Onoma
Active Member
Quite often I see the things in the Hebrew Bible presented as 100% literal word for word accounts of events that actually happened / existed
~ The Garden of Eden and the serpent
~ The flood and the ark
~ The firmament
etc
Now, I personally believe the Bible is " God's word ", .....however,...... after spending a ridiculous amount of time investigating Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature, and especially the literature associated with / maintained by priest-kings ( Considered god-men and deified in literature ) and priests, my views on what constitutes " God's word " is drastically different from those of someone who normally says they think the Bible is " God's word "
I do not, for example, believe the Torah was magically telepathically transmitted to Moses, yet I believe the Bible contains some things taken from earlier literature belonging to priests that were written to have been " guided " by what were known as " tutelary deities " ( Common in the antiquities ) and this literature was the " word / words " of " god / gods " ( Which the texts themselves specifically say in their colophons )
For example, the Bible refers to the " Garden in Eden ", yet a " garden " in the days the Bible sprang from, was a unit of measurement used by priests and priest-kings for the purpose of mathematical astronomy ( Predicting and calculating / recording the times and locations of " signs in the sky " ). Not only was a " garden " a unit of measurement, but a number ( 3600 ) used in those calculations, and on top of also being a number, it would represent several words
( In linguistics, this is known as " polysemy " , where something can have multiple meanings - semiosis )
" Eden ", on the other hand, is a Sumerian word meaning "plain, steppe, open country " ( Akkadian:edinu )
" eden " is where one would make their observations, if they happened to be an astronomer / scribe / priest, because a flat, open area is where they would use the convention of a " firmament ", ( What they referred to as " supuk same " ) which is actually a horizontal coordinate system that invokes simple plane geometry ( A flat space )
( Interestingly Isaac Newton noted that the dimensions given for Solomon's Temple were actually based on the formula for the volume of a hemisphere - a dome )
This " dome ", the hemispherical coordinate system, ( Often misconstrued by academics and laypeople as being the evidence they thought the earth is flat...lol ) as was used for recording the times and locations, angles and such, of these events ( " signs in the sky ) in ephemerides ( Tables of astronomical observations ) and passed down through the years through different generations of a very specific lineage of priests, using units like cubits, horns, grains, etc, all of which were based around the use of some rather complex dimensional analysis that also involved the use of figurate numbers ( very unorthodox )
It was the literary norm to refer to new moon, as a " flood " in literature ( The reasons for which are quite interesting, we can discuss them if you like ), and later in the New Babylonian period they they began to refer to eclipses as " floods " in literature along with new moons
In addition, both " flood " and " deluge " were also used as sobriquet ( Nicknames in literature ) to refer to people, specifically, priests, priest-kings and rulers who were god-men, who also happened to be responsible for recording the times of " floods " ( A sacerdotal duty of a priest )
You can actually see this convention of referring to a person as a " flood " maintained in later Biblical literature:
Isaiah 59:19 " So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him "
Interestingly, this the bulk of this literature ( Which were texts of astronomical observations as well as methods of calculations ) belonged to the lineage of priests who descended from Sin-Leqi-Unninni
( The priest who left us the most complete copy of the " Gilgamesh flood epic ", and the only copy in which the story is told from the first person narrative, where Sin-Leqi-Unninni IS Gilgamesh )
I have mapped the evolution of the Hebrew word for " flood " back through the languages, ( In the second attached pic below )
This brings me to the fact that we often have " sin " being described as the " falling short " ( of a mark ), yet " Sīn " was the principal deity in that time ( For example Sīn was the head of the pantheon in Ur, Babylon, under Chaldean rule when the Biblical Abraham was said to have originated )
It's not pronounced like the word we use to describe the concept of Biblical " sin ", yet it appears the same in text in English ( Sometimes even missing the diacritic mark that tells the reader how to pronounce it, which is actually phonetically - " su-en " )
Sīn was the moon, it's name was often written as the number 30 ( Because each month it sweeps a nominal arc of 30° )
In literature, when there was a " flood " ( An eclipse / new moon ) this was also referred to as the " fruit " ( Of Sīn )
So, in short, simply by a rather shallow examination of literature and tradition of the day, one can easily see sources for the accounts in the book of Genesis
~ Flood, fruit, garden, sin / Sīn ( The list grows quite remarkably )
This brings me full circle to Biblical literalism and exegesis of literature, and exactly what is " true " and " accurate " where the Bible is concerned
Literature in the antiquities was not written with the same conventions of modern writing, and priestly literature of the day prior to the Bible is pretty much devoid of literalisms, so attempting to translate or decipher the meaning of a text of the time using the same approach we see commonly applied to the Bible, is actually simplifying and subsequently covering up some things that actually have a rather peculiar and complex origin
Basically, Biblical literalism obscures the amazing foundations of the Bible
I find this especially disturbing in that people who claim and stick to literalism do not understand that this specious exegesis and false dichotomy actually works against them
Something can still be passable as " true " and " accurate ", and the fact that there may be other explanations and interpretations for the things in Genesis doesn't actually mean the Bible couldn't still be considered as " God's word "
It just means that one has to actually take the Bible and it's stories in proper context, by examining literature and tradition of the day, iow, what exactly was a " god " and a " man-god " and a " priest " and what was their literature ( the word of their god/s ) like ?
When literalists present false dichotomies and say things like " Oh, so you don't think the Bible is God's word ? ", because you mention there may be other explanations, and tell you that you are " taking things out of context ", you should remind them that in order for one to first " take things in context ", they would first have to actually familiarize themselves with literary traditions of the day in order for their exegesis to be " in context "
Thoughts ?
