What do you think about the Bible?

[Mars Man]

POINT NUMBER 2. . . continuation

2. A.

From Josephus' work Ant. of the Jews we can find many occasions where his parent text had probably been different for our present Masoretic text, or he had been very loosely interpreting. We can also deduce from several statements of his that he had not had all of the second temple texts which may have been in Nehemiah's library. As a sample space, we can find evidence for different texts at:

Antiquities of the Jews
II.XV.2-----215 years in Egypt (a groundless abrigement),
IV.VI.5-----two attempts by Balaam to curse Israel, rather than three,
IV.VI.6-----detail on the daughters of the Midianites,
IV.VIII.15--additional wording in the law regarding not recieving the testimony of women.
VII.IX.1----4 years had passed after Absalom's reconciliation with his father.
etc.​

In Whiston's dessertaion IV, he argues well for the understanding--and it holds today--that Josephus texts were different from not only the Masoretic text we have today (Cairo Codex, c. 895 CE; Leningrad B19, 1008 CE) but also to a lesser degree even the LXX and the Samaritan texts. His argument is that Josephus had had an earlier textual form which while largely the same, had different wordings from place to place, and which had not included Ezra. (which at that day included our present Nehemiah as well)

In findings in Qumran cave four, an almost full collection of the present OT canon was found. Again here, differences were found which are from the same period of time that has been alloted to the composition of the Isaiah scroll found in cave one--which has been so over used to show the exactness in scribal consistency in order to argue that there has been extremely little textual change.

Of these findings we have copies, especially 1,2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, which greatly differ from the present text of M. Put in the words of J.A. Fitzmyer, 'Such ancient recensional forms of Old Testament books bear witness to an unsuspected textual diversity that once existed;. . . Thus, the differences in the Sepuagint are no longer considered the result of a poor or endentious attempt to translate the Hebrew into the Greek; rather they testify to a diffferent pre-Christian form of the Hebrew text.'

Regarding textual studies which pointed in this direction even before the finds can be found in some works--such as Scribner's Dictionary of the Bible, VOL IV, p 449. Here we see regarding the LXX, 'But more important is the fact that already the Hebrew texts used by the translators differed in varying degrees from the Masoretic text.'

The finds in cave four were very close to the LXX text forms and were also dated to the second century BCE--putting them in the exact same time frame as that Isaiah scroll.

Some of the leading witnesses to the text of M (the Masoretic text) are:

B17; Cairo Codex; Codex Sinaiticus (Greek, 4th century CE); Aquila (GR, 2nd century CE); 1QIs2 ({Q=Qumran} 2nd century BCE); Targum Aramaic; Jerusalem Targum; Targum of Onkelos; Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (Gr. 5th century CE) and 4Q scrolls, among a few others.

In looking through the critical apparatus of BHS (Biblical Hebraica Stuttengart--based on B17) one can find many of the alternative readings. Of course many are in spelling differences, but there are a material enough of references to disimilar readings too.

I'll finish point 2 with section B in a later post, working towards the conclusion pointed out in that earlier post.

 

[sabro]

Obviously Christians will have very different ideas for this thread. I shall however refrain from posting. I wouldn't want to be accused of prosletyzing or preaching (or the thread will be locked.)

 

[Mycernius]

Obviously Christians will have very different ideas for this thread. I shall however refrain from posting. I wouldn't want to be accused of prosletyzing or preaching (or the thread will be locked.)

You were never one for preaching or prosletyzing in the past. In fact you listen and debate in a civilised way (unlike the person who caused the problems in the first place. 'Nuff said about him). In some ways this thread would avoid preaching, as the very object that is used for preaching (The bible) is under scrutiny. You always seemed to listen in the past without going off on one, unlike some evangelical preachers I have debated with elsewhere, and was open to reason. Your input in the past was always constructive and helpful, even to heathens such as myself and I would gladly like to see you back more often.

 

[Nuala]

So guys, what do you think will happen if "Jesus" comes back for a second coming?

 

[Mars Man]

First of all. . . I must say, 'now there's a cat I haven't seen 'round in a while !' The past being far behind us now, I don't think you have anything to be worried about...and I could not have worded it any better than Mycernius has. Please do join in, sabro san.

Now regarding the matter of Jesus' returning, I would firstly tend to think that that line of discussion would be off-topic too--in that this thread is surely to be more closely fitted along that of discussing or presenting what we think about the Bible.

But then, in giving that presentation and in taking part in that discussion, I would suppose that it could be said that it is possible to reason that since the writing of the NT came after the oral tradition, and was a human action, that something of the nature of that oral tradition built itself up when it went into textual format.

There are a couple of articles in the journal Oral Tradition which highlight that possible factor, but the gist of the conclusion reached is that it is as likely a scenario that the historical Yeshua had never held to such a teaching.

