Modern Skeptic's Bible (MSB) - Genesis Chapter 1

[dybmh]

The beginning of

Good. The first word in hebrew is בראשית. Why is it translated most often as "In the beginning"? Do you know? I'll give you a hint:

ראש
ראשון

f earthling man began when a highly intelligent extraterrestrial being

That is not the second word. The second word is ברא. Keep that in mind. OK. When the reader opens the scroll, they will be confronted with:

בראשית ברא

Do you see it? If not look again!

See Spot run. Run Spot run.

See what I did there?

Yes! Bro. I see it! Do you???

"See Spot run. Run Spot run." <--- Reflecting Symmetry

בראשית ברא <--- Reflecting symmetry

ברא שית ברא <--- Reflecting symmetry

^^ Reflecting Symmetry ^^​

 

[dybmh]

Probably should have put that in parenthesis?

Brackets. What you're doing is not translation. It's intra-linear commentary. You are adding words more than anything else. You are "expounding" on the text. That's commentary. But you're including it "in-line" for readability. It's intra-linear commentary. Not translation. Use brackets.

 

[I Am Hugh]

It's okay for a Western, secular, upper-middle class skeptic I suppose, especially since God is described as an alien.

I doubt anyone else would call it "accurate".

So far that only means to me, in other words my translation of "accurate" as far as the criticisms so far, is based entirely on religious tradition. It isn't "accurate" because it isn't religious nonsense that other people believe. So, I didn't describe God as an alien, I also didn't use the usual generic term God which only means someone or something venerated. Instead, I actually described the being. You don't think the God in question, Jehovah, is highly intelligent? Psalm 111:10. Extraterrestrial? 1 Kings 8:27.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Brackets. What you're doing is not translation. It's intra-linear commentary. You are adding words more than anything else. You are "expounding" on the text. That's commentary. But you're including it "in-line" for readability. It's intra-linear commentary. Not translation. Use brackets.

Agreed. Brackets. But the point I was making is that it (the stupid post) was more of an explanation, annotation than an actual legitimate translation. I thought I explained that pretty well.

 

[dybmh]

Let me ask you some questions. That's what I do. I'm a "researcher."

I am at your service.

Are you familiar with Jimi Hendrix?

Yes. One of my top three favorite guitarists. God bless you, Jimi.

Generally, he is regarded as the greatest guitarist ever. I've heard classically trained guitarists who have spent years of training on the Guitar at Juilliard, the most prestigious music school in the world, say that Hendrix knew more about playing the guitar than they could learn in a lifetime. Jimi couldn't read or write music. Edward Van Halen [1] couldn't read sheet music. When he was being classically trained on piano, he would watch the instructor and improvise. He won first place in the piano competition at Long Beach City College. He just watched the instructor's hand movements and played by ear. Beethoven and Mozart. Using memory and improvisation, earning praise from judges for his stylizations.

Got it. Jimi could not read or write music. But he had an impressive ear. He was passionate about his work. Perhaps he was a savant. He played a left handed guitar and strung it upside-down in reverse. He was an electrical genius, creating the first "grunge" pedal and experimented with all sort of different electrical circuits, filters, and overdrive mini-pre-amp effects.

[ETA: Personally, I'm not much of a Hendrix fan, I prefer Beck or Clapton. Van Halen was cool, though]

Well, there's your problem right there. Jimi was basically from a different planet. If you're trying to compare yourself to Jimi and Eddie, you've got big shoes to fill. You'll need a huge fan base to prove yourself.

I'm not a Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek scholar.

... but you impersonate one with the help of Google translate?

I didn't take a few classes and pepper my user profile, posts and signature with ancient Hebrew to impress people. Because I don't have to. I'm not an English scholar, my grammar sucks, but I can compose this post. From the OP: " ... The meaning is still the same."

The meaning is not the same, Bro. You're missing some very important details. Right off the bat.

Did you read that?

