the only time its ok to be a fundy.
Quote:
The second objection was a link to a website that claimed that there is no contradiction. Well, the only arguments presented were a theory that the second creation story was not referring to all plants and animals, but only to a few that were created after Man as a sort of late add-on. The bible does not mention that they were an add-on, to the only reason for that theory is that otherwise we had a contradiction.
You're missing the point. The bible doesn't have to imply that they were a late add on, since the word they use (erets), refers to small scale plots of land. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not the inerrentist, to prove that there were no plants on the entire earth. But the bible doesn't say that, does it? Since you've already established that you can't put words in the bible's mouth, your argument is out the window.
There is a word for earth, by the way, that they could have used and would have made more sense if that's what they meant.
So now the only reason you can claim certainty is that otherwise there is no contradiction and your theory begins to lose footing before we even hear what it is.
Quote:
owever, the first creation story clearly refers to all plants and animals, and the second one introduced a different creation order not only in tempus but also in causality.
Ok, so you admit it could make sense as long as they use a different tempus?
In that case, there is a consistent explanation in the timing of the writing. Number one, you're making an assumption. That these creatures were created due to the lack of a helpmeet. Let's look at the verse from my bible:
Quote:
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God [had] formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a halper comparable to him.
Blah, blah, blah Eve is created and becomes the perfect 'helpmeet.'
From the context of this passage, let's assume not that the animals were created to find a helpmeet, but that instead only eve was created as the helpmeet. She is the focus of this little ditty anyway, so why not?
If you reread it in that light, then it could just as well be said that God did not create the beasts at that time for a helpmeet, but that they were already created and in the context of finding a helpmeet (which is what the first sentence is establishing), they were brought before Adam to be named, and it is this naming process, not the creation process, that is part of the causal link.
So what makes more sense? They purposely threw in a completely contradictory account? Or they knew what they were doing, and you're just trying to find a contradiction? I know what makes more sense to me. I know that anyone studying the bible would have noticed a clear contradiction, which would have been rather hard to cover up. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Quote:
In fact the contradiction in the two Genesis stories is even more obvious in the original Hebraic text (where the number of involved gods also differs).
Elohim is used to refer to 'lesser beings' than God. So I could just as well argue that elohim encompasses God and the angels, and to go along with that further, when God says "we" and "us", He's referring to Himself and the angels (or better yet the trinity)(I personally think it makes sense in the context of angels).
Of course, your assertive language ("You had to be a very fanatic believer not to see it.") is probably a ruse to hide the fact that your argument is based on assumptions, and none of what you offer as an argument is unequivocal.
Quote:
However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
You would have to have a pretty open mind to believe in multiple gods, one of which claims to be the only true God. Actually I believe the name for that is 'stupid.'
Quote:
Matt, the author of that essay is so devoid of any rational argument, he doesn't deserve the time of day.
To put it in perspective. Isaac Asimov appears in his bibliography, with his book "Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible." That right there would be a giant red flag not to take anything this guy says seriously. He's parroting fundy atheists, which is apparently the only time its ok to be a fundy.
I dont think you read the article, and if you did you apparently arent able to follow it.
Isaac Asimov was a respected physicist and writer on many subjects.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/04/06 22:52
Quote:
You would have to have a pretty open mind to believe in multiple gods, one of which claims to be the only true God. Actually I believe the name for that is 'stupid.'
Perhaps there's one God with an ego problem? Calling multiple Gods stupid is just as narrow minded eventhough saying that is kinda easy off course, because thinking the exact opposite as unlikely, may be just as narrow minded.
However since the bible is generally considered 'truth', what about those 'facts'?? If it's not really a contradiction, then I really wish to know why it's written like this. I don't mind errors in a text at all, as long as they can be explained in a realistic way. The angels argument fails, the 'plural gods but singular verbs' also fails although it's better than the angels argument. What other explanations would be possible?
Quote:
"Isaac Asimov's guide to the bible."
Perhaps he wanted to make a point.
Quote:
The bible doesn't have to imply that they were a late add on, since the word they use (erets), refers to small scale plots of land.
The famous a sparrow is a bird yet not every bird is a sparrow kind of reasoning fails in this case. It's causality and context that matters too, revealing the 'problem'. You're right, in itself the sentence makes sense and they probably didn't litterally mean earth but wanted to be a tad more specific, however in this context what they mean for sure is 'land'. Something was created on the land, what other land could they possibly mean than earth?
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/05/06 03:45
Quote:
I dont think you read the article, and if you did you apparently arent able to follow it.
I was able to follow it, but the conclusions aren't worth two cents. I'm sure you'll follow this up with some intelligent reposte like, "But you're wrong because someone disagrees with you."
Such is the state of the intelligence of atheist argumentation.
Quote:
Isaac Asimov was a respected physicist and writer on many subjects.
Agreed, but he was not a historian, nor a biblical scholar. He had an anti-religious agenda and there is no reason to take him seriously. He was out of his field.
Quote:
Perhaps there's one God with an ego problem? Calling multiple Gods stupid is just as narrow minded eventhough saying that is kinda easy off course, because thinking the exact opposite as unlikely, may be just as narrow minded.
I'm not calling polytheism stupid. I'm calling a person stupid who believes in multiple gods when one God claims to be the true God.
Quote:
However since the bible is generally considered 'truth', what about those 'facts'?? If it's not really a contradiction, then I really wish to know why it's written like this. I don't mind errors in a text at all, as long as they can be explained in a realistic way. The angels argument fails, the 'plural gods but singular verbs' also fails although it's better than the angels argument. What other explanations would be possible?
I've already given explanations and you failed to address them specifically.
Quote:
The famous a sparrow is a bird yet not every bird is a sparrow kind of reasoning fails in this case. It's causality and context that matters too, revealing the 'problem'. You're right, in itself the sentence makes sense and they probably didn't litterally mean earth but wanted to be a tad more specific, however in this context what they mean for sure is 'land'. Something was created on the land, what other land could they possibly mean than earth?