Then, in finishing up my line of thought with POINT NUMBER 2 B:

Of the various non-canonical works found among the Qumran finds, we have the likes of The Visions of Amram, 1~4 Baruch, The Testament of Job, The Testament of Adam, 1 Enoch, The Testament of Abraham, The Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Vision of Ezra, Jubilees, The War Scroll, the copper scroll...etc.

A number of these are also considered to be second century BCE works, just like that famous Isaiah scroll. There is other textual evidence to fairly support the proposition that the Qumran community had considered 1 Enoch (which the NT book of Jude also uses) and Jubilees to be inspired works. The
Vision of Amram is most certainly an outside work which the group had collected, thus making it very possible to have been in wider circulation.

The two theories are that the Qumran group was either Essenic or Sadducean. What the evidence of the state of the various works kept by the group, and the matter of the group's being a relatively major religious group within Judaism point to, is that there were various 'collections' of written works held to be sacred and/or inspired.

One group's holding a certain work, for example, to be sacred and of high value, while another group held that same work to not have (at least) that same degree of scaredness and value, most surely points to mere human opinion for at least one or the other, or, feasibly for both.

We find references to books in a number of places in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures. The first (this does not necessarily imply chronological order) is at Joshua 10:13 where the book of Yeshar is mentioned as being the source for the information on the sun's standing still. In Numbers (21:14) we are directed to the book of the wars of YHWH. And there are at least three books that had likely been used as source material throughout Kings and Samuel.

These books no longer exist, yet we do not have all the information that they had contained, and cannot even begin to prove that we have the correct information as to what they may have contained. It is fair to take the information given in MS as having been true to those earlier works, but this again tends to show that the writings had been a human effort.

With all these points taken, under POINT NUMBER TWO, it can be seen that far more likely than not, the collections of works held to be sacred changed with the times and flows of humanity through time, as well some degree of content within some of the individual works themselves, up until the time of that decision in 90CE regarding Jewish canon.

There is further reasoning leading to the conclusion that the works of OT are for the most part, of human origin, as well. That will be forthcoming.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Well I've read through this entire thread as best as one can do while ensuring one's responsibilities at work are not neglected. I see a few different things happening. I see, 1) a debate within the Jewish camp on modern Judaism's roots and the proper interpretations therein, 2) a discussion (mostly produced by Mars Man) on what our precise definition of the bible will be once the discussion actually gets going, and then I see 3) other individuals putting in their respective two cents on Christianity and religion in general, offered as an extension of their opinion on 'the bible'.

All of this is valid discussion but so far we've yet to breach the original topic of whether the bible is a worthy companinon in this day and age with regards to spiritual and intellectual guidance, as per the OP. I dare say, whatever our eventual definition, the OP is most likely speaking about the modern bible of Christianity, so ancilliary discussions on Judaism or other religions will perhaps become moot since other religions have their own separate books, teachings, houses of worship, etc. However as far as the origins of the bible are concerned, as discussed mainly by Mars Man, Judaism would indeed be a requisite tangent.

I possess no factual knowledge about the bible from a scholars point of view. My experience has been osmotic at best, as it would be for most individuals raised in the traditional Western-Christian tradition, where aside from ceremonial differences between the Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, and so on, Christianity is largely understood to be concerned with foundational and cross-applicable concepts such as the Trinity, heaven and hell, the birth, adoration, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, redemption, sin, and so on. Based on this admittedly simple but common experience, (and crassly ahead of any discussion on our definition of the bible, apologies to Mars Man,) l am limited to saying the following.

Although I have no personal research to back this up, through traditional sources such as books and documentaries I feel it has been widely accepted and not nearly as strongly refuted that Christianity incorporated into it X number of years ago several Pagan forms as a means to politically amalgamate various geopgraphical areas under the Roman empire. Here I refer to everything from mainstream works like Dan Brown's (possibly stolen) DaVinci code, which is something of a Michael Moore treatment of the fallacies of Christian doctrine, to various smaller articles which have since become popular reading material, that are more historical in nature and less concerned with religious doctrine. Insert disagreements here.

On top of this, I recently came across a documentary called Zeitgeist - a (popular and well done if I say so myself) internet based offering, which neatly and concisely lays out several similarities between the Judaeo-Christian theology and other religious belief systems. In short, across these religions, many of the symbols, numbers, and timelines coincide with one another, thereby creating a long list of similar Messiah and 'Christ' figure stories as well as all the concordant events surrounding their lives. Sources outside of the actual religions themselves are referenced largely from the same writers and poets already well-documented throughout history. The religions themselves, within discussions on religious personal (per-soh-nl) and chornological phonemena, can be taken at face value when investigatnig simple and quite evident similarities: this book says A, this other book also says A. To me the movie is a collection of pre-existing facts and does nothing more than present these ideas in a manner suggesting previously unobserved connections and similarities. If anyone has seen the movie and rejected it outright as mere conjecture they should read the above paragraph again - it's not opinion so much as an attempt to draw upon pre-existing similarities. To refute it, one would have to prove that all our collected modern historical understanding of ancient cultures and their belief systems is somehow inherently flawed.

