What tools or mediums does God use to create the universe?

[dybmh]

Yes they are metaphors,

Great. You have admitted to the false conclusion you brought earlier. I don't need to read any further. I have made my point. By bringing you the actual text and showing you the words on the page, it has been confirmed without a doubt that these are not literal renderings of a god with a literal long nose, a god which is literally copulating and literally producing offspring, it is not a literal god who is sitting on a throne in a temple.

How does one downplay the use of a scholar who specializes in a subject?

How? It's a simple test.

Whomever claims that these passages which you brought as examples are describing any of the following:

1. a literal human shaped god
2. with literally human features
3. on its literal human shaped face
4. which literally copulates
5. which literally produces humanoid offspring

It is reasonable that these people can and should not only be downplayed but dismissed. Each and every word out their mouth or in writing is most-likely, high-probability, not coming from the text. They are re-writing it. It is irrational to place any sort of faith in them regardless of any sort of academic title. They are promoting a fraud.

If you have a PHD ( and you admitted, in a previous thread, you did ) then you sir can be excused unless you are bringing the actual text itself. Your conclusions are highly likely to be false. You have proven time and time and timee again: don't know what's written. And most important, you seem to NEVER CHECK for yourself. There is 0 evidence that you actually have read these texts before posting a conclusion about theirr contents.

Everything you post seems to be FAITH BASED.

Although I applaud you for finally, finally admitting:

Yes they are metaphors,

Brilliant! Now, hopefully, hopefully you will keep this in mind when considering some of the other claims that you make. Every one of them that I recall, can be refuted when the text is read and compared.

If one of your YouTube heros is making claims about literal human depictions of the god in the OT, you can be sure they are deeply flawed sources. Yes, they are.

Then take this same method and apply it to:

A similar myth about Enki, a Sumerian god exists.

Unless you are bringing the actual text of this myth, based on your failed track record, not just in this thread but several others, I give it wafer-thin likelihood of being true.

Everytime the actual text is consulted in a mature and reasonable manner, it's never similar, there are similar motifs. Your own source, Catherine Hayes, Havard PHD agrees, but you repeatedly in the past deny, deny, deny it.

So, I have a question.

In your verbose, seemingly spammy reply, have you brought the actual text to examine? Or are you still hiding behind the three little letters P-H-D as if those three letters grant inerrant-holy-spiritual-truth upon those bestowed with the glorious ivory-tower title?

And quite honestly, I think you should be ashamed of the manner which you dishonor the good PHDs who are out there. People died all over the world during the epidemic because they don't trust PHDs and academics. Your behavior along with others who behave as if their "Dr." title bestows god-like inerrancy contribute strongly to this, imo.

You have demontrated your own PHD is worthless in preventing false conclusions. So, there is no reason, none what so ever to read anything you post until you have demonstrated a massive course correction in your method for evaluting ancient text, imo. Any proper analysis requires ... drumroll....

READING THE TEXT.

Have you brought the actual text to examine or not? I am ignoring any of your other words until this has been cleared up.

And,

Have a pleasant rest of your day. ~tips-virtual-hat~

PS.

That language isn't metaphorical language. It's literal.

False. By your own admission.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great. You have admitted to the false conclusion you brought earlier. I don't need to read any further. I have made my point. By bringing you the actual text and showing you the words on the page, it has been confirmed without a doubt that these are not literal renderings of a god with a literal long nose, a god which is literally copulating and literally producing offspring, it is not a literal god who is sitting on a throne in a temple.



How? It's a simple test.

Whomever claims that these passages which you brought as examples are describing any of the following:

1. a literal human shaped god
2. with literally human features
3. on its literal human shaped face
4. which literally copulates
5. which literally produces humanoid offspring

It is reasonable that these people can and should not only be downplayed but dismissed. Each and every word out their mouth or in writing is most-likely, high-probability, not coming from the text. They are re-writing it. It is irrational to place any sort of faith in them regardless of any sort of academic title. They are promoting a fraud.

If you have a PHD ( and you admitted, in a previous thread, you did ) then you sir can be excused unless you are bringing the actual text itself. Your conclusions are highly likely to be false. You have proven time and time and timee again: don't know what's written. And most important, you seem to NEVER CHECK for yourself. There is 0 evidence that you actually have read these texts before posting a conclusion about theirr contents.

Everything you post seems to be FAITH BASED.

Although I applaud you for finally, finally admitting:



Brilliant! Now, hopefully, hopefully you will keep this in mind when considering some of the other claims that you make. Every one of them that I recall, can be refuted when the text is read and compared.

If one of your YouTube heros is making claims about literal human depictions of the god in the OT, you can be sure they are deeply flawed sources. Yes, they are.

Then take this same method and apply it to:



Unless you are bringing the actual text of this myth, based on your failed track record, not just in this thread but several others, I give it wafer-thin likelihood of being true.

Everytime the actual text is consulted in a mature and reasonable manner, it's never similar, there are similar motifs. Your own source, Catherine Hayes, Havard PHD agrees, but you repeatedly in the past deny, deny, deny it.

So, I have a question.

In your verbose, seemingly spammy reply, have you brought the actual text to examine? Or are you still hiding behind the three little letters P-H-D as if those three letters grant inerrant-holy-spiritual-truth upon those bestowed with the glorious ivory-tower title?

And quite honestly, I think you should be ashamed of the manner which you dishonor the good PHDs who are out there. People died all over the world during the epidemic because they don't trust PHDs and academics. Your behavior along with others who behave as if their "Dr." title bestows god-like inerrancy contribute strongly to this, imo.

You have demontrated your own PHD is worthless in preventing false conclusions. So, there is no reason, none what so ever to read anything you post until you have demonstrated a massive course correction in your method for evaluting ancient text, imo. Any proper analysis requires ... drumroll....

READING THE TEXT.

