> Ah, but it's not. It's a nahash.
which of these are not just snakes?
וַיֹּאמֶר הַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ אַרְצָה וַיַּשְׁלִיכֵהוּ אַרְצָה וַיְהִי לְנָחָשׁ וַיָּנָס מֹשֶׁה מִפָּנָֽיו׃
He said, “Cast it on the ground.” He cast it on the ground and it became a snake; and Moses recoiled from it.
יְשַׁלַּח יְהוָה בָּעָם אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים וַֽיְנַשְּׁכוּ אֶת־הָעָם וַיָּמָת עַם־רָב מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל
The Lord sent seraph serpents against the people. They bit the people and many of the Israelites died.
הַמֹּולִיכֲךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל וְהַנֹּורָא נָחָשׁ שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב וְצִמָּאֹון אֲשֶׁר אֵֽין־מָיִם הַמֹּוצִיא לְךָ מַיִם מִצּוּר הַֽחַלָּמִֽישׁ
who led you through the great and terrible wilderness with its seraph serpents and scorpions, a parched land with no water in it, who brought forth water for you from the flinty rock;
חֲמַת־לָמֹו כִּדְמוּת חֲמַת־נָחָשׁ כְּמֹו־פֶתֶן חֵרֵשׁ יַאְטֵם אָזְנֹֽו׃
Their venom is like that of a snake, a deaf viper that stops its ears
אַחֲרִיתֹו כְּנָחָשׁ יִשָּׁךְ וּֽכְצִפְעֹנִי יַפְרִֽשׁ׃
In the end, it bites like a snake; It spits like a basilisk.
etc. now, maybe the seraphim references are supernatural, but some of these seem entirely natural.
> We can discuss Ezekiel if you wish. I'll let you lead off with what you're not convinced about.
i thought i already had!
Board index ‹ God
Re: You are polytheistic
by jimwalton » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:47 pm
- Exodus 4.3: snake
- Numbers 21.6: snakes. Their "fiery" or "winged" character may have to do with their association with the cobra, or possibly their quick spring as they strike (Dt. 8.15).
- Dt. 8.15: snakes.
- Ps. 58.4: snakes, but a metaphor for the wicked.
- Prov. 23.32: snakes, but a metaphor for the dangers of drunkenness.
> Ezekiel
You wrote down some material, but I didn't interact with it. Our conversation seemed mostly on a different text. But we can do more with Ezk if you wish.
- Numbers 21.6: snakes. Their "fiery" or "winged" character may have to do with their association with the cobra, or possibly their quick spring as they strike (Dt. 8.15).
- Dt. 8.15: snakes.
- Ps. 58.4: snakes, but a metaphor for the wicked.
- Prov. 23.32: snakes, but a metaphor for the dangers of drunkenness.
> Ezekiel
You wrote down some material, but I didn't interact with it. Our conversation seemed mostly on a different text. But we can do more with Ezk if you wish.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: You are polytheistic
by Spiderman » Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:10 pm
> One of the primary themes of Deuteronomy, however, is that YHWH is the only God. It shows up most obviously in places like Dt. 4 (at the beginning) and here in Dt. 32.39 (at the end). There are plenty of verses through Deuteronomy that speak of other "gods," but they are portrayed as non-deities, false ideas, and not really gods at all, though that is the term used for them.
this is pretty common ancient near eastern monolatry, yes. it's a hyperbolic way of affirming the sovereignty of the primary deity.
compare:
See, then, that I, I am He;
There is no god beside Me.
I deal death and give life;
I wounded and I will heal:
None can deliver from My hand.
deuteronomy 32:39:
Unique one, like whom among the gods?
Goodly bull of the Ennead,
Chief of all the gods,
Lord of Truth, Father of the gods,
Who made mankind, who created the flocks,
Lord of what exists, who created the tree of life,
hymn to amun-ra. maybe deuteronomy goes a bit further, but it's not really until deutero-isaiah that we start to get rejections of the other gods as fakes, products of human hands.
> Part of the problem with this is the recognition by scholars Deuteronomy as a whole has the elements of a 2nd millennium international treaty, and therefore seems (by that standard) to have been produced by a single author in a single time to achieve his literary and theological purpose.
under the wellhausen/friedman varieties of the documentary hypothesis, deuteronomy is a singular document, yes. we have reasons to think that's not quite the case, of course, and that's not counting the places that are obvious quotes of older sources (where the author says he's quoting older sources) like this part.
i'm not really sure what "as a whole has elements" means. it clearly does have some elements, yes, of ancient treaties. but so do the texts it's based on, the commandment portions of J and E. "has features of an old text" doesn't really indicate a text is old, since, well, we could just copy old texts we have now. the book of mormon has some features of 1600's english texts, but it was clearly written in the 1800's. we can tell this because it misuses some of those features, and includes theology clearly derived from the 1800's revivalist movements.
and we can do the same thing with detueronomy; the book of kings tells us of a major theological and political shift following the discovery of an unknown book in the temple. those shifts are all motivated by features unique to deuteronomy. so the book was probably deuteronomy.