The movie goes on to connect some pretty big dots between natural celestial events (astronomy) and the allegories of religious texts and belief systems throughout the ages.

So before I even engage in any discussions on the practicality of the bible, I must preface my thought process with the abovementioned information. All major and most minor religions share similarities that appear to stem from what is nothing more than common knowledge based on the stars, the crops, the tides, the sun most importantly, and the personification of these elements. This knowledge, transmitted orally and allegorically over the years through culturally relevant tradition and worship has formed the backbone of societal religion for much greater a time period than that which contains our beloved bible and Christianity. The bible to me is just the latest in a long line of incarnations of humanity's attempts to understand the natural world.

Whether or not one finds it relevant comes down to whether it speaks to them and empowers them to improve their life and the lives of others. If it does that, so be it, however a lot the true meanings and lessons are by this point so deeply steeped in parables, politics and cryptic reference that it has lost its ability to function as a textbook communicating the knowledge our ancestors possessed.

 

[sabro]

Thanks Mike and Oliver... I have been lurking with little to say. This discussion seemed to be in my particular corner, but again... I really don't have much to add.

For bakaK:
I find the Bible relevant. It speaks to me and empowers me to improve my life and the lives of other. It deepens my appreciation of life, it gives me certainty, connection, significance, and purpose. It clarifies and defines my faith. My faith has been the best, strongest and most positive influence in my life. Although people may find these things elsewhere, it is where I found them.

 

[Mars Man]

Starting off here, I'd first like to offer, as a means of encouragement, again, that as this particular thread plays on out, and as that much hoped for 'Serious Discussion' sub-fora comes so welcomedly into reality, the desire for your joining in, sabro san.

Then, bakaKanadajin san, your above post being the quality of what you do while in the midst of your work--where distraction and lack of being able to really get deep into thought is to be expected--I am eagerly awaiting, in awe, your posts done in the clarity and meditative mood of your private space !!

The last two paragraphs of your presentation perhaps hit at home more than the ones before, although there is much, I think, that I would like to discuss more; on threads that more closely fit those several subject matters.

If I may here, I'd like to again advance the need for a broader referent for our term 'Bible,' over and against that most obviously (as bakaKanadajin has surely correctly pointed out) intended by the OP. Without depending on any definitive conclusion for what is 'Christian,' we could take an overall view and then soon see that the contents of what is called 'Bible' is divided. In that case, which one, then, is actually 'Bible?' A neutral third party cannot decide on the arguments by the two sides alone.

When we add the Jewish element, we again get a different member. We are again at a cross-roads which gives no clear answer--based on the particular arguments alone. It will happen again when we open the 'Gnostic' sphere, the 'Arian' sphere, the 'Coptic' sphere...and so on and so on.

For that reason--and perhaps that reason alone...for now--it is optimal to include all possible Judeo-Christian works into a single collection (which is what any 'Bible' is anyway, actually and historically; a collection of writings) up to 325 CE because that is clearly a terminus ad quem for additions to the most likely original Torah.

I will post some more in the direction I had mentioned earlier, a bit later...it is a little too early in the morning here now.....MM

 

[Seon-a Kim]

Mars Man, you once send a PM to ask me something related to this topic...I'll soon answer it, though it's been some time ago and the exact things I dunno anymore in detail though. But there where many doubts.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Mars Man's suggestion that, for now, we begin with the bible as a collection of works whose definition and completeness terminates in the year 325, seems logical to me, especially as someone with little more than a layman's understanding of the bible. This would, as he points out, alleviate much discussion on lost, missing and unincluded books for the time being, as well as produce for us layman a broader starting point and gateway for definition as we approach those very books which are in question.

 

[Mars Man]

Mars Man, you once send a PM to ask me something related to this topic...

I have no recollection of this at all. Of course it would not have been regarding this thread, in that you have only posted here for the first time with #84, and my PM 'sent' box does not have a PM to you in it...and this thread had been started in the middle of September...so...?? Please do let me know what's on your mind. Please do keep in mind the thread's topic, though.

Thanks for you input there bakaKanadajin san. I would like to think now, that that matter can be considered relatively settled for the moment, so that we can move forward.

Don't worry, please, pugtm san, your voice has been of course heard. I hope that you will see and trust the understanding that for now we have to go with this broader definition. One reason is because it is a fact that when you open your English translation of Exodus, for example, (or even the Hebrew text BHS itself) you are not reading within the text (apparatus on the side) what it is known a person could have been reading when they had read that scroll in the year 500 BCE. Much is the same, but not all, and that goes for those scrolls available shortly after that which eventual came to make up the decided on Jewish Palestinian canon in the first century CE.

In checking the SBL forum just the day before yesterday, I noticed a timely presentation by A.J. Hauser of Appalachian State University entitled, Sources of the Pentateuch: So Many Theories, So Little Consensus. It is a review and critique of 'Source Criticism.'