In every other context, the word erets refers to specific plots of land on a much smaller scale than the earth. You have to provide some other reasoning for assuming erets is referring to the earth in its entirety besides, "I believe that's what it means."
Also, I apologize to Dan Silverman for jumping to conclusions about his abilities to address matters of contradictions in the bible. I admit that I don't know fully his ability to address biblical contradictions, and I admit that his abilities are more than I gave him credit for. I didn't mean to imply anything derogatory about Dan, but I admit that it probably came off that way due to me being a poor communicator also I did misjudge him based on faulty assumptions.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/05/06 04:46
Quote:
You have to provide some other reasoning for assuming erets is referring to the earth in its entirety besides, "I believe that's what it means."
Yeah, like, why don't you just buy yourself a book on Ancient Hebrew and check it out yourself. I'm actually not making these things up. Apart from that, read my previous reply again please, because I wasn't saying what you've stated I had said. I've said they clearly meant 'land', as in earth below your feet.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/ahlb.html
Quote:
I'm not calling polytheism stupid. I'm calling a person stupid who believes in multiple gods when one God claims to be the true God.
Yeah, but still, why the heck would that be stupid?! In polytheistic religions it's a constant battle between the Gods actually, not so much as in real fighting mostly, but definately in status.
Man, you should read up on some literature about for example South-East Asian religions sometime. In their religions there are whole stories, legends and myths about one God messing around with another God, turning it into something not so nice, pissing off one of the greater Gods because it was done without permission and so on and so forth. Some inscriptions even mention Gods claiming to be the number one God stating the others are pathetic non-god losers and weak ...
I'm not saying I myself believe in Asian religion, but as we've just discovered you are infact narrow minded when it comes to what's written in a book.
Cheers
I wish Irish would go away, he just takes a topic and screws it in the rear.
Posted By: William
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/05/06 08:29
Quote:
However the bible was not written for fanatic YECs that believe everything literally, but for educated, normal people with an open mind.
Sometimes I wish the bible was 100% literal, meaning no confusion, no studies, just read it and thats it, take it or leave it. Would solve lots, like religions based around it fighting other religions based around it, and fighting outside of it.
Posted By: Damocles
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/05/06 11:28
Somehow people want unconciously want polytheism.
Even in a monotheistic religion like chistianity, there are
some "Additional lesser Gods", that not called God, but instead
angels, human saints, the devil.
Seams to be hard for people to just have one God, and not any other additional
"supernatural beeing".
Posted By: jcl
The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/05/06 11:29
Quote:
he was not a historian, nor a biblical scholar. He had an anti-religious agenda and there is no reason to take him seriously. He was out of his field.
Irish_farmer, ad hominem arguments won't give you advantage in a discussion. On the contrary, they hint that you're out of arguments against the message, and thus had to retreat to attacking the messenger instead. If you think that Asimov is wrong, just read his writings and disprove them. Claiming he can't be taken seriously because he's not a member of your sect is not working.
But do not worry: We'll see in the following that the contradiction between the two Genesis stories is indeed not a real contradiction. However not for the reasons that YECs are so desperately clinging to.
Remember that Genesis 1 gives an abstract creation account from the simple to the complex. When we replace "the gods" by "the forces of nature" and "six days" by "some billion years" we almost (but not quite) end up with a rather modern overview of the Big Bang and the evolution.
Genesis 2 describes a totally different scenario. The creator is not "the gods" but only one particular god, who is in the following referred to with the Hebraic letters JHWH (and in the King James bible with THE LORD). Not one heaven was created, but several heavens (we'll learn later in the bible that there are three). Unlike in Genesis 1, there are no plants growing yet because it had not rained. JHWH makes a single human (not many as the "them" in Genesis 1) from dust and inflates him with his Holy Breath. Afterwards he lets the plants grow and creates the animals. Now Adam gets a task: He has to name all existing animals. When Adam has done his deed, he gets his sexual reward, with which the creation is finished.
Note the different time scale. The gods can create something within the blink of an eye, but the second creation took a lot more time than the first one due to Adam's naming task. While a man can indeed do this in his lifetime, it certainly takes many years.
Apparently, Genesis 1 is more a scientific account, while Genesis 2 looks more like a folk's tale. Now what wanted the bible editor, or the editing committee or whoever, tell the posterity with those incompatible accounts?
Back then (2600 years ago) Genesis 1 was the state of the art in creation theories. It was the Babylonian equivalent of Quantum Theory. Educated people believed that the world really began this way. So the Torah started with a scientific theory, and the religious part only started on the second page!
The apparent contradiction is just an instruction how to correctly read the Torah. The message is: "Always keep in mind that this is a religious book. Do not confuse it with science. The rest of this book tells you of the god JHWH and his little problems to get correctly worshipped by humans. But you can always go back to page 1 and see the difference to how creation really happened according to modern Babylonian science."
Of course, this theory is a speculation and the contradictions could as well have been caused by sloppy editing and simple mistakes. But somehow I like the idea more that there's an intention behind it.
Did the message reach its goal? I guess so, as today science is the main source of human knowledge, and is separated from religion. Only some sects, like extreme Islamic fundamentalists or YECs, seem not to have received that message yet. But I'm confident that they will some day.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/05/06 19:33
Quote:
Somehow people unconciously want polytheism.
Even in a monotheistic religion like chistianity, there are
some "Additional lesser Gods", that not called God, but instead
angels, human saints, the devil.
Seams to be hard for people to just have one God, and not any other additional
"supernatural beeing".
Exactly, I think it's simply in our mind's nature. Which only adds more suspicion and confusion to the whole 'illusion' in my opinion.