Have you brought the actual text to examine or not? I am ignoring any of your other words until this has been cleared up.

And,

Have a pleasant rest of your day. ~tips-virtual-hat~

PS.



False. By your own admission.

As far as the text being literal or allegorical/metaphorical. In most of the text of the Pentateuch, the intent of the authors was literal history as written, with allegorical/metaphorical interpretations also used.

 

[Bird123]

Well said! This fits what we see in the narrations of the holy progeny,

إن الله عز وجل خلق العقل وهو أول خلق من الروحانيين (1) عن يمين العرش من نوره فقال له: أدبر فأدبر، ثم قال له: أقبل فأقبل، فقال الله تبارك وتعالى: خلقتك خلقا عظيما وكرمتك على جميع خلقي

الكافي - الشيخ الكليني - ج ١ - الصفحة

٢١ يطلق الروحاني على الأجسام اللطيفة وعلى الجواهر المجردة ان قيل بها. (آت) (2) المذكور فيما يلي ثمانية وسبعون جندا ولكنه قد تكرر ذكر بعض الجنود فافهم.

God Almighty created the intellect, which was the first creation among the spiritual beings (1), to the right of the throne from His light. He said to it, "Turn away," and it turned away. Then He said to it, "Come forward," and it came forward. Then Allah, Blessed and Exalted, said, "I have created you with a great creation and honored you above all my creation."

Al-Kafi - Sheikh Al-Kulayni - Vol. 1 - Page 21

The term "spiritual" refers to subtle bodies and abstract jewels that are mentioned.
​

Indeed! It doesn't befit him to hide anything. It fits a kindergartener better than God.

WE are all Spiritual beings in our true natures just like God. We journey lifetimes in physical bodies because the time-based causal nature of the universe is perfect for learning. The journey to learn what the best choices really are and how to create a heavenly state for ourselves and others will take many many lifetimes. There is much to learn. On the other hand, there is no time limit on learning. What else are you going to do with Eternity but advance forward?

Oh, there really is no throne. This is mankind's concept.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[joelr]

Great. You have admitted to the false conclusion you brought earlier. I don't need to read any further. I have made my point. By bringing you the actual text and showing you the words on the page, it has been confirmed without a doubt that these are not literal renderings of a god with a literal long nose, a god which is literally copulating and literally producing offspring, it is not a literal god who is sitting on a throne in a temple.

Manipulative and dishonest. If that's how you want to represent, I have no control, but wow. I have given SEVERAL examples and can give countless more. You suggest by this one example everything is now a metaphor? There is no way you could be that unaware of this conversation.

What the metaphor was - Yahweh and Israel in a sexual relationship. This was to demonstrate that Yahweh is a typical NearEastern deity because many earlier gods also had these metaphorical relations with the land they had been given.
So now you take that one example and pretend like it means all other examples are metaphor?
They are not, El and the other deities were also not metaphor, but guess what? They ALSO had a metaphorical scripture written about their coupling with the land.
Yahweh breathes, walks, wears clothes, smells incense (even instructs on how to make the best smelling incense for his nose) and he also is pleased by the aroma of forseskin, a hillock of foreskins were set up, the sun shone on them and Yahweh said "When my children lapse into sinful ways, I will remember that odour in their favor and be filled with compassion for them".

The God of the Bible was an ancient Levantine deity whose footsteps shook the earth, whose voice thundered through the skies and whose beauty and radiance dazzled his worshippers.

How? It's a simple test.

This should be good. Lots of denial, but good.

Whomever claims that these passages which you brought as examples are describing any of the following:

1. a literal human shaped god

And the denial begins. In Genesis alone he appeared as a man several times. Why? Because at that time that is how people thought of God.
What's happening is you probably want this to be an actual God, so you cannot have an Iron Age depiction of this God being given by early followers. And yet, it's right there in scripture. And it's right there in nearby religions.

1. with literally human features

"Glorify where my feet rest.....this is the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever" Ezekiel 43.7.


"..I will take away my hand and you shall see my back.." Yahweh to Moses


We already saw an example of his genitals filling a temple, a very common image for gods in this period.

1. on its literal human shaped face

"God, who brought Israel out of Egypt, has horns like a wild ox!" - Balaam

Most gods in this region wore bull-horns as a sign of dominance
"his horns are the horns of a wild ox.." Deuteronomy

"to live in the house of Yahweh all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of Yahweh....your face, Yahweh, I do seek.."
"Praise Yahweh for he is lovely looking"
Psams
Song of Songs 5. 10-16
His head is gold
his locks are curls
black as a raven
his eyes are like doves
his cheeks, like beds of spices
pouring forth perfumes
his lips are lilies....
his arms are rounded gold...
his genitalia are fine worked ivory...
his legs...
his mouth....

1. which literally copulates

Professor F. S.
"I have procreated a man with Yahweh!" Genesis 4.1This more literal translation of the Hebrew is rarely seen. Most renderings of this verse default to a theologically fudged interpretation , so that Eve is merely presented as claiming that Yahweh has "helped" her to 'acquire a man', as any good fertility god might. But the language of this Hebrew text signals a bodily dynamic well beyond this, for the woman's words are pointedly precise: she is claiming that Yahweh fathered her first child.
There is nothing virginal about this birth. Eve's boast is indicative of a female sexual agency wholly unlike the sanitized passivity of her later biblical antitype, the virgin Mary. Her words reveal she is God's collaborative partner in the creation of new human life.
....although in her human form she is a human woman, her choice of vocabulary is the language of goddesses: in asserting she has 'procreated' a man, she uses a specialized, technical term for divine reproduction also used of goddesses in the myths from Ugarit

1. which literally produces humanoid offspring

It is reasonable that these people can and should not only be downplayed but dismissed. Each and every word out their mouth or in writing is most-likely, high-probability, not coming from the text. They are re-writing it. It is irrational to place any sort of faith in them regardless of any sort of academic title. They are promoting a fraud.