Tbh, no. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. You bricked it. You screwed the pooch when you brought Michael to Proverbs 9 in a prior thread. No. That's a hard no. You don't know what the heck you're talking about. And the translation you're using to produce that wacka-doodle nonsense is OBVIOUSLY flawed. The verb ends in a YUD. It is on-going. Imperfect.

I see the admittedly aforementioned archaic iconic religious language and the sometimes-nonsensical primitive concepts that have become modern theology as being - well - off-putting to the modern rational skeptic.

Bro. You're calling it archaic, but you cannot read it. You cannot rationally judge something you cannot read. The primitive concepts are coming from the religious leaders of your youth. They couldn't read the original language either.

The modern rational skeptic is rarely if ever skeptical of themself.

Why do you think you know what's in the Torah if you cannot read it?

You can't comprehend that in English, but you can read Ancient Hebrew?

I understand that you are exaggerating your competence. And you are assuming you know what the story says because you have a hard time believing:

1) Jews are right. You can't believe it. You've said we're corrupt, practicing some other non-Jewish religion.
2) You're wrong. You can't believe it. You've decided that you have this figured out already. You've spent time and effort, and here comes a Jew correcting you showing you that the time you spent was, more or less, a waste of time.

In which step of the translation are you lacking skill? The source or the target?

Me? I'm not fluent. But I always go back to the original text, and I know how to find the answers to my own questions from reputable souces.

While, of course, I think the effort of Hebrew scholars is crucial to my study, and I want to hear from everyone, scholar or not, I don't subscribe to the idea that what anyone says dictates exclusively what I think on the subject.

You can think what you want. But if you cannot read it, then you cannot judge it. That's hear-say. You're opperating off rumors you've assumed are true,

Especially someone on a public forum who doesn't seem to even have taken the time to read

Your posts regarding Hebrew are trash. I have more important things to do. I'll point out the faults that occur as they occur in your writing when I read them in sequence. If the faults are excessive of of significant scope, I stop.

or give much of a coherent thought to a short post to which they respond.

Coherence requires adherence, attachment to the subject. You're not reading the text, you cannot bring a coherent original argument beyond getting lucky.

Criticize? Great. But seemingly imply vaguely that I can't figure out as well as you what בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ says or means is absurd!

It's not. You are not reading the text, nor thinking about it from the perspective of a human mind which is bringing down a lofty idea.

A chimp could do it!

Pah-lease. You are far more than a chimp. But you're acting like a fool.

Easy!

It's far from easy. The Torah is an opportunity to think big. It's not cotton candy. Where's you're skepticism? Where is your wonder? Where is your awe?

Why are the smartest people always not?

~chuckles~ You just contradicted yourself.

What I think you mean to say is: Why do smart people act like fools sometimes? It's because they're so smart in so many other ways.

Because they don't think they have to think.

Sir, YOU are not thinking about this. You're saying it's EASY. So easy a chimp could do it. You're wrong. It's difficult. That's the point of bringing the tiny little word 'Es'. Aleph >>> Tav? Alpha and the Omega? Ever heard of it?

So, seriously, let's take this and translate it without being able to "read" ancient Hebrew. I think it was to you I pointed out in an earlier thread that English has changed over the years and someone speaking modern English couldn't understand a great deal of Old English, and that ancient Hebrew changed over the period of the Bible's writing and translation. Here is an image of modern (top) and Paleo-Hebrew (bottom).

View attachment 94772

So, let's say I have a time machine and I take you back in time and sit you next to Moses and ask him to read what he wrote at Genesis 1:1 could you understand what he was saying?

Yes.

Could you read what he was reading?

Yes.

Do you know what it would even look like just because you took some classes and would the manuscripts available to you look the same as what he wrote? Where did he go to school to learn it?

Yes.

So, I didn't translate בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ into "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

You're still skipping את. All the english translations skip it. There is no english word for it. I don't think any modern language has an equivalent. I would expect that sanskrit or pali would have something close.

I did provide a link where 30+ translators did,

They're probably skipping את. And now you have down-shifted into flat-earth territory. "The earth looks flat so it MUST be." "30 translators agree so I MUST be right."

and then I gave a loose translation as described in my BRIEF introduction, more of an explanatory annotation. To explore all of this process. For your feedback. Which, although lacking, I appreciate. So, if you've made it this far let's look at why I "translated" "earthling man."