I think it's hard to deny that we all have certain thoughts or hopes for something in the direction of a concept like 'heaven'. At least I have, eventhough I'm sure it's some sort of illusion. Perhaps it's part of the psychological struggle for survival deep within?
@JCL: Yeah, that theory sounds somewhat reasonable indeed. It makes sense, perhaps after all the times it has been re-written or translated the separation between the two pages has become less apparent, like it is now. Eventhough it may seem, well perhaps far fetched, it definately fits the picture in my opinion. Taken there has been a reason why they didn't take care of the contradiction, something like you've said must have been it. Perhaps they didn't dare to rewrite something a very important person had written before them? The people who could write back then definately were the smarter and higher educated ones, so it's legit to assume there has infact been a reason for it,
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 12/06/06 07:20
Wow! I'm absolutely amazed.
Atheists have to be the most arrogant, condescending people on this planet.
Quote:
I wish Irish would go away, he just takes a topic and screws it in the rear.
The only difference between your mouth and a horse's butt is that at least a horse's butt stops spewing crap every now and again. Zing!
Quote:
Yeah, but still, why the heck would that be stupid?! In polytheistic religions it's a constant battle between the Gods actually, not so much as in real fighting mostly, but definately in status.
Man, you should read up on some literature about for example South-East Asian religions sometime. In their religions there are whole stories, legends and myths about one God messing around with another God, turning it into something not so nice, pissing off one of the greater Gods because it was done without permission and so on and so forth. Some inscriptions even mention Gods claiming to be the number one God stating the others are pathetic non-god losers and weak ...
So, Phemox your reasoning that I'm wrong about it being stupid is that some people actually believe it? Your grasp of logic is astounding.
Just because some people actually believe it, doesn't make it less stupid. Though it could be argued that they don't believe in the exact thing that I called stupid.
Also, in light of those religions, that makes any comparison to the hebrew texts even more ridiculous.
Quote:
I'm not saying I myself believe in Asian religion, but as we've just discovered you are infact narrow minded when it comes to what's written in a book.
Oh! Well case closed. Next time I need to figure something out about the bible I'll make sure to check atheists.net like you guys to find apparent contradictions that professional scholars just so happen to ignore because they're fanatics and they just aren't open minded like atheists that will believe anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it conforms to their worldview. One day, I hope to acheive enlightenment akin to what I've observed here.
Quote:
Somehow people want unconciously want polytheism.
Even in a monotheistic religion like chistianity, there are
some "Additional lesser Gods", that not called God, but instead
angels, human saints, the devil.
Seams to be hard for people to just have one God, and not any other additional
"supernatural beeing".
That's illogical. By their nature, angels aren't God, or gods. Do the math.
Quote:
Irish_farmer, ad hominem arguments won't give you advantage in a discussion. On the contrary, they hint that you're out of arguments against the message, and thus had to retreat to attacking the messenger instead.
Then what does that say about you repeatedly calling anyone who would possibly offer a counterargument, no matter how reasoned, a fanatic? The fact of the matter is, you have nothing but bitter anti-religious ramblings going for you. You're so closed minded that you can do nothing but belittle anyone who would disagree, not on the basis of their arguments, but solely on the fact that they disagree with you. As if in some ironic attempt to cop yourself out, you then outline exactly why nothing you say should be taken seriously.
Quote:
If you think that Asimov is wrong, just read his writings and disprove them.
How about you give me a good reason to take a physicist, writing about the bible, seriously. As if he knows better than people who devote their entire lives to studying religious texts.
"I can't pretend that in writing this book, I am making any significant original contribution to Biblical scholarship; indeed, I am not competent to do so."
Sounds like he was pretty confident in his abilities.
That aside, I'm not berating his book for its content, but just the fact that an article critical of the bible would reference someone who has little to no business being used as any kind of credible source. You're reading way too far into what I said. I don't really care that he wrote the book. What's pathetic is that his unscholarly book is used as if it was scholarly.
If you want me to take him seriously, then tell me what his qualifications are. Tell me what, in his book, is so damning to the bible that it simply can't be ignored?
Also, if you adore him so much, then your polytheism charge is out the window. He provides a way (right in the beginning of vol 1) in which elohim could be interpreted only as one God. Are you going to charge him with not knowing what he's talking about, or admit that your hypothesis is based on faulty exegesis and/or assumptions?
Quote:
When Adam has done his deed, he gets his sexual reward, with which the creation is finished.
Based on the fact that you just pulled this out of your butt, that says more about your view of women than it does the bible.
Posted By: jcl
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/06/06 10:22
Irish_farmer, in the past your discussion contributions had some quality and contained some real, serious arguments. I have the impression that this is currently lacking. You're mostly concentrating on insulting people. There is a lot of bitterness in your posts. I don't know what happened to you in the last months, maybe you crossed the border or something, or you're just too offended when someone discusses the bible in some critical way. In that case however you're free to walk away from such a discussion. - I indeed sort of admire Asimov because I think he was one of the great creative minds of the 20th century. But that does not mean that I agree with him on everything, f.i. on the meaning of "elohim". While elohim does not necessarily mean a particular number of gods, it means here a union of gods or godly forces in contrast to the individual god JHWH. - I am calling people fanatics when I think that they are extremist or fanatic in some way that narrows their view and mind. I believe this is the case with YECs. But I do not use this as the sole argument against their opinion. And what you're telling here disdainfully about the view of women is not my view but the bible's view. My view of women differs greatly from the old testament.
Posted By: William
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/06/06 11:50
If one were to believe that the bible is both a scientific study, and a religous study, pulled into one book, where would you draw the line? I think that is the problem shared by many people who believe in modern science mixed with the bible, and those who only take bits and peices of the book as truth. The more one blurs the lines, the more uncertain things become. Which of course degrades the bible and it's authority over time, which eventually, it will not be regarded as anything resembling truth at all. However, this is not to say that the YEC base has problems of it's own, as scripture can still be interpreted differently, even while taking things literally.