Yes the modern conception of God is just that, a fraud if compared to the original conception.
With Greek ideas of gods without form, Christian and Jewish theologians jumped onboard as well.
Full force of the denial of gods body was articulated by 12th century scholar Maimonides ("God is not a body...) The 451 council of Chalcedon decided God was one substance but not divisible, and the Lateran council of 1215 - God is a substance or nature that is absolutely simple.

All contributing to the hiddenness of God's body.

Aquinas also decided God could not have a body or a composer.

If you have a PHD ( and you admitted, in a previous thread, you did )

I don't think I did that

then you sir can be excused unless you are bringing the actual text itself. Your conclusions are highly likely to be false.

Yes, you say that a lot and have never proven to be correct.

You have proven time and time and timee again: don't know what's written.

First, a fallacy. Second, a lie. Nothing of the sort happened last time, I won't rub it in.

And most important, you seem to NEVER CHECK for yourself. There is 0 evidence that you actually have read these texts before posting a conclusion about theirr contents.

That's new, made up and a red herring. Last time I posted maybe 15 PhD's to your ZERO. You claimed you could interpret ancient artifacts better than the worlds leading experts and completely exposed a dishonest style of debate. Anyone is free to look that up.
Yet here you are inventing a new past and making false claims.....INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY ENGAGING WITH THE ARGUMENT, you attack me. More of the same.

Everything you post seems to be FAITH BASED.

Uh huh. Except the knowledge of Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, William Dever, Joel Baden, John Collins, Christine Hayes, and so on..........

I need a shower after this.

Although I applaud you for finally, finally admitting:

More manipulation. Yes, the story about Yahweh and Israel is a metaphor. Because it shows Yahweh also has a metaphorical sexualized tale of creating his nation, like other gods in the region.
And NONE of the other stories are metaphor. Yet, you seem to be hoping you could jump up and down and excalim this story is a metaphor and we will just forget the entire point, all the other non-metaphors in the last post and in this post.
Clearly, that's all you got.

Well, besides attacking me.

Brilliant! Now, hopefully, hopefully you will keep this in mind when considering some of the other claims that you make. Every one of them that I recall, can be refuted when the text is read and compared.

No, it cannot. Aquinas and every other modern believer who cannot have their God start his career out as a mythical deity who runs around with humans, but I'm not a believer. Neither is the Hebrew Bible PhD Fransesca. This is her life's work and she makes a good case.

If one of your YouTube heros is making claims about literal human depictions of the god in the OT, you can be sure they are deeply flawed sources. Yes, they are.

Then take this same method and apply it to:



Unless you are bringing the actual text of this myth, based on your failed track record, not just in this thread but several others, I give it wafer-thin likelihood of being true.

More with the failed track record. You are clearly upset because you cannot stop making this personal.
You just made that up. I was going to leave it alone, but the "failed track record" is you getting 100% smashed. 15 OT PhD's and biblical archaeologist (and one ancient Hebrew religious icon expert) and you went ghost. GHOST. Because you were wrong. But suddenly, you made yourself right!
Good for you. Live in denial. When you are wrong just make up that I have a "failed track record". Please, anyone, go look at the debate about Ashera. The biblical archaeology field is wrong, ancient PhD figurine expert, OT historians, all wrong. He can set all those experts straight. In his mind.
Sorry dude, you got smashed then and this matter isn't as set in stone so I'm not going that far. But the evidence is clear, Yahweh was a typical Near-Eastern deity and did the same things that Aquinas really didn't want him to. So they came up with all sorts of apologetics. Or I should say, they borrowed Greek ideas to make Yahweh a spirit.

 

[joelr]

So, I have a question.

In your verbose, seemingly spammy reply,

You mean "spanky" reply.


Oh and remember when you have to resort to name calling........so double fail.
Also, you asked for examples, I gave them. And now, crickets......

have you brought the actual text to examine? Or are you still hiding behind the three little letters P-H-D as if those three letters grant inerrant-holy-spiritual-truth upon those bestowed with the glorious ivory-tower title?

Still at it, this is how one manipulates a discussion to make lesser minds believe you cannot use an expert. Go away, or learn to act reasonable.

And quite honestly, I think you should be ashamed of the manner which you dishonor the good PHDs who are out there.

And quite honestly, who you think should be ashamed I could give zero .....s


You must be really pissed because now it's not just an attempt to ban experts but now it's worse HA HA HA, now I'm "dishonoring" them! HA HA HA HA This is so transparent, I didn't think I would beat you up so bad?


But it gets worse, we are going to go hotbutton topic!

People died all over the world during the epidemic because they don't trust PHDs and academics. Your behavior along with others who behave as if their "Dr." title bestows god-like inerrancy contribute strongly to this, imo.

I'm tempted to just leave it blank because you just 'Karened" yourself in the foot.


But since you made 2 blazing mistakes, I'll correct them. Because people might die.



1)The academics were putting out frontier science, in a rush. It was the best they could do. As such, they had to walk things back when new science came in. But they did it in a way which might have led to distrust. Instead of saying "we had some information, now it looks like it's wrong, and here is the new information".....I don't think they said anything, just changed the information.




2)What I actually said was - "The evidence suggests it. ", the god-like inerrancy is your radicalized Kren version, desperate to find something to hurl at me.


3) The PhD historical community is consensus that Yahweh, Moses and so on, are myths. The secret is out. Yahweh did likely start out as a god with a body, like all his deities he shared the heavens with. Modern ideas, happened later. You cannot sanitize the past because it's uncomfortable.




4)"In both Judaism and Christianity God is conceived as non-physical. In God: An Anatomy Fransesca Stavrakopoulou shows that this was not yet so in the Bible, where god appears in a much more corporeal form. This provocative work will surprise and may shock, but it brings to light aspects of the biblical account of God that modern readers seldom appreciate.