His main argument was to offer approval of the adjustment of method in source-critical methodology by giving oral tradition studies more influence. In discussing the sources that are known, however, he also brought up the earlier reference materials used in composing parts of Tanakh--the books of Jasher, (as he spelled it) and Acts of Solomon, and Wars of the Lord (sic). Of course there could be others too.

While the details are quite involved, there is one thing that is clear: The Torah was not a single handed work, composed at a single point in time, and then handed down in a preserved manner without alteration--both interpolative and spurious. I will present a few examples in my next post, afterwhich I will make some challenges to some earlier claims.

SBL Article, Oct '07 A. J. Hauser; Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies by R. C. Culley, Oral Tradition 1/1 '86 pp 30-65; An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis by J. H. Tigay, JBL 94/3, '75, pp 329-342; Primative Christianity and Judaism: A Symposium-a problem of things new and old in the beginnings of christianity by F. C. Porter, JBL 48/1-2 '29, pp 1-23

 

[Seon-a Kim]

From my PM box from you:

Hello from the Alps of Japan, the roof of Honshu !!
I hope that the spring there has broken in just right, and that all the greenery is coming out brightly. All the folks out here in the country today, were out doing their rice fields. It was a nice today, and I was very busy.
I notice your post #35 (I think it was) in the thread on 'What's your religion' and was interested by it. Of the several religious groups that I have associated with over the past 35 years or more, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Society) was one.
I noticed that you mentioned that you believed 95% ( I think it was) of their teachings, and I was just curious--if you'd be interested in sharing--which ones you do not believe.
From my studies--and I am still continuing that as a member of the Society of Biblical Literature--I have come to reason that the primary basis for their take on many of the essential scriptural tenets is in fallacy. For that reason, I would posit that more of what the Watchtower Society teaches is not sound.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your understanding, and if you were interested, explain mine. This is not to attempt to convince you or de-convert you, but simply to share from my experiences and studies.
I hope you have a good week ! Talk to you later. Oli

 

[Mars Man]

With that, Ayu-youkou san, I remember. It was before the split up of the forums--so to speak--thus was in the old 'Serious Discussions' area; if my memory serves me well here.

I would still be very interested in discussing the many matters that the PM would have in store. Many of them could, actually spring from this very thread in a way, because we are here discussing what we 'think about the Bible,' (as per thread title, over first post) but would have to delt with in other threads. That will need to wait until we can have a new 'Serious Discussions' sub-fora again.

As I intend to further support, our thread's 'Bible' evidences little need nor room for supernatural superintendence--be it in the work Genesis, 1 Enoch, Daniel, according to Mark, 2 Peter, to the Corinthians (Clem. of Rome), Judas, or gospel of the Hebrews. (and I will go on to that...as stated above--but it's a bit late to start now...I just wanted to answer to this firstly)

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I've read the bible many a time in the past even though i am not christian.
I think it is an interesting read, and has quote a few good messages and lessons to teach in it, however i think the main problem with the bible is that so many of its teachings can be interparated in very different ways, and this has caused many wars and deaths over its history, which has stained the religions image i think (which is a shame).

Personally, i don't feel i need the bible in my life, i have nothing against it in particular nor against those that avidly follow its teachings.
I am more interested in the words of buddhism, i find buddhism to be more specific about its messages/teachings and more relevant to the world i live in today.

IMHO All religions have a common goal in mind- they are all about a path of reaching spiritual enlightenment and inner peace. I think we need to remember, that one religion may not be as good as another for a particular individual when it comes to these goals, and because all religions have these goals in common with each other, shouldn't we show the tolerance and compassion to other religious followers that we show to our own as we are all walking the same path though using different methods/religions to reach our goals?

 

[Mars Man]

As has been very well investigated and reasoned on in The Ascension of Authorship--attribution and canon formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions, by J. Wyrick, the general Jewish religious leaders of the Second Temple era, as evidenced through Josephus' works, didn't concern themselves so much, if at all, about human oralization, but rather about scribal transmission. Evidence of this can be found in the baraita (remainder) of the Tannaitic period, followed by commentary (gemara) derived from the Amoraic period (the second oldest stratum of rabbinic literature) and a little afterwards: Baba Bathra 14a-15b.

What this line of thought signifies is that somewhere way back it time, it was completely without question that the oralization had been by the god-model prescribed by later Judaism at large, via the person of source. (later being held to be 560 BCE onwards) And that from then (the time held to have been when Moses lived) it had only been a matter of proper textual transmission. It is from this tendency that the concept of 'inspired' was given birth to.

This, in turn, leads to a point where today, testing of such a claim can be made in the attitude of 'scientific method.' The point of transmission has already been shown to be, most evidently, solely a human effort. The next testing would then be the content against the 'known-to-be-true-through-the-passage-of-time-and-greater-body-of-knowledge' understanding at present.

POINT NUMBER 3 : The content of the Torah evidences mere human work.