The word does not exist in the text in that verse. What ever you say from here forward is commentary not translation.

The term isn't in the text. That's a good point. So why is it there?

Yes, please. I'm listening. Although, you started out the post claiming you wanted to ask me questions. None the less, I'm here. It's a beautiful morning. I'm about to indulge in some coffee. Let's do this. Onward-HO!

 

[dybmh]

Here is the Hebrew lexicon on Genesis 1:26. Not very helpful, is it?

~chuckles~ You're advancing 26 verses ahead to justify your commentary ( which you've mislabeled translation ). Got it. It's a famous verse. Very misunderstood. But look at the nested reflecting symmetry which follows:

ויברא אלהים את-האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו

I tried to color code it for you. It looks like this:

( Barah ( Elohim ( Tzelem <<>> Tzelem ) Elohim ) Barah )

Do you see the nesting, reflecting, symmetry? This same concept is expressed by many. The Jewish version is using a sort of fabric metaphor.

The end is firmly woven in the beginning and the beginning is firmly woven into the end. It's the tapestry of life.

End <<>> Beginning <<>> Beginning <<>> End = Eternity

Here is Strongs for the word for man, אָדָם (adam). The Bible often uses the term "earthling man." "The Hebrew word that designates the creature created by God is the word adam. It is actually not a proper name; it is adam, it is a generic term. It simply means human or more precisely earthling because it comes from the word adamah, which means ground or earth." (Source)

We're talking about Gen 1:1, not Gen 1:26.

Does that make sense to you?

It doesn't make sense to include the words of verse 26 in verse 1. No.

To me, it does and it doesn't.

That's an excellent start. Now you're thinking like a Yid. ( an affectionate term for a Jew )

Earth is אָ֫רֶץ (erets). That's Strongs, of course. To me Strongs is what the KJV translates words as. Not particularly accurate is the KJV, but it will do and Strongs is right about erets. But wait! Here's adamah, strongs H127. אֲדָמָה (adamah). If I had read just Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew I would have had an argument against adamah being used like that. If I knew Hebrew, not so much of an argument.

Ahretz is the surface. The Shell.
Adamah is the flowing earth and waters beneath. Relating to the word Dam ( blood ).

What we've got here is failure to communicate. You can read and translate Biblical Hebrew? What is the beginning of Genesis 1:1? T

I'll answer this in the next post.

he beginning of creation? Not from God's perspective.

Correct. Excellent.

God had created exactly what before beginning the creation as "earthling man" perceived it from mankind's perspective topically?

I am struggling to parse this sentence.

Ah. Got it.

Question: "What exactly had God created before beginning the creation?"

Answer: God always and forever is possessing all of creation and more. Ref Gen 14 when Abraham is speaking to Malchi-Tzedek and the King of Sodom.

Job 38:7 has the angels crying out in joy at the creation of the earth.

OK....

Does your tradition and expert knowledge of ancient Hebrew imply that given that information they must have existed prior to the earth's creation?

Yes. Of course.

I've known literal mentally handicapped persons and children who knew that. The JWs know that. I know that.

Great. So what?

[1] His Wikipedia page says Eddie Van Halen. He hated being called Eddie. It was Edward.

Ooops. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[dybmh]

You can read and translate Biblical Hebrew? What is the beginning of Genesis 1:1?

It's the end of the beginning. Not the beginning of the beginning.

If I were the Maggid, carrying the scrolls, traveling from town to town, and I were invited after Shul to gather with one of the local families and perhaps share this particular story, the one which most refer to as the Hebrew creation myth, this is how I would tell it.