In the end, we all have to realize that there will always be some major and some minor changes to the bibles meanings, based on how we want it. I think it's best though, to minimize this whenever possible, as if you dont, whats the point of believing the bible in the first place? Of course, if you dont agree with the bible, and believe it needs major changes, the next step would be to write your own version of the bible, and this, i'm sure, will become more common as time goes on.
On a lighter note, ahem, which bible should we follow?
The bible for...
A) The fighting Irish?
B) Jcl's Science Extravaganza?
C) Bible Evolved, by Matt?
D) The eMoxPH?
F) My guide to the universe and stuff, by Tom Cruise
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/06/06 23:59
Quote:
Irish_farmer, in the past your discussion contributions had some quality and contained some real, serious arguments. I have the impression that this is currently lacking. You're mostly concentrating on insulting people. There is a lot of bitterness in your posts. I don't know what happened to you in the last months, maybe you crossed the border or something, or you're just too offended when someone discusses the bible in some critical way. In that case however you're free to walk away from such a discussion.
On the surface, you're right. I'm just trying to have a little fun at other's expense (for instance, the Matt thing), and so on. If you were to read my posts more literally than I meant it, then it would probably come off the wrong way. Also, if you were to read my posts the way I meant then it would still come off the same way. I'm mostly just trying to be sarcastic and whatnot, though.
I think if you knew me in real life, you would get it. I'm very opinionated, and though I don't mean to offend others, it definately can come off that way.
Also, I'm not here for serious in depth discussion anymore. My obsessional drive to go as in depth with the evolution topic as possible has ended. Now, I'm just trying to add my two cents whenever a topic piques my curiosity.
Quote:
I indeed sort of admire Asimov because I think he was one of the great creative minds of the 20th century.
I have no doubt he's a smart guy. I'd bet money on him being much much smarter than myself. In fact, to call his book 'anti-religious', as I put it, is...incorrect. He was writing his book from the perspective of a non-religious person. Which doesn't necessarily mean he was trying to bash it.
Quote:
And what you're telling here disdainfully about the view of women is not my view but the bible's view.
Well, the only reason I said that is because you're reading into it. There's no where in the bible that it says eve was created for his sexual pleasure. In fact, the initial way the bible describes her is as a helpmeet.
Women, while required for procreation, also serve many other useful purposes. Which is why I found it strange that you jumped right onto the sexual thing, out of all the other possibilities.
Either way, the important thing is that the bible doesn't say, "Adam named the animals and therefore got to have a sexual toy." He named the animals, found none that suited him as a proper companion and so Eve was created. That they have sex is basically coincidental in the grand scheme of things, as far as I see it.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/07/06 00:13
I tend to disagree, because exactly this should ring a bell;
Quote:
found none that suited him as a proper companion
At the moment I can't check the exact lines in the bible, so perhaps it's a bit more vague indeed. However, they didn't even discover they were actually naked but did have sex right? (they had not eaten from the apples?) I'd say 'companion' does indicate 'sexual partner'.
Quote:
That they have sex is basically coincidental in the grand scheme of things, as far as I see it.
Well, I know from my experience that sex is never coincidental. Besides that, weren't they going crazy like rabbits anyways, judging from the huge amount of children they must have created? (one thing that's clearly impossible gene-wise)
Cheers
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/07/06 12:00
Quote:
You're mostly concentrating on insulting people.
Irish reaction has been rather harsh but he has been also insulted, you should admit it, and it was not the first time
Getting back to the topic
One possible answer and a further question
The answer
The contracdiction is evident, but , well it may happen...as simple as that unless you assume that bible has been written by God rather than men , which is not your case ,as far as I know
One of the greatest logic and mathematician ever Mr Godel applied for U.S.A. citzin
He started arguing with the comitee about the several ridicouls contradictions of American costitution
Fortunatly the president of the comitee realized what kind of guy he was dealing with
The answer ( for bible expert )
It it true that Bible is full of atrocities which are not taught at school ?
Apart from the sacrifice of the son, which can have a meaning , I mean somethig like:
King David returned to jerusalem after defeating the enemies
"You did not fulfill God's will "
"Yes I did "
"No you did not, women and kids are still alive "
"Why should God want the death of women and kids ?"
"How do you dare to comment God's will ?"
King David got back and the Lord's will was fulfilled
Is it true ? I so how can religious people justifiy something like that ?
Unless Bible have ben written by wild people in a wild world
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/07/06 13:36
There are many many many more examples to be found either in the bible or in our own history that clearly shows a lot of pure evil has been done 'in name of ...' (ironically mostly 'in name of God' btw). If there is something as devine justice after we die, then hell must be loaded with religious people, that's for sure.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/08/06 03:24
Quote:
found none that suited him as a proper companion
At the moment I can't check the exact lines in the bible, so perhaps it's a bit more vague indeed. However, they didn't even discover they were actually naked but did have sex right? (they had not eaten from the apples?) I'd say 'companion' does indicate 'sexual partner'.
I'm not saying they didn't have sex, or that they weren't created with the purpose of sex in mind. What I'm saying is that there's nothing in the text to indicate that eve was created primarily as a sexual reward.
The first time the bible indicates them 'knowing' each other is some unspecified time after the curse. So, perhaps Adam's sexual reward is associated with cursing the entire creation.
Quote:
Well, I know from my experience that sex is never coincidental. Besides that, weren't they going crazy like rabbits anyways, judging from the huge amount of children they must have created? (one thing that's clearly impossible gene-wise)
The bible speaks of Cain and Abel directly (later on Seth). However, there's no way they didn't have more children, and the bible even says he had more kids. The question is, how many children did they have? There's no real way to know, at least from a plain reading of the bible.
I just don't get what's impossible about that, gene-wise, though.