A. Genesis starts out with what some have described as a type of poetic style. In this presentation, verses (here after vs.) 1:1~3 match vs. 1:14~18, vs. 1:6~8 match vs. 1:20~21, and vs. 1:9~12 match vs. 1:24~26. This view takes it all as being symbolic in nature as well, to the larger degree, and thus holds that there is no need to understand conflict with our better knowledge today.

The position in oppostition to that is that of what had been evidenced by the understanding of the religious leaders of old. Did they take it as being poetic in nature, or as being a literally described, and real flow of events? The key to that lies both in the seven count period, and in other texts. I will take the seven count period here.

1.The count of time periods is a straight flow, therefore the concept that takes precedence is a single block of events occuring in a linear fashion. This, in turn, shows a lack of knowledge of reality.

In verse 1:3 we have light (ohr) being brought into existence (at least as far as an observer on this planet would take it {for now}) and that it was said to distinguish 'day' (y'om) from 'night' (le'lah).

specifically, this is claiming that the 'known-to-be-so' intent by YHWH was that there were a day and a night relative to a viewer on the planet earth, from verse 5. This fact, in light of vs. 1:14~18, goes against our present knowledge, in that relative to a viewer on earth, the only light is that of the sun--the moon is not a direct source of light--and then, by the end of a third period without the sun, vs. 11, 12 are false.

One key verb here is 'put' (vs. 17a=ethen) which follows suit with usages at 1 Sam 10:4; 2 Ki 22:6; Deut 24:1,3; Gen 41:42 (which almost equals som) etc. This is because of the 'dome,' or the 'firmament,' the 'solid' structure that will be touched on next.​

 

[Mars Man]

3.A.1. continued. . .

In verse 6, we have the first occurence of the word firmament or expanse. M (as always, Masoretic Text) gives us raqiya which has the image of an extended solid surface. ① (cf. {=compare} Ezekiel 1:22, 23) and LXX (as always, Septuagint) renders that as stereoma.

In following the usage of that word, we can see that the understanding most likely being presented is that of a surface which divides two bodies of water,one above, and one below, and to hold the two illuminaries, the sun and the moon. This is backed up by 7:11; 8:2 with the concept of 'flood gates' of the heavens.

The creation of the firmament was said to have been in the second time period, with the gathering of the waters below the dome in the third. The creation of water nephesh (beings/creatures) was said to have made the fifth time period.

Again, to see these two as having been intended to be matching sequences of a single time-period event, the count of time periods becomes meaningless. Most likely, therefore, the intent had been to show that linear flow of individual events, in the blocks of the six creative periods.​

1. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, p956; Notes On the Greek Text of Genesis--Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35 by J.W. Wevers, pp 3, 4;

 

[Mars Man]

3. A. 1. continued. . .

The Greek for the Hebrew word raqiya is, recapping, steretoma and means 'a solid body; foundation,' or, as given by Thayer, 'the arch of the sky which in early times was thought to be solid.' 窶｡@ As mentioned above, this understanding is backed up by the presented idea of the 'floodgates of heaven', but also by Amos 9:6. In M there we find:

we'egudatho al'erets yisaddah

Here, egudatho basically means a vault as fitted together. 窶｡A The LXX has given a very different text there, viz:

kai tin epangelian autou epi tes ges themelion

This means something to the tune of,' and the promise (of his) is on the foundation of the earth.' Here are some English translations of the relevant clause at Amos 9:6--

founded his troop in the earth (KJV)
founded his vault upon the earth (AS)
founded his vaulted done over the earth (NAS)
founds his vault upon the earth (NRSV)
over the earth he puts his dome of the sky (TEV)
and his structure over the earth that he founded (NWT) 窶｡B

Other texts which lead to the formation of the image that the early Hebrews had are at Isa. 34:4; Ps 102:25,26--see Hebrews 1:10~12.

Now here, I'd like to add some detail about vs 1: 16,17. There are some who argue that because the verb used here (iyas form of asah) is different from that of vs 1, 21, 27, and 2:3 (a form of bara) there is a difference in the meaning, so that even by having 6 linear, chronological time periods, there is no contradiction between 1:3~5 and 1: 14~19.

That argument fails on two points, usage and translation. First usage. Although the verb bara has at all times only the divine subject--YHWH, Elohim, El, etc.--the verb asah can have the divine subject too. Usage of the verb root asah (used at 1:16) can be found twice in verse 7, and 2:2, and once in verses 25, 26, 31, 2:4, 18, 3:1, 5:1 (here after bara), 6:6, 7, (after bara) Exodus 20:11; Isa 45:12; Jer 27:5, 32:17; Ps 136:5, 7...etc. thus showing it to be easily interchangeable with bara.

The Greek translation of the Hebrew text, the LXX, gives us epoiesen (which root form means 'to make' basically--as opposed to ktizo which means 'to create') at 1:1, 7, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27 (three times), 31, 2:2 (by two), 3, 4, Exodus 20:11, Isa 45:12, Jer 34:5 {which equals Jer 27:5 in M} and so on.