~ The Garden of Eden and the serpent
~ The flood and the ark
~ The firmament
etc
Now, I personally believe the Bible is " God's word ", .....however,...... after spending a ridiculous amount of time investigating Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature, and especially the literature associated with / maintained by priest-kings ( Considered god-men and deified in literature ) and priests, my views on what constitutes " God's word " is drastically different from those of someone who normally says they think the Bible is " God's word "
I do not, for example, believe the Torah was magically telepathically transmitted to Moses, yet I believe the Bible contains some things taken from earlier literature belonging to priests that were written to have been " guided " by what were known as " tutelary deities " ( Common in the antiquities ) and this literature was the " word / words " of " god / gods " ( Which the texts themselves specifically say in their colophons )
For example, the Bible refers to the " Garden in Eden ", yet a " garden " in the days the Bible sprang from, was a unit of measurement used by priests and priest-kings for the purpose of mathematical astronomy ( Predicting and calculating / recording the times and locations of " signs in the sky " ). Not only was a " garden " a unit of measurement, but a number ( 3600 ) used in those calculations, and on top of also being a number, it would represent several words
( In linguistics, this is known as " polysemy " , where something can have multiple meanings - semiosis )
" Eden ", on the other hand, is a Sumerian word meaning "plain, steppe, open country " ( Akkadian:edinu )
" eden " is where one would make their observations, if they happened to be an astronomer / scribe / priest, because a flat, open area is where they would use the convention of a " firmament ", ( What they referred to as " supuk same " ) which is actually a horizontal coordinate system that invokes simple plane geometry ( A flat space )
( Interestingly Isaac Newton noted that the dimensions given for Solomon's Temple were actually based on the formula for the volume of a hemisphere - a dome )
This " dome ", the hemispherical coordinate system, ( Often misconstrued by academics and laypeople as being the evidence they thought the earth is flat...lol ) as was used for recording the times and locations, angles and such, of these events ( " signs in the sky ) in ephemerides ( Tables of astronomical observations ) and passed down through the years through different generations of a very specific lineage of priests, using units like cubits, horns, grains, etc, all of which were based around the use of some rather complex dimensional analysis that also involved the use of figurate numbers ( very unorthodox )
It was the literary norm to refer to new moon, as a " flood " in literature ( The reasons for which are quite interesting, we can discuss them if you like ), and later in the New Babylonian period they they began to refer to eclipses as " floods " in literature along with new moons
In addition, both " flood " and " deluge " were also used as sobriquet ( Nicknames in literature ) to refer to people, specifically, priests, priest-kings and rulers who were god-men, who also happened to be responsible for recording the times of " floods " ( A sacerdotal duty of a priest )
You can actually see this convention of referring to a person as a " flood " maintained in later Biblical literature:
Isaiah 59:19 " So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him "
Interestingly, this the bulk of this literature ( Which were texts of astronomical observations as well as methods of calculations ) belonged to the lineage of priests who descended from Sin-Leqi-Unninni
( The priest who left us the most complete copy of the " Gilgamesh flood epic ", and the only copy in which the story is told from the first person narrative, where Sin-Leqi-Unninni IS Gilgamesh )
I have mapped the evolution of the Hebrew word for " flood " back through the languages, ( In the second attached pic below )
This brings me to the fact that we often have " sin " being described as the " falling short " ( of a mark ), yet " Sīn " was the principal deity in that time ( For example Sīn was the head of the pantheon in Ur, Babylon, under Chaldean rule when the Biblical Abraham was said to have originated )
It's not pronounced like the word we use to describe the concept of Biblical " sin ", yet it appears the same in text in English ( Sometimes even missing the diacritic mark that tells the reader how to pronounce it, which is actually phonetically - " su-en " )
Sīn was the moon, it's name was often written as the number 30 ( Because each month it sweeps a nominal arc of 30° )
In literature, when there was a " flood " ( An eclipse / new moon ) this was also referred to as the " fruit " ( Of Sīn )
So, in short, simply by a rather shallow examination of literature and tradition of the day, one can easily see sources for the accounts in the book of Genesis
~ Flood, fruit, garden, sin / Sīn ( The list grows quite remarkably )
This brings me full circle to Biblical literalism and exegesis of literature, and exactly what is " true " and " accurate " where the Bible is concerned
Literature in the antiquities was not written with the same conventions of modern writing, and priestly literature of the day prior to the Bible is pretty much devoid of literalisms, so attempting to translate or decipher the meaning of a text of the time using the same approach we see commonly applied to the Bible, is actually simplifying and subsequently covering up some things that actually have a rather peculiar and complex origin
Basically, Biblical literalism obscures the amazing foundations of the Bible
I find this especially disturbing in that people who claim and stick to literalism do not understand that this specious exegesis and false dichotomy actually works against them
Something can still be passable as " true " and " accurate ", and the fact that there may be other explanations and interpretations for the things in Genesis doesn't actually mean the Bible couldn't still be considered as " God's word "
It just means that one has to actually take the Bible and it's stories in proper context, by examining literature and tradition of the day, iow, what exactly was a " god " and a " man-god " and a " priest " and what was their literature ( the word of their god/s ) like ?
When literalists present false dichotomies and say things like " Oh, so you don't think the Bible is God's word ? ", because you mention there may be other explanations, and tell you that you are " taking things out of context ", you should remind them that in order for one to first " take things in context ", they would first have to actually familiarize themselves with literary traditions of the day in order for their exegesis to be " in context "
Thoughts ?