Quote:
King David returned to jerusalem after defeating the enemies
"You did not fulfill God's will "
"Yes I did "
"No you did not, women and kids are still alive "
"Why should God want the death of women and kids ?"
"How do you dare to comment God's will ?"
King David got back and the Lord's will was fulfilled
Is it true ? I so how can religious people justifiy something like that ?
Unless Bible have ben written by wild people in a wild world
From what I understand, and I would have to research this more fully myself, it was written in a wild world. The general consensus appears to be that the ancient world (around those times) was largely on the edge of descending into chaos, unlike now where there's relative stability.
That being said, you have to ask yourself a question. Is there ever a time when its permissable (not necessarily good, however) to kill children?
You also have to ask yourself if it is God's will, does that mean its necessarily a 'good' thing?
I don't know the specifics of the event offhand, but just some general things to keep in mind. Many nations were in the nasty habit of harrassing the Jews repeatedly, attacking them and other nations, stealing their people to live in servitude or whatnot. If the Jews were justified in destroying the armies of those nations, as perhaps the case can be made, they may not have had any choice but to destroy ALL of the people in those nations in order to secure a safe future. In other words, it doesn't do much good to have the children growing up and wanting revenge. Perhaps a bit of unpleasant bloodshed early on can save more bloodshed later in time?
I wouldn't look at these events just on the surface, with our modern societies in mind. I had a problem with some of these things too, but they begin to make some sense when you consider the historical and social background.
Unfortunately, I've barely had time to barely scratch the surface.
JCL, upon reflection, its interesting to note how your view of modern society has been reflected in your 'theory.' I could perhaps be wrong, this is just my theory. However, you refer to there being one account of creation for the enlightened, what you would consider the Theory of Evolution for its time. Then there's the creation account for the 'ignorants', if you will.
It seems to me you've imposed your own ideas of the 'enlightened' darwinists and the 'ignorant' religious folks of the modern day, onto the Genesis account. The parallel, to me, seems too obvious to ignore.
I'm not trying to ridicule your idea, but it seemed to me like a subconscious (or perhaps conscious) way for you to reassert how you feel about the differences between, perhaps, evolutionists and 'anti-evolutionists.'
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/08/06 08:37
Quote:
You also have to ask yourself if it is God's will, does that mean its necessarily a 'good' thing?
Well , I suppose the answer should be : Yes it is
Anyway I can partially accept your explanation about the necessity of killing also the children
The point is that in the Bible there are also examples of "pure" sadism
Again I am repeating what I have read in other books, I did not check the original source
There were harsh discussions , in the past, about these points, among theologists
They came up with the usual explanation
"The bible must not be understood " litteraly "
Posted By: A.Russell
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/08/06 13:30
For someone who likes to apply Occams famous razor, JCL,　that is a lot of crap. To make things as simple as possible, what do you really think actually happened regarding the amazing peice of literature that has become/made it, to todays bloody Holy Bible?
Alberto (despite coming from SA) and Irish Farmer (although coming form southern North America) -you should be ashamed Alberto! I'm surprised your peers don't pick on you for the [censored] idiot you are!-, are obviously full of [censored], or shite, or bullshit, whatever. Oh ye of little faith! Watch your tiny world crumble around thee (you).
(I can undrstand for Iish Farmer, because nearly everyone from that region of the world is brain dead by birth right, as it seems. All the Scottish immigrants went straight to the south, where something in the water, not the lime that makes Scotch Whiskey famous, made them all insane religious fanatics).
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/08/06 15:01
I dont come from SA
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/08/06 23:39
Quote:
Well , I suppose the answer should be : Yes it is
Well, it can be both good and bad. Good in that its an act that will lead to the greater good, but bad in the sense that they killed kids. The bible doesn't gloss over the harsh realities of those times.
Quote:
The point is that in the Bible there are also examples of "pure" sadism
Well, I wouldn't give too much credence to that opinion just yet. I think its important to fully understand both sides of the argument (even if you don't like fundamentalists). I don't think I've heard of any argument set forth about God being unjust that has stood up to a counterargument. That doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means I haven't heard of one at this time.
Quote:
There were harsh discussions , in the past, about these points, among theologists
They came up with the usual explanation
"The bible must not be understood " litteraly "
Yeah, but many christians also started to question the bible over slavery, when it turned out they just misunderstood what was written in the text and added their own modern notions to ancient times.
The Church in general has done a terrible job of giving christians any kind of critical thinking ability (in regards to the bible), and for that matter any kind of real understanding of their own faith.
Quote:
For someone who likes to apply Occams famous razor, JCL,　that is a lot of crap. To make things as simple as possible, what do you really think actually happened regarding the amazing peice of literature that has become/made it, to todays bloody Holy Bible?
Alberto (despite coming from SA) and Irish Farmer (although coming form southern North America) -you should be ashamed Alberto! I'm surprised your peers don't pick on you for the [censored] idiot you are!-, are obviously full of [censored], or shite, or bullshit, whatever. Oh ye of little faith! Watch your tiny world crumble around thee (you).
(I can undrstand for Iish Farmer, because nearly everyone from that region of the world is brain dead by birth right, as it seems. All the Scottish immigrants went straight to the south, where something in the water, not the lime that makes Scotch Whiskey famous, made them all insane religious fanatics).
I would pin my location as being about in the middle of North America, actually. I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but its a stretch to say I live in the 'southern North America'.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/11/06 08:17
Ok, JCL. As a throwback to the old days I've decided to include my ad hominem free rebuttle to your theory.
I just received my Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible Red Letter Edition (finally). That said, I still am not completely sure how to use the darn thing. Its a huge book, and you have to read the instructions in order to know what you're doing (I'll have to read the instructions several times before it sinks in), but so far its been pretty interesting.