It is obvious that the Greek translators felt no need to distinguish any meaning nor even nuance between the the two Hebrew words. Even at Acts 4:24 and 14:15, and Romans 14:7 we find the Greek form of the verb epoiesen, so that also held true for first century CE Christians.

The conclusion here on the verb form at Gen 1:16, is that it is equal to that of 1:1, and thus carries no weight beyond or in opposition to being 'created.' The light in verses 1:3~5, had obviously been a different thing in the minds of the 'original' author and redactors of the Hebrew works, and yet, within the context, was something physical in nature to them.

I will continue with further points and conclude section A in due time. Then, in my final conclusion on this section I will tie the points together for clarity, but will only say the following for now.

All the flying nephesh are said to have been created in the fifth period, along with those of the sea. In the sixth period, all the land nephesh were said to have been brought into existence.

At Gen 2:2 it is reasoned out that by the seventh period all the creative work had been accomplished, and the period of rest had begun, or had occurred. At 2:3, the first source block of that work finishes (or rests) while another block is inserted. Now throughout there is redaction work and editing thought to be Priestly in nature, and of the last of such work on the text, but 2:4-onward for a ways is more likely a different source.​

1. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott, p. 745; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by J.H. Thayer, p587. 2. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver and Biggs, p. 8. 3. KJV=King James Version; AS=American Standard; NAS=New American Standard; NRSV=New Revised Standard Version; TEV=Today's English Version; and NWT=New World Translation.

 

[Mars Man]

3. A. 1. continued. . .

The only remaining point for here (A.) is discussion of the usage of the word 'iyom,' meaning day.

Even a number of biblical literalists take the word iyom to have been used in the collective sense, as an uncountable noun. They often point to, among a couple of others, Genesis 2:4 where the word is used in that sense. The effort most often, as far as I have researched, is to show simply that the Hebrew word can be used in that sense, and thus need not be understood in the sense of a countable 'day'--as in a 24 hour period, or a 12 hour period.

While the word can be taken in the general, it is not necessary to do so unless context gives ample enough room for it. The open text appears to be showing a more literal understanding of the referent behind the word iyom as reasoned out by the following:​

a. vs 4~6 show that as light is to day, darkness is to night and that the occurence of these two make a day; relative to a veiwer on earth. The literal intent is amplified somewhat by the redundant evening (ereb) and morning (bhoqer).

b. The addition of the two luminaries (vs 14~19) within the vault do not effect the process of morning and evening, nor day and night, but simply stress the distinguishing factors of the two. This wording gives further weight to the author's use of a literal 'day' as a human observer sees a 'day,' in that the constituents of verse one are not altered, yet the 'greater luminary' dominates the day (which is true to the daylight day) and the 'lesser luminary' dominates the night (which is true of the 'brighter moon'--the daytime moon being greatly subdued by the sunlight)

c. The argument supporting the need to keep the sabbath (the seventh day of their calendar week) free from work depends strongly on the example in the earlier account. The words attributed to YHWH at Exodus 20:8~11, and 31:15~17 make a much stronger connection in the mind of the writer and reader between the calendar week of seven 24 hour periods and the seven literal 24 hour days of Genesis than not.

d. Regarding the usage of the word iyom (LXX=himera) at Gen 2:4, it is used in the collective sense, but that is not the norm. In by far most cases of the usage of the base word in this sense, it is found in its plural form--and they are many. ①​

Therefore, it can be seen that to the persons who had penned, or had edited the text exemplar from which the copies had come that lead to the copies upon which our recensions of today are based, as well as the earlier readers, would more likely than not have concieved of the whole linear evening and morning occurence as a literal, single calendar day. In that understanding, a week of seven days holds the pattern for the entire basis for the division of days for work, and the seventh day for rest. A literal week to a literal week.

This way of viewing what their understanding would more likely have been is based on the better of the contextual usage of the terms, and gives greater support to the postition that no supernatural superintendence led to the contents of the text. It is better supported by extra-biblical writings of old, and by the rather lateness of the understandings provided by natural science.

I will go to the next point under POINT NUMBER 3 in my next post here. Thank you for following along...and always feel free to ask, question, or debate any claims or propositions or such.

1. A Hebrew Lexicon {as given before-so from here on out BDB} pp.398~401.

 

[Mars Man]

POINT NUMBER 3

B. Throughout the documents making up the Pentateuch we find explanations that reflect what had been thought to have been the case of events and occurences in the early history of the world, by those who had composed them.

In line with the previous section, which primarily deals with the six creative periods having been most likely meant to have been six literal days, this section will deal with two other reported occurences which, after investigation in the spirit of scientific method, will be found to be further evidence of mere human authorship.

