Burl
Active Member
I think Genesis 1:26 introduces the perspective that the gods can be as psychologically various, as we are in their image.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Non-literal interpretations of the Bible
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
To once again plagiarize Mencken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Feel free to elaborate!
I've addressed it more than once on these forums. It's simply not worth doing it again.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
On the one hand, I understand this feeling. On the other hand, it feels like bad form to ask someone a question, and having received an earnest response to then heap scorn upon it while refusing to actually explain the reason for your disdain. It's not clear to me why you asked the question if you weren't interested in discussing it.
That said, i'm happy to search for your previous posts on the subject, and maybe you can suggest what I should search for specifically...
To be honest, I was not so much looking for an answer as for method, references, anything other than bare opinion.
Search for decent commentaries informed by relevant scholarship of which there is an abundance. Perhaps this will serve as a start.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
Your sole intention in this thread seems to be to demonstrate your superiority and possession of the "one true answer" [tm], communicated by snide comments and insults. That's not contributing to a thread, that's being a nuisance. Please find a different thread to disrupt.
To once again plagiarize Mencken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Quite the contrary. My sole purpose is to register the fact that not all opinions are created equal and that opinions offered on topics which have been the focus of reams of scholarship have value only to the extent that they are informed by, and seek to reflect, such scholarship.
Orbit
I'm a planet
My method is anthropology, and I view the text as written by men reflecting an ancient culture. That's fact. That's science. You think it's the Word of God, which cannot be proven and leads to a very different interpretation. All interpretations may not be equal, but mine is at least supported by historical fact.
You clearly, almost comically, haven't a clue what I think.
Orbit
I'm a planet
You clearly, comically keep proving your only intent here is to make snide comments.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
We misunderstood the purpose of your question. I think Orbit is right that as far as what we said about Genesis 1:26-27, the methods are mostly anthropological, combining Archaeological evidence with a comparative analysis of the Hebrew texts with Sumerian, Canaanite, and Babylonian traditions. So for example claims about ancient Hebrew polytheism are explored in texts like this: The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford, 2000) (edit: I tried to link to Amazon but the forum is mangling it)
I'm by no means an expert on ancient Hebrew religion, but it's also not clear to me that these sorts of claims are particularly controversial among academics.
I haven't had a chance to take a detailed look just yet, but I will. I notice in the OP you quote Sarna saying that "The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues." That sounds reasonable to me, and similar to the sort of method which leads to the kind of conclusions we stated.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I very much agree that this is likely. In my anthro class, I covered the Sumerian religious views, and there's so much that parallels Judaism that I don't think it's at all likely to be coincidence. Hey, as you well know, ideas spread from one culture and one society to another, so this shouldn't at all be a surprise. It's not that people copied them carte blanche, typically the pattern tends to be to modify what's passed on to fit into cultural mores, such as what appears to have been done with the creation and flood accounts that seem to be modifications from Babylonian narratives.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Thanks metis, and for your previous posts. I didn't mean to ignore you but I was distracted when I realized I put three 'f' in lovemufffin and I've been unable to function properly since 
No need to: I own the book along with The Early History of God, God in Translation, and the earlier Rise of Yahwism by J. C. De Moor. Those along with Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic and From Epic to Canon (both by Frank Moore Cross) are sitting on the bookshelf behind me and readily available should you wish to discuss them.
All of these books (and others) are well worth reading. The problem is one of understanding what's been read. So, for example, the existence of early polytheism, well documented in Tanach, is often paraded around as sufficient reason for the plurals found in Genesis 1:26. But how does one then explain the persistence of such verbiage over the course of centuries of radical monotheism guiding oral and scribal transmission? Did everyone simple fail to notice? And why would those who offer such simplistic explanations completely fail to understand the characteristics of the language? Is it not clear that 'elohim is a plural form even when used for a singular entity?
To paraphrase the title of Cross' great book, the process from Canaanite Myth to Hebrew Epic was a complex one and still subject to substantial debate. Yet again, the best guideline remains the persistent realization that "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
The simplest suggestion would seem to be that the meaning of the word changed over time, with the preservation of the plural form being a kind of linguistic survival. There are plenty of other examples of that sort of thing across many religions, and it seems plausible enough to me. Additionally, there are both plural and non-plural forms are in use in Genesis, which seems to me to weaken the argument that the plural form is purely grammatical with no semantic content in that particular text. Beyond that, the evidence for early Hebrew polytheism is not only textual. There is also archaeological evidence like the commonality of Asherah poles. If the argument hinged upon a merely curious plural form of a noun, I wouldn't be particularly impressed.
I will say that, not being an expert, nor having a particularly deep interest in early Hebrew religion, I don't have a very strong opinion on this. You asked a question and we provided an answer based on our best understanding. I concede that the answer may be wrong, although I am not convinced that it is. I'm entirely relying on the expertise of others. It does not appear reasonable to me to suggest that it I am obviously wrong in a way deserving of mockery. Perhaps it would also be useful to clarify that I'm not making any strong claims about the actual religious beliefs of the author of Genesis or the exact relation between polytheistic, henotheistic, or monotheistic beliefs among the early Hebrews. You asked about a particular verse and to me the questions about early polytheism and the evidence for it is one of the most interesting topics surrounding the passage.
One further thing, You didn't respond to the point that some of these claims are not especially controversial among experts. You can accuse me of not understanding what I've read (although you haven't provided an argument that I misunderstood the claims made by the author I cited, and barely asserting that I've misunderstood Genesis is not particularly helpful), or you can use verbs like "parade" to describe the making of those same claims, but I don't see that your polemical tone actually does anything to advance your argument.
To what specific claims are you referring?
arthra
Baha'i
Well as a Baha'i all I can tell you is that we don't interpret the Bible literally ... But I'll attach a few excerpts from Baha'i sources here:
Unless we perceive reality, we cannot understand the meanings of the Holy Books, for these meanings are symbolical and spiritual -- such as, for instance, the raising of Lazarus, which has spiritual interpretation. We must first establish the fact that the power of God is infinite, unlimited, and that it is within that power to accomplish anything.
Second, we must understand the interpretation of Christ's words concerning the dead. A certain disciple came to Christ and asked permission to go and bury his father. He answered, "Let the dead bury their dead." Therefore, Christ designated as dead some who were still living -- that is, let the living dead, the spiritually 246 dead, bury your father. They were dead because they were not believers in Christ. Although physically alive, they were dead spiritually. This is the meaning of Christ's words, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is spirit." He meant that those who were simply born of the human body were dead spiritually, while those quickened by the breaths of the Holy Spirit were living and eternally alive. These are the interpretations of Christ Himself. Reflect upon them, and the meanings of the Holy Books will become clear as the sun at midday.
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 245)
"Concerning the resurrection of Christ, he wishes to call your attention to the fact that in this as well as in practically all the so-called miraculous events recorded in the Gospel we should, as Bahá'ís, seek to find a spiritual meaning and to entirely discard the physical interpretation attached to them by many of the Christian sects. The resurrection of Christ was, indeed, not physical but essentially spiritual, and is symbolic of the truth that the reality of man is to be found not in his physical constitution, but in his soul. A careful perusal of the Íqán' and of the 'Some Answered Questions' makes this indubitably clear."
(From a letter written to an individual believer on behalf of the Guardian, August 14, 1934)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 492)
Burl
Active Member
Robocop provides a detailed non-literal Bible interpretation: http://www.raelish.com/index2.htm#Sodom and perhaps he will answer some questions in your opening statement.