John Barton, Emeritus Professor at Oriel College, Oxford and author of History of the Bible."


Dr Kip Davis reccomended this book, an excellent Hebrew Bible scholar

You have demontrated your own PHD is worthless in preventing false conclusions.

Still on me? Wow, you have lost. Also, what PhD?

So, there is no reason, none what so ever to read anything you post until you have demonstrated a massive course correction in your method for evaluting ancient text, imo. Any proper analysis requires ... drumroll....

READING THE TEXT.

Have you brought the actual text to examine or not? I am ignoring any of your other words until this has been cleared up.

And,

Have a pleasant rest of your day. ~tips-virtual-hat~

PS.

Ah, perfect, pretends as if until I'm a Hebrew scholar then he cannot continue. Cannot be Francesca, gotta be me. LOL - "method for evaluating ancient text"....you mean using a professor with a theology degree who later became Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at Exeter? Who's peers in the field are telling everyone to read it, who's life work is the Hebrew Bible. Which also matches what the historical and archaeology field have concluded?
What a terrible method (as if I cannot see it's an excuse to bail). You got the text? Great, write a paper explaining why it's not literal and why it just "looks" to be a typical Near-East deity. Oh, btw, you also need ALL other religious mythology from the region and time, and a vast understanding of the experts in those religions as well because this isn't just a text study. It's a comparative study.
Of course apologists want to just study the Bible, it's from God! We can just look at the stories and proclaim they are metaphor:

-based on a modern understanding, tainted by centuries of apologetics
-which denies the reality of the past religious concepts and insists on a unified vision of God
-and is a fiction created by literalists and apologists from Aquinas, Origen and many others.
-and ignores the myths that this religious text grew out of and as a response to
-total fail

Do you also have decades of Mesopotamian religious study (which makes her qualified to come to these conclusions).....or did you not think about that in your rantrum? No, you did not.
Get that published in a journal. Or I cannot talk to you, boo hoo hoo.


Now that, is how NOT to take a loss. If this were tik-toc it would go viral.

I have some "course correction" advise but I think it will be flagged. Notice, it's at the end he taps out. Could have led with that?



~drops-virtual-mic, onto-your-virtual-hat~. and crushes it. (metaphor)

False. By your own admission.

All or nothing fallacy. One metaphor doesn't equal all metaphors. I bet Moses getting the 10 commandments wasn't a metaphor. Or Noah.


Didn't refute the genitals in the temple, he asked for an example. And I gave one. Several. No response, except attacks and accusations of murder. Go figure.




"Like the Babylonian deity Marduk, or the Greek god Zeus, this ancient deity had long been cast as the king of the cosmos, but like them, he was far from alone in the heavens. Above all he was still centuries away from becoming the immaterial, incorporeal abstraction of later Jewish and Christian theologies.


Instead he was just like any other deity in the ancient world. HE had a head, hair and a face, eyes, ears, a nose, and a mouth. He had arms, hands, legs and feet, and a chest and a back. HE was equipped with a heart, a toungue, teeth, and genitals. He was a God who breathed in and out. This was a deity who not only looked like a human - albeit on a far more impressive, glamourous scale - but who very often behaved like a human. He enjoyed evening strolls and hearty meals: he listened to music, wrote books and made lists. He was a God who not only spoke, but whistled, laughed, shouted, wept and talked to himself, He was a God who fell in love and into fights, a god who squabbled with his worshippers and grappled with his enemies; a god who made friends, raised children, took wives and had sex."


Francesca Stavrakopoulou

 

[joelr]

Everytime the actual text is consulted in a mature and reasonable manner, it's never similar, there are similar motifs. Your own source, Catherine Hayes, Havard PHD agrees, but you repeatedly in the past deny, deny, deny it.

Nope, I said what she said, because she is the expert. She is backing up all these ideas being discussed - "apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent"
See for yourself. Your revisionary statements are false, as is most of your response.


The Stolen Canaanite Gods of Hebrews/Israelites: El, Baal, Asherah

Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -
Evidence that Yahweh is a conflation of El


1:06 - P and E source preserve a memory of a time when Israel worshipped the Canaanite God El.
Israels newer monotheism is completely different than Near Eastern polytheism


38:30 Same as Dever, Israelite/Judean religion was not what is portrayed in Bible. Bible is written later and re-tells story of Israel.


39:42 in all likelihood, going by archaeology and scripture, Hebrews of an older time were not much different than it’s Near Eastern neighbors. Archaeology would suggest this.

Worship of household idols, fertility deities, engaged in various syncretistic practices, PROBABLY

40:49 Yahweh was probably very similar to the other gods of Canaanite religion - evidence suggests


40:52 continuities with Canaanite AND ancient Near Eastern religions are apparent in the worship practices and cult objects of ancient Judah and Israel as they are described in biblical stories and as we find in archaeological finds.



Bible contains sources of polytheism. Genesis 6, Nephilim - divine beings who descend to Earth and mate with humans.


Psalms - descriptions of meetings and conversations between multiple gods.

43:08 literate and monotheistic circles within Israelite society put a monotheistic framework onto the stories and traditions of the nation. They molded them into a foundation myth to shape Jewish identity. Possible start at 8th century. Projected their monotheism onto an earlier time. Monotheism is represented as beginning with Abraham - historically speaking it most likely began MUCH LATER. Probably as a minority movement. This creates the impression of the Biblical religion.

44:54 apologetics forces scripture to be monotheistic, the text is actually contradictory and inconsistent


45:27 - Creation story added to Pentateuch in one of the last rounds of editing, probably 6th century.

46:00 Genesis used and adapted themes from Near Eastern mythology



The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Genesis 1-4 in Context

41:20 tree of life, common myth in this part of the world at the time. Bible is telling a variation or new interpretation of story.





Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era


(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)


14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story


25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons


26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)

36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.


Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,

40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured


Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.


Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender


Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God

Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.


Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.

 

[dybmh]

@joelr ,

Your verbose posts are excessive. As usual. However, I do see that you posted more scripture. This is good. This is where the debate should happen. Not from text books expressing the opinion of others. If it's as you say, then, it is as you say. That's it. Looking at the text will determine that.

I'm too busy right now to filter through the bloat and spam of what you've written, but, I'll look at it probably this coming Sunday or Monday.

 

[joelr]

@joelr ,

Your verbose posts are excessive.

Right, and who is the one comparing a historical discussion to pandemic deaths and misinformation? (hint, not me)
Who is the one endlessly attempting to discredit me, even claiming that a degree I may have is no longer valid? (still not me)
Who is the one bringing up past debates as if I made mistakes, yet you couldn't point them out at all and then ghosted? (you)

Who is the one claiming that sourcing a Hebrew scholar, using the intent and meaning exactly as written is "dishonoring" the scholar?

And this could go on and on, yeah, let's call other people verbose and excessive when your post is the peak example of what that means.

And you made no point and didn't respond to any part of the argument. And pretended one metaphor means they all are metaphors, even though it's the one metaphor used by all Levantine gods, sexual copulation as an act of their creation.

As usual.

Again with False attribution.

However, I do see that you posted more scripture. This is good. This is where the debate should happen.

I posted plenty of scripture. You ignored it except for the one metaphor.

Not from text books expressing the opinion of others. If it's as you say, then, it is as you say. That's it. Looking at the text will determine that.

Maybe you should go back because I posted Exodus 33.11, Exodus 34.29-35, Hosea, Isaiah 42 .14-15, Deuteronomy 23. 12-14, Exodus 24.9-10: 33.11, Isaiah 6.1, 5, Song of Songs 5. 10-16, the original reading of Genesis 4.1..........God explaining how to make incense exactly as he like to smell it, God saying he is pleased by the odor of several things, refusal to listen to a praise melody on a harp Amos 5.23 and there are many many more.

Looking at text will not determine that because for one, Yahweh was a typical deity of the time and those Gods had bodies so on. The same examples are found in other cultures as well. Those other Gods could appear mysteriously but had human bodies when needed as well.
It was later the theology changed as I said.
Reading the text will not determine what you want, reading it through a modern lens only will do that.

I'm too busy right now to filter through the bloat and spam of what you've written, but, I'll look at it probably this coming Sunday or Monday.

You can write whatever makes you happy but you had a chance to reply. You can only attack me (still doing it, no change at all) rather than make any type of response. I get the general idea, you have nothing to say except pretend I'm bloat, spam, verbose, the cause of the pandemic misinformation. Attack me with lies and call the response verbose, yawn.
No thanks. I'm not here to babysit butthurt egos.
My point was made last time, despite having to deal with endless tantrums, and now again this time I had to wade through yet another freak-out and attacks and world salad, simply to make a point.



"Since at least 3000 BCE, Egypt's pharaohs has portrayed themselves in the threatening pose of the gods, brandishing a mace above their heads while grasping their cowering enemies by the hair. These images were emblazoned on monuments and writings....pharaohs boasted of their "outstretched arm" and "mighty hand".........
...an image showing the high god Ashur going into battle, outstretched arm, weapon in hand.....
Mesopotamian annals spill over with the boasts of battles of Adad, weapon in hand with which he struck the sea....

Throughout the Hebrew Bible Yahweh's "strong hand" and "outstretched arm" are repeatedly praised in ways evoking the powerful stance of a typical divine warrior. Yahweh is presented as a deity of menace, whose arm is raised above his head, his fist clenched poised to strike: "Yours is an arm with might! Your hand is strong, your right hand raised" Psalm 89.13
More than a biblical turn of phrase the "strong hand and outstretched arm" of the god of the Bible was not only a mythic memory of his battle with chaos, but a literary reflection of the Levantine icongraphy of warrior deities."

 

[dybmh]

Looking at text will not determine that

Good bye Joel,

I already told you, if you want to discuss what's written, then we can talk. If you refuse to look at what's written then you can talk to yourself or someone else.

Ignore-list.

 

[joelr]

Good bye Joel,

I already told you, if you want to discuss what's written, then we can talk. If you refuse to look at what's written then you can talk to yourself or someone else.

Ignore-list.

Notice the fallacies. Despite explaining I have already given - Exodus 33.11, Exodus 34.29-35, Hosea, Isaiah 42 .14-15, Deuteronomy 23. 12-14, Exodus 24.9-10: 33.11, Isaiah 6.1, 5, Song of Songs 5. 10-16, the original reading of Genesis 4.1. - (and said I have many, many more examples)
a claim has now been entered that I "refuse to look at what's written".

I am the one using scripture as evidence. My last post touched on Psalm 89.13 in light of warrior deities of the time.
What's upsetting to him (I guess?) is the idea that we can also compare these events to other local national deities, who all do the same things, using the same language, with the same meanings and intents. To understand the literature you need to look at the bigger picture and understand how a culture sees these stories, in light of their understanding. What the myths meant to them.

We also know when this style went out of fashion from rulings at different councils and accepted works from later Jewish and Christian theologians.
He knows he cannot demonstrate Yahweh was originally not a typical Levantine deity and the later Biblical God was changed to fit the times.

Never been put on ignore just for presenting an argument and asking that the full scope of evidence be used. That speaks volumes.

Not having to wade through tantrums, attacks and manipulative posts is actually a huge bonus.

 

[blü 2]

I know fundamentalists say it is merely spoken into existence. How can anyone arrive at this conclusion?

If you believe in God then surely God would necessarily have methods of creating the universe?

Simply declaring God created the universe invites all kinds of questions as to the definition of God, and then once defined, how does that actually happen?