After quickly reviewing the basic guidelines, I decided I wanted to do a test 'word study.' My first inspiration is my sister's church, which I consider to be a cult at worst, heretical at best. They have this strange doctrine about 'confessions' where you're not supposed to say things like, "I'm getting sick" because your words will make it happen. To me, I was immediately skeptical of this idea (I used to go to the church), but using the concordance I now know the preacher is more full of crap than I initially believed. As if humanity has God on a leash or something...
Anyhow, my second inspiration was your theory about elohim. I looked this up second of all and got some interesting information on it. The word Elohim is used 2,606 times.
However, the interesting facts lie in its use. Its actually still shrouded in some mystery as to its actual translation, so I don't claim to know for certain what its precise meaning is. However, there appears to be no evidence besides the plural structure of the word to imply that it means multiple gods.
Number one, elohim is used not only throughout both Genesis accounts, its used throughout most of the Old Testament. So apparently the contradiction doesn't lie just in Genesis, but throughout the entire writings of the OT.
Anyway, you could use this to claim that polytheism survived for quite some time. But there are other words used for God, so let's take a look at those first because they're inserted between the use of elohim.
In Genesis, Jehovah (...) or some variant is used a small number of times between the use of elohim. Its singular, meaning of course the self existent one. Strange that in the same text they could use a singular and plural word, and switch it up back and forth.
Ale (?) is also used, and means either power or can describe something as mighty or something along those lines. IE mighty God.
In Exodus, jehovah is switched up with elohim again.
In numbers, ale is again used. It goes on and on like this for some time. Elahh gets mixed in, in the book of Ezra (singular).
From quickly glancing over the rest of the usage before the NT, its just a mixed bag of what we've been seeing so far (with elohim dominating). Interesting to note is that elohim is used to refer to something that is "exceeding", refers to angels, means "goddess", "Godward", "godly". What's clear is that we have a somewhat limited picture of the exact nature of elohim. What is also clear however is that it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists. Simply saying that the word MUST mean what you think it means, without further examination is a pretty limited way of evaluating complex texts like the bible. I'm not trying to bash you here, since you never claimed to have studied the bible in depth. I'm just saying, whatever source you got your materials from should be checked.
Quote:
it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists
While its clear that all semitic poeples were polytheists of some kind of another in the distant past, i agree that this dosent PROVE it. However, its simply pointed out as a possible survival of polytheism, and nothing more.
Remember also that in the past poeples usually acknowledged the Gods worshipped by others, even if they did not follow them; even more interesting, it was a genreral habit in the Mediterranean world to equate other Gods with one's own.
For instance, Herodotus often refers to various semitic gods as analog-hybrids, like Zeus-Bel, etc.
In other words, to simply view the biblical texts in isolation, without regard to ancient religous and cultural practices is a mistake. After all the First Commandment says "thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/11/06 12:46
Quote:
What is also clear however is that it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists. Simply saying that the word MUST mean what you think it means, without further examination is a pretty limited way of evaluating complex texts like the bible.
Poor understanding? If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'. Apart from that, I think you tend to put to much trust in authors of the books you read.
Besides, there are plenty of 'interpretation' issues that are not 'solved' by the concordance, infact it makes it worse. Let me give you an example:
For example, the Divine name YHVH has been said to mean " Self existant one". The superficial definition of it in the strongs give it that meaning as well, but with a little determination one can use this book to discover that it doesnt mean that at all. Hava, or HVH in hebrew, means to breath and/or to become. YHVH then means He is causing breath. However, if you digg even deeper you will see that YHVH also has within it AVAH which means to desire, or wish for, showing Gods ability to simply desire a thing to be. So with all this we can see that YHVH means He who causes to breath, or He who causes to become through breathing, or even He who manifests his desires through breath. Of course, breath being a symbol of life and the actual meaning of Spirit, Ruach, Breath, and not some Phantasmic force, but Gods own voice is creating.
There's a great difference between 'Self existant one' and 'He who manifests his desires through breath' (the latter NOT being a correct translation, but a interpretation instead, people tend to confuse that a LOT!) They are making linguistic jumps all over the place when it comes to claims about the 'true meaning of words'.
Still, when you read that Strong's concordance or Zondervan's concordance for all I care, you will no doubt find out about how bad the KJV actually has been translated by scholars back in the 16th century.
Quote:
"thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
Infact, if there would be NO other Gods, why would the Bible even mention this? I do see this as a 'proof' of a somewhat polytheïstic view. I think the remnants in the bible of words or sentences which seem to imply multiple Gods instead of just one God adds too this as well, although it may not directly proof it, we all know we'd have to encounter multiple Gods to prove anything anyways, which makes 'proving' a bit irrelevant in this case. Still, a conclusion which assumes polytheism (or remnants of that) is very legit based on not just that,
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/11/06 16:37
Quote:
Poor understanding? If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'. Apart from that, I think you tend to put to much trust in authors of the books you read.
Well, they aren't unaccountable e-authors, but I guess with decades of experience, they certainly require my complete and utter distrust.
I'll actually be receiving my more in depth Vine's dictionary, which includes the greek and hebrew in more depth. I ordered them both at the same time, but one wasn't directly from Amazon.
Quote:
For example, the Divine name YHVH has been said to mean " Self existant one". The superficial definition of it in the strongs give it that meaning as well, but with a little determination one can use this book to discover that it doesnt mean that at all. Hava, or HVH in hebrew, means to breath and/or to become. YHVH then means He is causing breath. However, if you digg even deeper you will see that YHVH also has within it AVAH which means to desire, or wish for, showing Gods ability to simply desire a thing to be. So with all this we can see that YHVH means He who causes to breath, or He who causes to become through breathing, or even He who manifests his desires through breath. Of course, breath being a symbol of life and the actual meaning of Spirit, Ruach, Breath, and not some Phantasmic force, but Gods own voice is creating.