Remember? This is a family event. The Maggid was part scholar, part minstrel, part actor, part entertainer. Children loved when the Maggid came to town. They would gather and cheer and beg for the stories. "Tell us the one with the talking donkey!" "Tell us the one with the talking serpent!" "Tell us the one with the column of fire at night." "Tell us the one with the golden calf." "What about Daniel and his companions?" "What about Jeremiah and his pain?" The Maggid brings the story to life, without changing anything. For the children there is a simple story, for the adults there is amuch deeper and more interesting story. Both stories are told, with the same words. Inflection, gestures, tone of voice, dramatic pauses, all enhance the experience and lift up the text making it come alive.

So, If I were the Maggid this is how I would read what you refer to as Genesis 1:1 to my host and their family and guests if I were invited to their home after worship on the Sabbath day.

​

"Ahem." Unrolling the scroll, leaning in, carefully squinting my eyes. Looking up. Looking down. Squinting my eyes. Stroking my bread. Looking up. Smiling. Nodding. Smiling. Looking at the children. Building anticipation. Dramatic pause.​

​

"At first?"​

​

B'reishis is a question. The Torah is an invitation. Not a statement. All great Jewish stories and sermons start with a question, a riddle, or a joke.​

Now. I would shift my tone and volume. I would create a voice. A different voice. A voice which I would use repeatedly throughout the story. This is a mysterious voice. Assertive. Strong. Confident. Demanding. Commanding. This is the voice of God the Executive.​

​

"Create, Elohim! All that was, all that wasn't, all that is, all that isn't, all that will-be, all that won't, and all that could-be in the heavens and on the earth." ​

​

Then I would pause. I would squint my eyebrows. I would look at the children. I would hold up my hands. And I would count:​

​

1) All that was​

2) All that wasn't​

3) All that is​

4) All that isn't​

5) All that will-be​

6) All that won't​

7) All that could-be​

​

The adults will recall the lesson about the 7th being cherished above and below. Placing All that could-be as the 7th emphasizes the importance and vibrancy of mystery for its own sake because it opens the mind. And that is the beginning of prophecy.​

​

That's Gen 1:1. It's the end of the beginning. ברא שית ברא. It's creating the foundation of creating. "At first" entails a foundation, a starting line, a frame of reference. Lacking that? There is no "first". Make sense? No one knows what's before that. All we know is there is a mysterious source, with a mysterious voice. As the story continues we learn more and more about this mysterious voice, but only what this mysterious voice chooses to reveal about itself.

Did I answer your questions sufficiently?

 

[Balthazzar]

Modern skeptics bible is a new one on me. I understand the ages/periods/days in a similar way as the text offered conveys them. I'm an evolutionist and it all seems to follow logical lines of reason. It brough to mind the Urantia book, to be honest. I think it was project blue book associated, but I'm uncertain. Anyway, it's difficult to believe that the earth is the only place in the entire cosmos where life is present. God as intelligent being or beings seems appropriate enough to consider, and the layers stacked may or may not be infinite. -3-2-1 0 1 2 3 I'm guessing there's lots of room for growth both ways.

Have a nice one.

Haha

 

[dybmh]

Agreed. Brackets. But the point I was making is that it (the stupid post) was more of an explanation, annotation than an actual legitimate translation. I thought I explained that pretty well.

I disagree. You didn't. I trust you'll be more clear. You are not translating. You are producing an intra-linear commentary.

 

[dybmh]

[the criticism] is based entirely on religious tradition

No. You're shielding yourself from constructive feedback. You're name calling. But the name calling is sort of sneaky. "Religious tradition" in your mind is a slur.

I asked you questions intended to help you. Included in the questions, is a bit of a "bee-sting". It reminds you how little you actually know, and how poorly equipped you are for the task on which you are embarking.

 

[dybmh]

Jehovah

Every time you write this, you are disclosing your own religious traditions and indoctrination which are absolutely influencing your theories. It's not just this word, it's the entire tone and method of your work. Especially the faulty translation you rely on for Proverbs.