It sounds to me like God's creation is an appeal to the mysterious and unfathomable. It's very reasonable to question how it's actually done though. I can't imagine a believer forbidding such questioning as if it were unacceptable to do so.

I know in my religion consciousness exists in a medium that is abstract and has no known physics. This underlying medium is not consciousness but has qualitative aspects both living and non living. It's a non physical, non living environment that gives conceptions and ideas a life of their own; from which consciousness is spawned. To me the fact that humans must invent meanings, and purposes to live sheds light on the idea that meaning and purpose is essential, and fundamental to reality.

The medium I believe in is non spatial, and non local. It creates space, time, location, energy, matter, and form. Life merely inhabits this intellectual, and spiritual medium. It is spiritual in the sense that values and virtues, such as love, honesty etc. are expressed in this medium.

Even with all my beliefs I don't see a living authority such as a God could ever spawn such a reality as the one in which we all live. Perhaps God is a hunter. Perhaps finite theism is true. Im not convinced of any of it though.

The question for fundamentalists to answer, I'd say, was HOW does speaking something into existence eg the universe actually work?

To start on a smaller scale, when God says "Let there be light" in Genesis, who or what worked out what light was, its place in the spectrum, its effect on what already existed, the manner its production could be stimulated, the plan to effect that manner, the execution of that plan?

If the answer is, "by a miracle" (which is the same thing as "by magic") then the question is, what is the nature of magic and by what means does it alter reality?

The churches' lack of curiosity on this most basic question has puzzled me for a long time. It sort of implies that deep down they don't believe it themselves, and think such an enquiry would therefore be a fool's errand,

 

[dybmh]

question for fundamentalists to answer, I'd say, was HOW does speaking something into existence eg the universe actually work?

It looks like you recently found this thread and have not read it. HOW would require many volumes of books. If you have sccrolled down through this reply, it takes many paragraghs to introduce the concept. How many volumes would it take to explain HOW in detail and in total? Think about it.

HOW would include every science text that currently exists, lacking no details of any kind AND MORE. Perhaps double, triple quadruple the pages of those books. If the finest brightest most educated minds have not documented HOW the universe came into existence, then it is logical to presume that is will take many-many more volumes of texts to supplement what is already known to describe HOW the universe came into existence.

Because of that, it makes sense that a metaphor is used instead. The metaphor in this case is called "divine speech" or "divine fiat". The benefit of using a metaphor is that it is approachable by many different people of varying intellectual capability. Unlike theoretical physics and cosmology, almost anyone from a young child to an adult can understand what is meant by a deity speaking and ~poof~ like magic, it was.

Just like anything, there are pros and cons to this sort of metaphor. The pros are accessibility, and it communicates a magnitude of power over the forces of nature which are consistent with how this deity is described throughout the story. The con is, it is unbelievable for the mature intellectual adult and they will almost immediately reject it. However, in Judaism, even the faults can be flipped into benefits.

Often in Jewish myth and story telling, there are events which are weird, strange, or difficult to believe. These are *provacative* plot devices which provoke questions and discussion. In a primitive era before a printing press, it makes sense that written stories would be complete, but in a highly concentrated format, similar to poetry, because, this reducees the time and effort in manufacturing a written text.

The text, if it is read word for word contains a story, but there are also key words, phrases, and elements that include layers of detail, beyond the literal word-for-word rendering. Then depending on the audience, and the questions asked, the experience of reading the story or hearing it is a little different each time it is told. That makes it interesting to hear the story over and over from different story tellers. But it's still the same story. If one considers this from the perspective of primitive story tellers ( plural ) traveling from village to village, this model makes sense. Everyone loved when the when the Maggid ( Jewish story teller ) came to town even if they had heard the story before.

If you can, try to imagine yourself in that primitive setting, with the traveling story teller arriving to your little village carrying a backpack of mysterious scrolls. And then after a lovely sabbath evening meal you congregate with the community to listen as the story teller retrieves a scroll from their pack, and from their memory. As a child this would have been like going to the movie theater. The written text sparks the important elements to highlight while telling reading the text in the story teller's min as they're reading it. And they answer questions as they are asked from the children. Even if the story is known by the crowd, it still has replay value. One never knows what new twists and turns the story teller will bring out from the text.

The next morning, the community gathers in the temple, and the story teller is there ( they would not travel from the village on the sabbath ). After the service there's an afternoon meal, and perhaps the story teller reads more from their scrolls, or perhaps, instead the adults take a seat next to them at the meal, and they ask the serious questions. "Remember when you said X,Y, and Z, but you really emphasized it? And you gave us a little wink-wink? What did you mean by that? Why emphasize those words in that way?" And then from that, the story teller expounds deeply on those matters in a way that is completely beyond the capabilities of the children who were listening the night before. But the children are there, and some sneak over from the children's table to listen what's being said with such intensity at the grown-up table.

Believe it or not, this still happens today.

It's all the same story. Nothing has changed, but it is operating on multiple levels. When I'm telling the creation story in Gen 1. I emphasize "Zachar" and "Nukeivah" in verse 27 along with an interesting repetition in the cadence of the words in Hebrew. There's also some fun numeric patterns encoded into the story. And I like math. In the following chapter I highlight the intentional mispelling in verse 7 which is included only in the hand-written scrolls. I emphasize the repetition in the prohibtion on eating FROM the tree of knowledge. In the following chapter I emphasize some key elements in the words chosen by the serpent, and also in the confession. Even if the audience ( my kids usually ) don't pick up on the import of these elements, I have planted a seed. "Zachar" and "Nukeivah" make an important re-appearance in the flood story which is overlooked by many. And hopefully, maybe, they will recall that the next time the story comes up in rotation ( once per year for those of us practicing Judaism ). It's foreshadowing.