Its interesting, because when I think about it I saw almost this exact same quote on the reader reviews at amazon.
Anyway, the superficial definition in Strong's does indeed say that. What they do is then go on to explain its initial use, and its roots. What the person you quoted fails to mention is that the actual word used, yehovih (?) is just a variant of the word yehovah (?), which can be traced to hayah, amongst other words. What is the meaning of hayah? to exist, or to be, or to become, come to pass. Then they go on to explain this word further, and it makes sense to consider jehovah to be the self existing one. I'm sure the specific trail that person followed to come to their conclusion also gives you a broader idea of the nature of God in the bible. Because its by his voice/breath that his desire is made manifest. So what he said isn't false, he just falsely claimed that there was no proper reasoning for calling the Lord the self-existent one.
Now, how this relates back to the KJV being a terrible translation, I don't know. Since there's no where in the bible that God is even referred to as self-existing one, and you haven't given any other examples, you've just plainly stated that its a bad translation, I'm kind of left in the dark here.
Quote:
Still, when you read that Strong's concordance or Zondervan's concordance for all I care, you will no doubt find out about how bad the KJV actually has been translated by scholars back in the 16th century.
In fact, I've come to a greater appreciation (so far) of what the scholars had to do to make a successful translation. I'm actually more impressed with their work now, than ever. Of course, I'm sure that could change, but thus far that's been the pattern.
Quote:
"thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infact, if there would be NO other Gods, why would the Bible even mention this? I do see this as a 'proof' of a somewhat polytheïstic view. I think the remnants in the bible of words or sentences which seem to imply multiple Gods instead of just one God adds too this as well, although it may not directly proof it, we all know we'd have to encounter multiple Gods to prove anything anyways, which makes 'proving' a bit irrelevant in this case. Still, a conclusion which assumes polytheism (or remnants of that) is very legit based on not just that,
Don't you think you're taking a rather limited perspective here?
Number one, if you want to leave it at just this verse, then I could just as well state the the 'gods' referred to here are made up gods that would distract the people from their true Lord. Since you're leaving it so open to interpretation, there's no way to know who's right. Which is why looking elsewhere helps.
Quote:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [jehovah], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10-11
Quote:
Thus saith the LORD [jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God [elohim]. Isaiah 44:6
Quote:
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [jehovah] he is God [elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut. 4:35)
Etc. Its pretty clear, when you look at the entire picture (as you should), its not open to interpretation. There's no way to reconcile a polytheistic view with a God who says there isn't even any other God besides him in the first place. Apparently, these ancients believed in multiple gods, but they only mention one God who apparently doesn't know about these other gods, and then they don't mention, worship, or otherwise praise these other gods.
I suppose you could be hyper-literal and say that these extra gods are somewhere except right beside the Lord.
Quote:
If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'.
No, the problem is when so-called 'skeptics' come into play. The try and muddle the topic by reading the bible wrong, so it does take an in depth study to refute their 'skepticism'.
For thousands of years, people have been able to get the plain message of the bible without having to study it in depth, and there have been no problems. Its the "enlightened" folks of the modern era who seem unable to grasp the basic message of the bible, and thus require learned christians to really tear into the text to show them what the deal is. Not that this necessarily applies to anyone here, I'm just making a generalization about the interactions I've seen between 'skeptics' and apologists.
If only the skeptics would apply this same healthy skepticism to unaccountable internet sources. Ah, well. 
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/11/06 17:19
I've just looked at the amazon page, yes it's the exact same, except they use it in a different way.
Quote:
What the person you quoted fails to mention is that the actual word used, yehovih (?) is just a variant of the word yehovah (?), which can be traced to hayah, amongst other words.
Uhm, Jehovah is a modern reconstruction of the ancient Hebrew name for God but in itself it's an artificial word so you can't link through like that. Off course the word bears the same meaning now, but basically it's a modern version of the word Jehovih, so depending on your view it's simply spelled wrong ...
Quote:
I'll actually be receiving my more in depth Vine's dictionary, which includes the greek and hebrew in more depth.
I thought you had the version which included those? Anyways, it doesn't matter, the Vine's dictionary is very interesting nevertheless.
Quote:
you've just plainly stated that its a bad translation, I'm kind of left in the dark here.
I'm talking about dozens of errors when looking at the ancient Hebrew and the translations in KJV, nothing special, search the web for some examples, I'm sure they can be found. I currently do not have the time to provide some.
Quote:
For thousands of years, people have been able to get the plain message of the bible without having to study it in depth, and there have been no problems.
I hope you're not claiming the understanding of the bible hasn't changed, because that's silly and definately wrong, just look at the religious sects or movements throughout history, believing in slightly different things. Infact the whole concept of 'church' doesn't quite originate in the bible, am I right? Well, eventhough I think they simply wanted/had power, they do claim to have been 'guiding the(ir) people'.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/11/06 18:38
Quote:
Uhm, Jehovah is a modern reconstruction of the ancient Hebrew name for God but in itself it's an artificial word so you can't link through like that.
I put question marks after the words, because I didn't know if I was using the correct english equivelant. However, regardless, I was using the directly translated words. In other words, looking at the exact passage where the word "God" appears in english, finding its equivelant in the Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like the dictionary always provides the exact english word, just the pronounciation key or whatever its called. So I was tracing the original word, and attempting to the best of my ability to come up with the english for it, and then looking at its roots which is how I found the meaning of hayah. Whether or not I used the right spelling or whatever isn't relevant to what the word means.
Quote:
I thought you had the version which included those? Anyways, it doesn't matter, the Vine's dictionary is very interesting nevertheless.
It has the 'best of'. I wanted the original book to make sure I have the whole picture when possible.
Quote:
I'm talking about dozens of errors when looking at the ancient Hebrew and the translations in KJV, nothing special, search the web for some examples, I'm sure they can be found. I currently do not have the time to provide some.