The problem is, you're hiding it. I, myself, will not judge you harshly for it. I promise. I love-love the JWs. Many don't. So it's understood that you will hide. But, when it's obvious that you're hiding your own dogma and its source, it calls into question the rationality of what you're putting out there.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Good. The first word in hebrew is בראשית. Why is it translated most often as "In the beginning"? Do you know? I'll give you a hint:

ראש
ראשון

Have you and I, in our admittedly and relatively brief and few interactions, not gotten to the place where we still don't fully understand where one another is coming from and are projecting personal ideologies upon one another based upon previous and extensive interactions with others? I see you as a Hebrew linguistic snob and that type is a dime a dozen to me because I've been doing this on public forums since 1996. Over a quarter of a century. You probably see me in an equally negative light. That's the nature of what we are doing.

I don't know Hebrew, I've explained that. If you've read my previous posts in this thread in response to you this is something you already should be aware of. Given that, of what possible good does your offering of בראשית and ראש ראשון do? In my estimation it makes you look good in your own eyes and gives you the illusion of winning some petty egotistical contest. That isn't important to me. If it is to you then enjoy, but it does me no harm or good.

I know virtually nothing about science. Even as a young atheist in school I had no interest in it. For example, in middle school when they started teaching me evolution, I thought it was stupid. More stupid than religion and that's saying something. But if I were the ruler of the world, I would think science important and I would create an agency of scientists, allowing them to do their important work without interference from someone as ignorant and disinterested as I am.

Though that would put me at a disadvantage. I wouldn't know immediately if they were up to no good. I would have to make that call if it became apparent and for that I would employ someone I could trust who knew better than I what the wrongdoing might be. That stipulation wouldn't be based upon prior biases I may possess. That's where you and I are, in a sense. I don't trust you due to your traditional ideology.

So, who do I trust? An example of reason for me to question the traditional Hebrew scholar? Here.

Now you will likely disagree with the JW article I linked to above, so the question becomes who do I trust and why? Tradition. Tradition becomes a school of thought and it is misleading. For example, from the article: "O. L. Barnes, in his work A New Approach to the Problem of the Hebrew Tenses and Its Solution Without Recourse to Waw-Consecutive, Oxford (1965), pp. 4, 5, wrote: “The matter has been needlessly complicated by the introduction and slavish adherence to the doctrine of Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive (the latest name proposed for it is Waw Conservative). Very briefly, though there have been a variety of modifications of the theme, this states that the ‘and – Waw ו’ appearing before the first of a series of consecutive Hebrew Verbs in the Imperfect Tense, if preceded by a Hebrew Verb in the Perfect Tense, indicates that all of them should be read or taken as Perfects (instead of what they really are: Imperfects) and vice versa, provided of course certain vowels associated with the Waw ו in the Imperfect are present.”"

The problem is of indoctrination over practical application and where I must decide to draw the line. The JW doesn't adhere to tradition, the Hebrew scholar might and probably will if he attended some Hebrew courses at a Hebrew college. Though typically you can find a scholar who disagrees for what may seem to me apparent good, practical reason, how do I know? The answer is the person of faith doesn't have to. They have to make an informed decision in faith, not in the scholar, but in Jehovah God's mercy. A shining example of this is the practice of some Hebrew scholars having a superstitious fear of God's name, יהוה‎ and their slavish preference for Yahweh over the English Jehovah when speaking English. People I come across on forums like this who use Hebrew terms when speaking English seem to me, irrational, putting on a show of tradition. It puts me off. Not because it's foreign to me but because it's just a show of vanity. Like a black person dressed in African garb or gold medallions demanding reparations only to discover their ancestors came from Europe, or were American slave owners and they know their broke *** got bills. It's a show. Fake. Illusion. Paul, who said speaking in tongues was a gift of the holy spirit, pointed out that 1. A translator should always be present, and 2. the gift would be withdrawn after the necessity of a witness to the founding of the church, when the apostles had died out. See? The problems with the Hebrew here are 1. It isn't my language. 2. It's used like a dog and pony show. 3. It screws up the right to left formatting.

