Genesis 1

[CMike]

You're not going to get a satisfactory explanation.. Genesis has, for the most part, become useless.

Jews- and some Christians, use it almost unquestioningly to explain the formation of the universe, and the social evolution of man and "God".

Genesis is far from useless.

The biblical character gives us role models to emulate and learn from.

 

[metis]

Genesis is far from useless.

The biblical character gives us role models to emulate and learn from.

Bingo! All too often I see people not looking at these accounts as teaching instruments for passing down morals and values. In this context, it doesn't make much of a difference one way or another whether the narratives are scientifically or historically accurate.

 

[Sleeppy]

Bingo! All too often I see people not looking at these accounts as teaching instruments for passing down morals and values. In this context, it doesn't make much of a difference one way or another whether the narratives are scientifically or historically accurate.

How much of Genesis is moral teaching? How much of it isn't?

The problem is less with the moral teachings, than the efficiency of these moral teachings to do their intended purposes, and the obvious uncertainty of what to call historically and scientifically accurate.

Why is it so hard to come to consensus? Language, missing information, misinformation, mental incapability.. whatever. For the most part Scripture is presented as being completely accurate. As such, there are any number of Jews and Christians here who will study and cling to, not only words, but letters and punctuation.

And not only live accordingly, but kill and die accordingly.

 

[metis]

How much of Genesis is moral teaching? How much of it isn't?

The problem is less with the moral teachings, than the efficiency of these moral teachings to do their intended purposes, and the obvious uncertainty of what to call historically and scientifically accurate.

Why is it so hard to come to consensus? Language, missing information, misinformation, mental incapability.. whatever. For the most part Scripture is presented as being completely accurate. As such, there are any number of Jews and Christians here who will study and cling to, not only words, but letters and punctuation.

And not only live accordingly, but kill and die accordingly.

Sometimes it's all too easy to look at individual trees and forget what the forest actually looks like.

What's the primary purpose of scripture? history? science? I would suggest neither. Instead, I think it's pretty obvious if we stand back and look at the whole forest that these narratives were to be passed down to teach others what to believe about God and how to behave accordingly.

This is not to say that there isn't any science or history found within, but that these are not the main focus as to why we have these scriptures and venerate them today.

For example, does it really make a difference today from just a scriptural perspective whether our Earth came into existence in 6 literal days or 4 billion years? If I say the latter, does that make me an "unbeliever" or an immoral person? or if I were to believe in a 6 day creation?

 

[nazz]

Interesting stuff.

thanks

 

[Sleeppy]

Sometimes it's all too easy to look at individual trees and forget what the forest actually looks like.

What's the primary purpose of scripture? history? science? I would suggest neither. Instead, I think it's pretty obvious if we stand back and look at the whole forest that these narratives were to be passed down to teach others what to believe about God and how to behave accordingly.

This is not to say that there isn't any science or history found within, but that these are not the main focus as to why we have these scriptures and venerate them today.

I agree.

For example, does it really make a difference today from just a scriptural perspective whether our Earth came into existence in 6 literal days or 4 billion years? If I say the latter, does that make me an "unbeliever" or an immoral person? or if I were to believe in a 6 day creation?

Even these small details become important. As we know, there are those who take these events as literally as possible, even to the letter.

So what happens, or may happen, if we accidentally/ or intentionally neglect 4 billion years of Earth's history, for instance?

There's no certain answer beyond continued ignorance/misinformation. But, it is potentially unwise, if you can imagine any scenario where this history becomes necessary, or useful.



The true issue is whether or not verification, rather than blind obedience, can prevail in mankind. If so, we will continue to build and enter into the kingdom of God. If not, we will remain as we are.

 

[Avi1001]

Sometimes it's all too easy to look at individual trees and forget what the forest actually looks like.

What's the primary purpose of scripture? history? science? I would suggest neither. Instead, I think it's pretty obvious if we stand back and look at the whole forest that these narratives were to be passed down to teach others what to believe about God and how to behave accordingly.

Very nice observation, Metis. I think you cover the main points:

1) teach others what to believe about G-d - this is well stated. However, what can we realistically teach others what to believe about G-d when we know almost nothing for certain about him / her ?

2) how to behave accordingly - to me this is the real essence of the Bible. It teaches us how to behave ethically and morally.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's nice that you're so invested in the text meaning what you want it to mean.



See post #10.

Who is we, and told by whom, where?

It's nice that you assume to know so much yet say so little? Lol, but seriously if I want something to mean something I will flat out tell you that this is what it means I don't need to beat around the burning bush to get that done.

No this is more of an inquiry, simply because for me I like new ways to think of things, I like to actually argue it with people as well because if I have a belief and no one challenges it, then I will wallow in the ignorance of just that belief.

But enough of my spiel.

Why do you not think there that the possibility of it referring to physical image (I.e. shape like God, two, arms, two legs, two)

 

[outhouse]

Actually it is a set theories that has been put forth by some scholars, so there's some basis for it, so I can't agree with you. However, there's not enough convincing evidence one way or another because we just cannot confirm or deny these concepts.

My quest for the historicity and ethnogenesis of Israelites is more mainstream now then ever.

The polytheism of early Israelites is not in question.

Their early Canaanite heritage is not in question

The Mesopotamian mythology after the exile is not in question.

The worship of a family of deities is not in question. El, the father of Yahweh and Baal. Asherah the consort first to El and then later to Yahweh.