1. Among the source-sections in the overall creation account, we have one area of concern, namely, the specific versus the general. In chapter one of Genesis we have as clear a chronological order of events as the language allows us to see. The order is as follows, in general:
​

a. light coming into a created state
b. a vault coming into a created state
c. vegetation coming into a created state
d. luminaries coming into a created state
e. water and flying animals coming into a created state
f. land animals and humanbeings coming into a created state​

In chapter two we have, as clearly defined as the generality of the language allows, a single male human 'ha adam' coming into a created state without any pror intention for a female human's being created. (2:18~20, 23 窶｡@; cf {again, cf=compare} 1:11, 21, 25)

That ha adam comes into the state of being at 2:7~9 before other nephesh, is clear enough in this secondary source-section running from 2:4 onwards for a while. The fact that the verb, as some try to make a point of, is in the imperfect state is of little concern because the imperfect state is common in the whole context so far. 窶｡A

This discrepancy not only leads to what may be a spurious injection at 5:1, but also evidences lack of knowledge--which is to be expected for humanity at that time. In the next post, I will go over the details of this.​

窶｡@ In verse 23, the word 'zoth' is an emphasized demonstrative pronoun, this, and 'ha pa'am' here thus carries the weight of 'now at length' or 'at last.' NWT, NRSV, TEV= at last; KJ, AS, NAS= now.ﾂ ﾂ 窶｡A cf 1:1a, 19,20,22,25, etc. and note the contextual flow is clear enough in this very section. There is no need to cross compare it with the first source-section of Genesis in that there is not enough evidence for its having originally been a single context, but two separate sources compilied together.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

So what you're saying is that those tasked with writing initial accounts of 'creation' were subject to certain contextual influences and, taking those into account, the 7 periods of creation would never be correctly divided into 'days'. Rather, they're successive but otherwise (as far as duration is concerned) chronologically ambiguous 'blocks'. Or are you saying they did interpret things as being on calendar day? I was a little unclear on that.

You also argue that the method of transmission is largely proven to be based on 'inspired' (as in from one person to another) written texts.

To play devil's advocate, what is the argument against saying that first person who wrote it down heard it from God?

My grasp of biblical study is non-existent. I'm afraid you may not get many specific responses or arguments from me based on the scholarly richness of your posts and my lack thereof! But, it's definitely interesting reading. You certainly know your literature.

 

[Mars Man]

Oh no...!! Let me get back with you that, as I was just about the walk out the door of my office, and in going to close the PC down (and I keep a window open here most of the time when in the office) I noticed you post.

Oh no...is because I now wonder on how well I have outlined and worded what I've done so far. I will say, for the moment, that I do intend to round it all up in a conclusive statement...for point number 3...after a few more posts...but will answer your questions here, tonight. I will do that as an edit to this very post rather than create a new one.

Thank your for your thoughtfulness and your response.

That extremely concise, skeletal of an 'abstract' (if you will) for point number 3, follows immediately after that heading, in post #90. As for that stretched conclusion of 3. A. 1.in post # 93, the basic statement is as follows--leaving out the extra but necessary supplimentary information:

The evidence looked at so far (up to 3. A. 1. end) points us in the understanding that the author and redactors took the six creative periods as actual calendar days, and the seventh day of rest as one too--thus making a calendar week.

There could be something I am missing, but I think that it is, actually, your third paragraph point that I am arguing. I had hoped that that would have been clearly enough expressed in the next to last paragraph of my #93, (second paragraph after the 'Therefore,...' intro to the summary of that part...but...I must agree that my writing is not so good there.

...This way of viewing...gives greater support to the position that no supernatural superintendence led to the contents of the text.

Thank you for the compliment...at least I try to study hard. Please do ask any questions that come to mind, or correct ( or challenge ) any points or strange wordings that I sometimes do. {I recall back in freshman comp. that I was famous for run-on sentences...and maybe still am?...although I swear some books on philosophy and this very subject (biblical literature) have also done the same}

 

[Mars Man]

3. B. 1. continued. . .

At Genesis 1:27 we find:​

"And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." ①​

The text goes on to let us know that they, male (zakhar (which is likely rooted in the concept of something to remember) and female niqibah, are to multiply just as the nephesh of the waters and air were. (1:22--though the land animals don't have this added though. X-cf vs 24, 25)

In Hebrew, adam means both the specific male human, or mankind in general. For this reason, in the text at verse 27 we first have the singular, for the specific male human, followed by the general for both male and female.

As pointed out in post #94 above, this whole source-section runs in an most obvious linear, chronological flow. Now we can also see the agreement of conditions presented for the sexual activity of the created nephesh--logically assuming such for the land animals, as well.