Having Said All of That . . .
What can I personally do with בראשית? You know the answer. Googoo (derogatory term for Google) it. בראשית. Genesis. Not good enough? "The first book of the Pentateuch (Greek for “five rolls” or “fivefold volume”). “Genesis” (meaning “Origin; Birth”) is the name given to the first of these books by the Greek Septuagint, whereas its Hebrew title Bereʼ·****hʹ (In the Beginning) is taken from the first word in its opening sentence." (Source)

That is not the second word. The second word is ברא. Keep that in mind.

Right. Bra. Keep the bra in mind. Good advice.

OK. When the reader opens the scroll, they will be confronted with:
בראשית ברא

See, that's the thing. I wouldn't. I would open an English Bible. I wouldn't know the Hebrew scroll if I were pissing on one. Back in the day when I still used hard copies of the Bible, I would fill them with notes, underline, highlight, etc. and would end up with a tattered mess which I would then throw into the trash and burn. I practice what I call "practical spirituality." According to the Christian/Greek scripture Michael disputed with Satan regarding the disposal of Moses' body because Satan wanted to turn his rotting corpse into a shrine, an idol. Jesus' body was taken away by angels for the same reason. Practical spirituality has no respect for that sort of thing or fanatical religious adherence based upon traditional delusions. I have to make the distinction, which is why, though I try to respect what others believe, I only truly have respect for the origins without the tradition. For example, Buddhism (self-promotion) and the dissertation of The Four Noble Truths (self-promotion) by the venerable Ajahn Sumedho. I prefer over the overly complex, ever growing Buddhist dogma and doctrine. To each his own.

Do you see it? If not look again!

See what? Looking twice doesn't help. Googoo translates "Genesis was created." I'll let you continue.

Yes! Bro. I see it! Do you???

"See Spot run. Run Spot run." <--- Reflecting Symmetry

בראשית ברא <--- Reflecting symmetry

ברא שית ברא <--- Reflecting symmetry

View attachment 94807

^^ Reflecting Symmetry ^^​

[Laughs] What?

See Spot run. Run Spot Run (Googoo Hebrew) ראה ריצת ספוט. הפעל ריצה נקודתית

בראשית ברא (Googoo English) Genesis was created.

ברא שית ברא (Googoo English) He created **** created

Aleph

Symmetry: the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis; correct or pleasing proportion of the parts of a thing; similarity or exact correspondence between different things.

Contextually is there some linguistic significance I'm overlooking, 'cause I ain't seein' it.

 

[dybmh]

Have you and I, in our admittedly and relatively brief and few interactions, not gotten to the place where we still don't fully understand where one another is coming from and are projecting personal ideologies

I stopped reading here. And I'm not going any further.

What are the meanings of these two words? Is that ideology or simply knowing the meaning of the words?

ראש
ראשון

What are the meanings of these two words?

If you don't know, and you don't know how to find out, I am happy to show you and teach you. Pro-bono.

 

[dybmh]

Contextually is there some linguistic significance I'm overlooking, 'cause I ain't seein' it.

That's because you are missing foundational concepts. But you've convinced yourself you don't need that. It's delusional. That's why you needed a little bee-sting to wake you up.

You're very-very smart. You're talented. You care. You can do this. I can help.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're still skipping את. All the english translations skip it.

Is there a point here other than manifesting hubris?

 

[dybmh]

Is there a point here other than manifesting hubris?

In order to understand, you'd need to read more, and criticize less, big brother. Open your mind and heart. And let love come in.

 

[dybmh]

Contextually is there some linguistic significance I'm overlooking, 'cause I ain't seein' it.

You're missing it because you're stuck in a childish mindset speaking baby-talk.

See Spot run. Run Spot Run (Googoo Hebrew)

^^ BABY-TALK ^^

בראשית ברא (Googoo English) Genesis was created.

^^ BABY-TALK ^^

ברא שית ברא (Googoo English) He created **** created

^^ BABY-TALK ^^

It's pronounced Shees. It's not a "T" sound at the end.

ראה ריצת ספוט. הפעל ריצה נקודתית

You can use Google translate. Good for you. That's a place to start.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In order to understand, you'd need to read more, and criticize less, big brother.

Again, why you're peppering @I Am Hugh with puerile questions about the proper translation of "את"?