I did a quick search, and all I could find were sites outlining the debate between people who think any translation besides the KJV was written by Satan, and people who don't think that.
Quote:
I hope you're not claiming the understanding of the bible hasn't changed, because that's silly and definately wrong, just look at the religious sects or movements throughout history, believing in slightly different things. Infact the whole concept of 'church' doesn't quite originate in the bible, am I right? Well, eventhough I think they simply wanted/had power, they do claim to have been 'guiding the(ir) people'.
You're right, which is why its important that at the very least, christian leaders are well equipped to refute error and heresy. Its also why, me being the person that I am, I want to know as much as possible about the original writings so I can critically examine these 'variants'.
That there are false doctrines, false teachers is an unfortunate truth. I've examined these different sects to a small extent, and to me its pretty plain to see why they're wrong. For instance, Mormons claim that Jehovah is the son, and Elohim is the father (two seperate entities). As you can see in the passages above, Jehovah claims to be Elohim. So which is it? I would take that to mean that the mormons are 'false teachers'. So I agree that perspectives and ideas change, but as I said that just shows the importance of understanding what you believe, and understanding the truth, so that you're not led astray.
I'm not specifically sure what you mean by 'church'. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I literally am not sure what you mean. Do you mean churches like church on the corner? Or the church as a whole, which just includes a metaphysical binding of all believers? Or the corporate existence of an entire church, ie the Catholic Church?
Either way, I'll have to admit that I don't know enough to give an answer. I'd have to look into it personally.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/12/06 01:43
Quote:
I'm not specifically sure what you mean by 'church'. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I literally am not sure what you mean. Do you mean churches like church on the corner? Or the church as a whole, which just includes a metaphysical binding of all believers? Or the corporate existence of an entire church, ie the Catholic Church?
I meant Church, as in the 'institutions' throughout history (which obviously wasn't always the same). A bit depending on which part of history you're looking at, the Church as an institution has always very much influenced people.
In the old days it has been easy to take advantage of people who couldn't read, but it's also quite impossible to let people know what's in texts when you don't explain it to them. Thus as for the biblical message itself, Churches may not be that bad, however e.g. the 'donation box' (especially in the past) made certain Churches very very rich. Now where does that fit in with the biblical message?
Quote:
I did a quick search, and all I could find were sites outlining the debate between people who think any translation besides the KJV was written by Satan, and people who don't think that.
Okey, I'll see if I can find some articles for you on this. I'm starting to doubt a little bit though, perhaps I've read about it in a book or magazine instead, I tend to use all kinds of sources, which kinda makes it dangerous to claim 'articles can be found everywhere on the net', but I'd expect a handful at least.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved - 12/15/06 00:19
Quote:
I meant Church, as in the 'institutions' throughout history (which obviously wasn't always the same). A bit depending on which part of history you're looking at, the Church as an institution has always very much influenced people.
In the old days it has been easy to take advantage of people who couldn't read, but it's also quite impossible to let people know what's in texts when you don't explain it to them. Thus as for the biblical message itself, Churches may not be that bad, however e.g. the 'donation box' (especially in the past) made certain Churches very very rich. Now where does that fit in with the biblical message?
The catholic church, for instance, has gotten rich off of scaring people with their unbiblical doctrines of things like pergatory and so on.
But yeah, there are people out their who use the religious nature of the human species to their profitable advantage. John Popper (sp) comes to mind. As well as Benny Hinn.
I don't think its necessarily bad for a church to collect money, as long as they use it for missions, or helping needy, or building up their church to support the congregation and so on. But you're right, the greediness of certain charlatans has been an unfortunate consequence of many christians being, more or less, 'mindless.'
Quote:
Okey, I'll see if I can find some articles for you on this. I'm starting to doubt a little bit though, perhaps I've read about it in a book or magazine instead, I tend to use all kinds of sources, which kinda makes it dangerous to claim 'articles can be found everywhere on the net', but I'd expect a handful at least.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind reading on that. I can see some things, while studying the bible, that some people might object to. So I may already know what your sources are going to discuss. We'll see.
Posted By: sPlKe
Re: The Bible Mystery - 02/22/07 14:00
ill bring back another topic:
adam and eve...
so they got two sons, who got themselves two women and...
wait...
what women? their mother?
no cant be incest is forbidden by god...
maybe eve had two daughters? ah.. inces is forbidden by god...
so the only conclusion is: they had sex with lilim, (children of lilith, first wife of adam who was kicked out of the paradise, google for her) who were demons, thus they created BAD people...
and this is stade where in teh bible??? nowhere? how come?-.-
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: The Bible Mystery - 02/22/07 18:11
In a pure biological way, the bible has a problem anyways, since they define them as 'the first humans'.
The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction is what counts here, that transition has taken place way way way earlier than when the human species evolved into the ape-like creatures 'we' once were. It's questionable wether asexual reproduction (hermaphrodites) actually commit acts of incest (lol take snails as an example) , still when Adam and Eve (and Lilith lol) were just like us, then this probably wouldn't be relevant at all since they already were reproducing non-asexual for probably millions of years (you know, the pre-human species).
Cheers
Posted By: jcl
Re: The Bible Mystery - 02/22/07 21:39
The usual (fundamentalist) answer on this is that Adam had also daughters that were just not mentioned in the bible. They interbred.
Posted By: Inestical
Re: The Bible Mystery - 02/22/07 22:24
There is (at least) one mention of interbredding, man's two daughters (later born moabis and ammons) made their father drink wine and then had sex with him.
First Moses - 19:31-38
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: The Bible Mystery - 02/23/07 00:45
Yeah, brothers and sisters would have had to marry at first.
The anti-incest law God created wasn't a 'universal' law, per se. It was a law that was meant to be followed AFTER it was given. Likely, it was meant to protect people against the accumulation of harmful mutations or something along those lines.