In the source-section running from 2:4 we are presented with a different scenario. As touched on in #94, the male human comes into a state of being created without any intention for an complimentary sexual counterpart, and before the land animals had come into a state of being created. (vs 18~23)

a. Vs 2:5 uses adam without the definite article, giving more room for the concept of mankind, while vs 7 has ha adam as also the following verses, and the wording further indentifies a single individual having been created--such as use of the singular second person rather than plural, etc.

b. The reason given for forming the other nephesh ② (vs 19a) was the desire to not have ha adam alone (vs 18a)and thus to make a compliment helper; a female human nephesh,(vs 18b)

c. The expression presented as coming from ha adam enforces this understanding. (vs 23)​

2. At Genesis 5:1a we have an introduction to the genealogy of Adam (the single individual) followed by that history starting at vs 1b. As in 1:27 Adam comes into a state of being created right along with the female while the play on the word gives room for both the single individual and the general 'mankind.'

a. Vs 1's 'asah otho' directly translates to 'made him.'

b. Vs 2's 'bira'am' directly translates to 'made them.'​

Since 5:1,2 is to be taken as a part of that second source-section that runs from 2:4, we can conclude that it is likely spurious in nature in that it repeats 1:27 in opposition to 2:7~23.​

Therefore, it can be seen that while holding 5:1, 2 as not likely being an original part of the 2:4~onward block, the explanation that we find in that source-section, namely at 2:7~23, was more clearly of human origin alone, in lack of our better understanding and knowledge of today.

This point 3. B., then is one point in the argument that bakaKanadajin had asked about in his #95 above. I will then continue with the next item under POINT NUMBER 3.


① Unless noted otherwise, I will use The New World Translation for English renderings. ② I may have forgotten to mention it, but the word nephesh basically equals 'the being'--otherwise rendered 'soul' in English.

 

[Mycernius]

Genesis 1 and 2 and the creation of the world, universe and humans. The first of many contradictions within the bible.

 

[Mars Man]

3. B. 3.

Genesis 5:1 begins a flow of 'historical origins.' While vs 1 and 2 can be concluded to be spurious, as mentioned earlier, and the whole block running from 5:1 through to 11:32 could be seen as a separate 'source-section'--though it is not necessary for the arugument to to do so. I'll take it as being an authenic portion of the source-section which begins at 2:4.

This genealogy goes along without much detail until we get to Noah. (5:29) At this point we are told of YHWH's anger over the way humans and 'nephilim' (or giants) had become, the regret of having made them, and the intention to destroy them all. This another area reflecting human understanding at the time of the story's composition.

We have noted earlier that just as the creative periods evidence having been seen as literal, 24 hour days, we know that those of that world--at least up to third century CE--took the time flow as being literal. Because of the differences among the variying texts, however, we have three general dates for the flood--the great deluge (heavenly ocean)--event.

While M, LXX, and Sam ① all agree that the flood occured when Noah was 600 years old, as does Joshephus, they disagree on how many years that had been after Adam's having come into created form.

a. M gives 1,656 years from the creation (of Adam) to the flood; LXX gives 2242 years; Sam gives 1307 years.②

b. Joshephus's work has several textual witnesses and it appears that the main number provided is 2,656, whereas 1,656 is also understood--which matches M, at least. ③​

At 6:14~16 some details are given of how the box-like boat was to have been built. some 134 meters in length, 22 meters in width, and 13 meters in height. It was to contain three floors with some sort of 'roof-like' top of 'nests' at about 44.5 centemeters above the top of the hull height. This would make it--if my memory serves me well, somewhere around the size of the Titanic.

The narration goes on to tell us that 'every wild beast according to its kind, and every domestic animal according to its kind, and every moving animal that moves on the earth according to its kind, and every flying creature according to its kind, every bird, every winged creature... two by two, of every sort of flesh in which the force of life was active... male and female...went in.'

The story tells us that all living beings besides Noah and his wife, their sons with their wives, and the animals that had gone inside the ark with them, died. It also tells us that those who had gone in the boat stayed in there for about a year

This story is also simply one of human origin as can be seen when comparing it with the knowledge that we today have that the originators did not have. I will go over enough of those in my following post(s) to secue that understanding.​

① M=Masoretic text (BHS), LXX=Septuagint, and Sam=Samarian text; ② Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, by Wevers, p68; ③ The Complete Works of Josephus, translated by Whiston, p 28

 

[Mars Man]

3. B. 3. continued. . .

There will be some degree of embedding in the explanation that follows, and it will be a little detailed; for those who wish to follow along, please do so carefully, taking notice of all the points. The summary and arguments will come at the end of this point 3. B. 3.

The first thing to carefully take notice of is the order of events as they are set out in chronological order in the creation account. 窶｡@

c. In the second creative period, a division between the bodies of water, by an expanse, or dome, came into being. There were waters below the firmament, and waters above it--as discussed earlier.

d. In the third creative period, the waters which were below the expanse were collected together into what would be called seas, and the dry land would be called earth. Then, on that same day, grass, vegetation, and all plant life forms came into a state of being.

e. In the fourth creative period, the sun and moon and stars were created and put in the expanse.

f. In the fifth creative period, all the sea/water life forms and flying life forms were created.

g. In the sixth creative period, all land life forms were created, including human. Thus the conclusion at vs 2:1.​

With this much laid out as a referent, for now, for some of the points to come, I will go into the presentation on those points--but it will have to wait until I get back home this evening. (Japan time) Please excuse me for this shortness here...I shall return.​

窶｡@ The understanding of the intention to be chronological in order, and of a literal 6, 24 hour day creation periods, has already been fairly established.