 

[dybmh]

Again, why you're peppering @I Am Hugh with puerile questions about the proper translation of "את"?

Read my posts in this thread. Clearly you didn't. I think the problem is, you cannot read or digest more than a sentence at a time. That's why your replies are shallow, superficial, and virtually without any value. Everyone sees it. Many have commented on it.

 

[I Am Hugh]

~chuckles~ You're advancing 26 verses ahead to justify your commentary ( which you've mislabeled translation ). Got it. It's a famous verse. Very misunderstood. But look at the nested reflecting symmetry which follows:

ויברא אלהים את-האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו

I tried to color code it for you. It looks like this:

( Barah ( Elohim ( Tzelem <<>> Tzelem ) Elohim ) Barah )

Do you see the nesting, reflecting, symmetry? This same concept is expressed by many. The Jewish version is using a sort of fabric metaphor.

The end is firmly woven in the beginning and the beginning is firmly woven into the end. It's the tapestry of life.

End <<>> Beginning <<>> Beginning <<>> End = Eternity

View attachment 94812




We're talking about Gen 1:1, not Gen 1:26.

No, we're not. I think you are right about the point you made earlier, "earthling man" should have been in brackets. In the verse I gave in the OP it wasn't included at all, as it should be not included. My mistake was that I didn't make it clear enough, apparently, that the OP wasn't a serious translation per se. Even though I thought I had.

I blame you and my other critics for that. Taking it too seriously. It's all your fault. Nothing to do with me. Joking, of course. I kid! I kid!

Seriously, look, what I need you to do is just translate it the way you think it should be translated, then we can have a real person to person discussion. I've asked that before if I'm not mistaken. Just translate it. I speak English, not Hebrew. It's useless to me like a mechanic explaining why my car doesn't work. Fix it. I don't want to take a class in auto mechanics or Hebrew. Just fix it. If what you propose sounds fishy to me then we can discuss it. Maybe it won't. Maybe it will make more sense than the countless English translations of the Bible I've read. Or maybe it's based on impractical Jewish tradition which doesn't matter to me personally. No offense, but it doesn't.

In the temple, in the days when the scrolls were being written, there was no Genesis. There were no chapters and verses. They had inaccurate scrolls that were read in the temple, and they had more precise ones used by scholars, scribes, for study and more important things. They had manuscripts like the palimpsest (meaning scraped again) which are valuable because they (modern scholars) can chemically see what the previous texts read. The more inaccurate texts read in the temple are extremely useful for reflecting cultural significance on the accurate text.

I'm the guy reading in the temple, I'm not the scholar. Speak my language.

That's an excellent start. Now you're thinking like a Yid. ( an affectionate term for a Jew )

I know that, and only in that English is a Germanic language as well. I'm familiar with the term Yiddish, but have never heard of Yid. Not that I couldn't have figured at least that much out.

Ahretz is the surface. The Shell.
Adamah is the flowing earth and waters beneath. Relating to the word Dam ( blood ).

So, the diagnostic check uncovered excessive play in the bushes and wishbones, got it. How would you translate Genesis 1:26? Into English!

I'll answer this in the next post.

Easy now, big fella.

Correct. Excellent.

Alright then! How do you like me now!

I am struggling to parse this sentence.

Yeah, that was a bit rough. Sometimes I just don't care. Sad, but true.

Ah. Got it.

Question: "What exactly had God created before beginning the creation?"

Good job.

Answer: God always and forever is possessing all of creation and more. Ref Gen 14 when Abraham is speaking to Malchi-Tzedek and the King of Sodom.

That goes without saying, not really anything to do with the point I was making.

OK....



Yes. Of course.



Great. So what?

So the beginning in Genesis wasn't the beginning, it was only the beginning in a topical context from mankind's perspective.

Ooops. I'll keep that in mind.

I bring it up because sometimes our sources have shadows, so to speak. Sometimes vague, biased, flat out wrong, dependent upon some indoctrinated interpretation with ulterior motives, an agenda, etc. I thought that an important point to make.