The same thing certainly happened with the primitive story teller as well. The many layers of the story were contained in the text in a concentrated manner. Each individual story teller has their own manner of bringing out these additional layers for those who are inclined towards them. But the story is the same and accessible for the wide general audience from young child to adult. What's fun to consider is, once the adult knows the many layers of the story, hearing and/or reading it in its concentrated format, is a whole different experience.

So that's the reason behind using the "divine speech" metaphor, and it's no different than any other metaphor really. Even though the skeptic will scoff, naturally and understandably, it makes the the story accessible, interesting, and brings depth to it. Using a metaphor, details can be included in the text in a highly concentrated language, just like poetry, at a time when production and duplication of these scrolls was difficult, time consuming, and the work of a limited crafts-person. Not many knew how to write. Even today it takes an entire year to produce a, one, single torah scroll. Can you imagine how long that would take if the entire HOW of the creation of the universe were included in it to the level of detail the skeptic is demanding of it?

If the answer is, "by a miracle" (which is the same thing as "by magic") then the question is, what is the nature of magic and by what means does it alter reality?

And that is part of the answer. If this is something which cannnot be surrmounted by the skeptic, then, they probably should just, as they say, seek greener pastures elsewhere. This is another way that the liability of the metaphor becomes a benefit. If the audience is the sort that cannot accept that some questions will not be answered, then, it's better that they simply, go away, for lack of better words. Thhis story is not for them. They will always read it like a child, and then discount it, so, explaining it in depth is a waste of time for the story teller. These sort will never be happy and satisfied, so, why even try?

The metaphor in this case is acting as a filter to exclude those who cannot move beyond the discomfort of not knowing, who are put off by unanswered queestions and unsolvable mysteries. This is a good feature.

The story is describing a deity which is unknowable and beyond apprehension. Beyond apprehension, literally. It cannot be caught or contained ( ref 1 Kings 8:27 ). This not a deity which can be counted and known like the coins in your pocket. So, there's a great deal that can be discussed in depth regarding the "divine speech" metaphor. And if you choose to read what has been written here, that will be evident. It is not something that is appealing for all audiences. It requires an open mind, and some deep contemplative abstract thinking. It requires patience, because, this is the creation of reality. That's HUGE. It takes time to describe it. It takes effort to understand it. A person needs to be committed to it, in order to make sense of it. Gratefully the OP has all of those qualities and more.

But there is also an element of humility that needs to accompany these topics. Not all of the questions will be answered. Each answer will likely produce multiple additional questions. At a certain point, yes, the individual will need to decide when "enough is enough, it's just a mystery". And I think that is part of the intention of metaphor as well.

 

[osgart]

The question for fundamentalists to answer, I'd say, was HOW does speaking something into existence eg the universe actually work?

To start on a smaller scale, when God says "Let there be light" in Genesis, who or what worked out what light was, its place in the spectrum, its effect on what already existed, the manner its production could be stimulated, the plan to effect that manner, the execution of that plan?

If the answer is, "by a miracle" (which is the same thing as "by magic") then the question is, what is the nature of magic and by what means does it alter reality?

The churches' lack of curiosity on this most basic question has puzzled me for a long time. It sort of implies that deep down they don't believe it themselves, and think such an enquiry would therefore be a fool's errand,

That's why I asked for a medium by which meaningful, purposeful information can travel and act to produce, or use what's already there.
I wanted to know if information created from pre existing stuff, or ex nihilo.

Everything seems to hinge on the fact that there is life in the universe, and that it takes planning to bring it about. Nature always operates in a maximally efficient way to produce life, and maintain the complexity that arises.

Intelligence functions by having a means of operation and manipulation. Speculating if intelligence manifests in other forms besides through creatures seems like a reasonable question to me. If God created everything there has to be a flow of operational information.

So no one is going to catch God in the act of creation so intelligence should manifest in living and non living processes.

 

[dybmh]

If God created everything there has to be a flow of operational information.

Maybe the best analogy in this context would be like a bat's sonar which uses echos for operational feedback. But in this case, the sonar is itself creating and simultaneously producing the operational information. And this sonar is ongoing continuously.

 

[osgart]

Maybe the best analogy in this context would be like a bat's sonar which uses echos for operational feedback. But in this case, the sonar is itself creating and simultaneously producing the operational information. And this sonar is ongoing continuously.

Does this mean that God is continuously creating and maintaining, or the information in the created system is taking over and doing the bulk of the work?

 

[dybmh]

Does this mean that God is continuously creating and maintaining, or the information in the created system is taking over and doing the bulk of the work?

Yes! And no. Ongoing creation yes. I thought I mentioned that. But I typed a lot. There's verses that are used to confirm it's not just a made up concept.

~checking~ Yes! Whew. Post #61. ...Ongoing expression...

And no, not autonomous. If God were to cease the will to create for an instant, ~poof~ back into nothingness. In Judaism, God is not deist. All of it is God's will and God is doing the work, but it's effortless and simultaneous.

 

[blü 2]

It looks like you recently found this thread and have not read it.

Fair comment.

HOW would require many volumes of books.

Before that was relevant, the authors would have to know the correct answer, no? But the cosmology of the Tanakh is the cosmology of Babylon ─ the earth is flat (like a plate or like a table, both are mentioned), and immovably fixed at the center of the universe, which rotates around it. The sky is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. It was their best understanding at those times and places, and you could say the same about our own understanding in 2023.

HOW would include every science text that currently exists, lacking no details of any kind AND MORE.

But they had no knowledge of it, no access to it, What they wrote was what they understood to be the case, same as we do.

Because of that, it makes sense that a metaphor is used instead. The metaphor in this case is called "divine speech" or "divine fiat". The benefit of using a metaphor is that it is approachable by many different people of varying intellectual capability. Unlike theoretical physics and cosmology, almost anyone from a young child to an adult can understand what is meant by a deity speaking and ~poof~ like magic, it was.