I would ask you, and only because of your civil manner what exactly do you think is in question?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But enough of my spiel.

OK :yes:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

OK :yes:

So you're not going to bother offering an answer? Or are you offering an answer?

I'm not quite sure, where you're heading with this. Come on Jay, I'm sure you have some rather insightful knowledge that you would love to just divulge, or not divulge

 

[metis]

Even these small details become important.

Oh, I agree, and it's therefore more a matter as to how we handle these small details.

So what happens, or may happen, if we accidentally/ or intentionally neglect 4 billion years of Earth's history, for instance?

There's no certain answer beyond continued ignorance/misinformation. But, it is potentially unwise, if you can imagine any scenario where this history becomes necessary, or useful.

Again, I agree. Matter of fact, I'm looking for an opportunity time-wise to start a new thread on various approaches as to how we can deal with the issue of science and belief.

The true issue is whether or not verification, rather than blind obedience, can prevail in mankind. If so, we will continue to build and enter into the kingdom of God. If not, we will remain as we are.

I know this is boring because we're not going to argue , but again I agree.

 

[metis]

Very nice observation, Metis. I think you cover the main points:

1) teach others what to believe about G-d - this is well stated. However, what can we realistically teach others what to believe about G-d when we know almost nothing for certain about him / her ?

2) how to behave accordingly - to me this is the real essence of the Bible. It teaches us how to behave ethically and morally.

Thanks, Avi, and let me try to deal with your questions.

I mentioned standing back from the "trees" a bit to better see the "forest" in regards top scripture, but now I'm going to use the same analogy in taking an ever bigger step back. No matter how one regards a theistic or a non-theistic approach, we are what we are, and the world is what it is. But let me focus on what it means to be "human".

As humans, we have certain tendencies, such as socialization, intelligence, compassion, empathy, helping one another, etc.; and much of this appears to be genetic. Yes, there's also some other aspects within us as well that may have negative repercussions, such as anger, parochialism, self-centeredness, etc.

These impulses are there for a reason, including even the ones that may affect us and our society negatively if we're not careful. So, to me, the key is not to deny these impulses, but to try and channel them in more positive ways.

An example is that if I get really angry, instead of lashing out or bottling things up inside, I go for marathon walks until I settle down. If my eyes twitch, I know I'm under stress, which then tells me I must do things to alleviate that in a non-destructive manner, and there's several techniques I use that work for me, but maybe not for you.

To me, a great many of the teachings found in Torah and halacha are pretty much common sense approaches that can help us individually or as a group, but not all teachings are equally useful, imo. Therefore, to me, I'll pick and choose which seem to work the best and go from there. Are these "divinely inspired"? I have no idea, but either way many of these are useful and have helped to make us what we are as both individuals and also a Jewish society.

 

[metis]

My quest for the historicity and ethnogenesis of Israelites is more mainstream now then ever.

The polytheism of early Israelites is not in question.

Their early Canaanite heritage is not in question

The Mesopotamian mythology after the exile is not in question.

The worship of a family of deities is not in question. El, the father of Yahweh and Baal. Asherah the consort first to El and then later to Yahweh.

I would ask you, and only because of your civil manner what exactly do you think is in question?

When dealing with early history, basically everything is in question, and one should never consider an opinion as being some sort of slam-dunk.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you're not going to bother offering an answer? Or are you offering an answer?

I'm not quite sure, where you're heading with this. Come on Jay, I'm sure you have some rather insightful knowledge that you would love to just divulge, or not divulge

Good grief ...

in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning. emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. ... But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt the same concept is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun). which means "the living image of (the god) Amun," and in the designation of Thutmose IV a "the likeness of Re."

Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 2:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men, In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the author of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalam) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact. [ibid]

... but if you wish to interpret the reference to serving as evidence that God is some Marvel Comics, bipedal super-monarch, have fun with it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Good grief ...

​

... but if you wish to interpret the reference to serving as evidence that God is some marvel comic, bipedal super-monarch, have fun with it.

lol like I said if I wanted to just interpret it to be a single way, I would have just done exactly that. However that wasn't my intention :no:

The use of image followed by later the attainment of knowledge of Good and Evil, at which point we are said to be "like God" seemed to indicate that the creation was a physical endeavor. Even when you look at the drawings of various gods, they were usually bipedal super-monarchs, with some differentiating traits here and there.

But that post does give me some insight, do you have the link to source itself?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that post does give me some insight, do you have the link to source itself?

It was given in post 10 ...

A good start might be ...

The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis

:yes:

​

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It was given in post 10 ...

And? You didn't quote it in the link that you posted, how was I to know that it was from the same source if you placed no references there?

Lol

Aren't you an older gentleman Jay? I would have thought by now you would have learn to differentiate between those who are actively trying to push their views on you and those who are by nature skeptical, curious and seeking to learn more. Or maybe this is just your teaching style...idk :beach:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And? You didn't quote it in the link that you posted, how was I to know that it was from the same source if you placed no references there?

Sorry - I thought that, given the previous interaction, the term "[ibid]" would suffice. I was wrong.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sorry - I thought that, given the previous interaction, the term "[ibid]" would suffice. I was wrong.

It happens to the best of Us, and sorry for coming off as so dense, I'll try to read through your posts slower from now on to make sure I don't miss anything.