Well, I'm an adult, and I don't know what real thing is denoted by the word "deity". Whereas I know what an atom is and what the EM spectrum is about, and an onlooker's outline of quantum physics.

But perhaps more importantly, the same idea, that God created the universe by magic, is found today among fundamentalist Christians ─ you'll know better than I do about the situation within modern Judaism. And that's taken to be sufficient explanation, which of course it's not, since it attributes but doesn't explain.

ISo that's the reason behind using the "divine speech" metaphor, and it's no different than any other metaphor really. Even though the skeptic will scoff, naturally and understandably, it makes the the story accessible, interesting, and brings depth to it.

But as I said, it explains nothing.

Using a metaphor, details can be included in the text in a highly concentrated language, just like poetry, at a time when production and duplication of these scrolls was difficult, time consuming, and the work of a limited crafts-person.

But as I said, that assumes they knew modern cosmology, which plainly they didn't.

But there is also an element of humility that needs to accompany these topics. Not all of the questions will be answered. Each answer will likely produce multiple additional questions. At a certain point, yes, the individual will need to decide when "enough is enough, it's just a mystery". And I think that is part of the intention of metaphor as well.

How am I going to get a grant to continue my researches next year if I take advice like that?!

 

[osgart]

Yes! And no. Ongoing creation yes. I thought I mentioned that. But I typed a lot. There's verses that are used to confirm it's not just a made up concept.

~checking~ Yes! Whew. Post #61. ...Ongoing expression...

But no, not autonomous. If God were to cease the will to create for an instant, ~poof~ back into nothingness. In Judaism, God is not deist. All of it is God's will and God is doing the work, but it's effortless and simultaneous.

Yes, you did mention it. I recalled late.

This continuous, ongoing creative act sounds like a huge neverending workload.

I suppose if there were equal amounts of matter and anti matter the universe wouldn't exist. But because there's slightly more matter than antimatter we have a universe.

And if thermodynamic equilibrium came to be then life wouldn't exist. Yet somehow life maintains above that at maximum efficiency.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, you did mention it. I recalled late.

This continuous, ongoing creative act sounds like a huge neverending workload.

I suppose if there were equal amounts of matter and anti matter the universe wouldn't exist. But because there's slightly more matter than antimatter we have a universe.

And if thermodynamic equilibrium came to be then life wouldn't exist. Yet somehow life maintains above that at maximum efficiency.

Now you're way-way beyond me. Can you bring it down to my level a little bit? For me, the never ending workload is amazing, of course. But also nothing for God according to the way it is described.

I don't know anything about mattter/anti-matter. Nor thermodynamic equilibrium. Maybe I need to research them first in order too understand what you mean? Can you give me a hint, or a little more of the connection you're making?

 

[dybmh]

Before that was relevant, the authors would have to know the correct answer, no?

That would have been either miraculous, if they indeed knew all the details, or they were super intuitive and simply felt it was the right metaphor for some reason. Or secret option #3, out of all the metaphors they just happened to choose the right one. Otherwise, it's just plain wrong. I think those are all the options.

But the cosmology of the Tanakh is the cosmology of Babylon

That is an assumption.

─ the earth is flat

That's irrelevant to HOW this deity is creating. And the verses I've seen which make this assumption are weak.

(like a plate or like a table, both are mentioned), and immovably fixed at the center of the universe, which rotates around it. The sky is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. It was their best understanding at those times and places, and you could say the same about our own understanding in 2023.

Yeah all of that is coming from somewhere other than the Hebrew bible, as far as I know.

But they had no knowledge of it, no access to it, What they wrote was what they understood to be the case, same as we do.

But they were writing on scrolls. From a practical perspective, the volume of text is prohibitive to put it into writing. This is the primary point to focus on. It is unreasonable to look in a scroll of that vintage and expect the answer to HOW, written out in step by step detail.

Well, I'm an adult, and I don't know what real thing is denoted by the word "deity".

If this is an obstacle for you, then the metaphor does a great job of filtering you out from wasting the time of someone who understands how the metaphor works. There is no reason to discuss the matter with someone with this sort of comprehension difficulty. It would be a waste of everyone's time.

But perhaps more importantly, the same idea, that God created the universe by magic, is found today among fundamentalist Christians ─ you'll know better than I do about the situation within modern Judaism. And that's taken to be sufficient explanation, which of course it's not, since it attributes but doesn't explain.

If that is the extent of a person's capability, and there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, then the story is written such that a child can understand. If you're telling me that perhaps, you're too smart to see it as a child does, and there is no way from you to recall that childlike innocence, then, I think that's sad. And that puts you at a disadvantage compared to small children and abstract thinkers, both.

It happens. It's OK. It's big beautiful world, and if this is not possible for some, Im sure they are talented annd capable of other things outside of ... the mysterious creation in the beginning of the Hebrew bible.

The good news about being an adult is I would expect you would have the maturity andd grace to accept this limitation and simply move on, no hard feelings.

You already said that you do not distinguish between "magic" and "miracle". If you are able to acknowldge that using the term "magic" in this context is an insult, and instead use the word "miracle" which should be mutually agreeable. Then that's the end of the discussion.

For someone with this sort of limitation, but can return to a sort of child-like innocence, the answer to OP is, "it's a miracle, don't spend too much time thinking about it. Moving on... It was the sixth day out of seven and the cycle of life had not begun. There was no rain yet on the earth, Lord God *wink-wink* {ahem} LORD God had not caused it to rain..."

But as I said, it explains nothing.

Metaphors don't explain. They are a tool that is used to concentrate ideas in unique ways.

But as I said, that assumes they knew modern cosmology, which plainly they didn't.

That's an assumption.

How am I going to get a grant to continue my researches next year if I take advice like that?!

You won't. The metaphor does a great job at filtering out those who are interested and capable of a higher level discussion, and those who are not. Those people are dismissed.