> Yes, but as I said, it is used as a euphemism for YHWH,
yes, it most frequently is. but it doesn't appear to be here, based on the immediate context. "elyon" is a generic honorific for the most high god, and for nearly all of the biblical period, that god was yahweh. there are hints, however, that prior to the biblical period el and yahweh would have been distinct. during that period, el would have been elyon at first, and then yahweh would have taken over, precisely as we see with baal. there are hints, like psalm 82, that this is exactly what happened.
oh, since i cribbed the hymn to amun-ra from here, i think you may be interested in this: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/07/the-most-heiser-yahweh-and-elyon-in-psalm-82-and-deuteronomy-32/
this is pretty common ancient near eastern monolatry, yes. it's a hyperbolic way of affirming the sovereignty of the primary deity.
compare:
See, then, that I, I am He;
There is no god beside Me.
I deal death and give life;
I wounded and I will heal:
None can deliver from My hand.
deuteronomy 32:39:
Unique one, like whom among the gods?
Goodly bull of the Ennead,
Chief of all the gods,
Lord of Truth, Father of the gods,
Who made mankind, who created the flocks,
Lord of what exists, who created the tree of life,
hymn to amun-ra. maybe deuteronomy goes a bit further, but it's not really until deutero-isaiah that we start to get rejections of the other gods as fakes, products of human hands.
> Part of the problem with this is the recognition by scholars Deuteronomy as a whole has the elements of a 2nd millennium international treaty, and therefore seems (by that standard) to have been produced by a single author in a single time to achieve his literary and theological purpose.
under the wellhausen/friedman varieties of the documentary hypothesis, deuteronomy is a singular document, yes. we have reasons to think that's not quite the case, of course, and that's not counting the places that are obvious quotes of older sources (where the author says he's quoting older sources) like this part.
i'm not really sure what "as a whole has elements" means. it clearly does have some elements, yes, of ancient treaties. but so do the texts it's based on, the commandment portions of J and E. "has features of an old text" doesn't really indicate a text is old, since, well, we could just copy old texts we have now. the book of mormon has some features of 1600's english texts, but it was clearly written in the 1800's. we can tell this because it misuses some of those features, and includes theology clearly derived from the 1800's revivalist movements.
and we can do the same thing with detueronomy; the book of kings tells us of a major theological and political shift following the discovery of an unknown book in the temple. those shifts are all motivated by features unique to deuteronomy. so the book was probably deuteronomy.
> Yes, but as I said, it is used as a euphemism for YHWH,
yes, it most frequently is. but it doesn't appear to be here, based on the immediate context. "elyon" is a generic honorific for the most high god, and for nearly all of the biblical period, that god was yahweh. there are hints, however, that prior to the biblical period el and yahweh would have been distinct. during that period, el would have been elyon at first, and then yahweh would have taken over, precisely as we see with baal. there are hints, like psalm 82, that this is exactly what happened.
oh, since i cribbed the hymn to amun-ra from here, i think you may be interested in this: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/07/the-most-heiser-yahweh-and-elyon-in-psalm-82-and-deuteronomy-32/
- Spiderman
Re: You are polytheistic
by jimwalton » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:00 pm
Yeah, I know that the authorship, date of writing, and monotheistic theology of Deuteronomy is hotly debated real estate. Some of the arguments are based heavily in linguistics, others in prejudice. Paleography doesn't tell us anything since we don't have any copies of it prior to the DSS. Examinations of the Torah bring a variety of conclusions from able scholars. I'm not sure it will ever be resolved. There is something to be said for each position, and arguments against each position. Scholars span the gamut of theories and dates. I'm quite convinced we won't resolve it here. : )
> this is pretty common ancient near eastern monolatry, yes. it's a hyperbolic way of affirming the sovereignty of the primary deity.
The so-called monotheistic roots of Judaism found in the days of Pharaoh Aktenaten only lasted about 20 years. Akhenaten attempted to establish the sole worship of the sun disc, Aten—a god without mythology and portrayed with no human form. It was worship without an image, and also with little use for temple or ritual. It didn't take off. The people didn't buy into it, and it didn't last. Yahwism was unique in the sense that it was radically monotheistic, especially among its neighbors.
There are several levels of monotheism that can be identified and that may have characterized the belief system of various Israelites in various periods: (1) practical monotheism, where they acknowledge a number of gods, but focus their worship on one particular deity; (2) henotheism, where they acknowledge the existence of other gods but insist on the supremacy of one's own god; (3) monolatry, where they determine to worship only one God regardless of where other gods exist or not; and (4) philosophical monotheism, which believes that there has only ever been one God in existence. The text of Deuteronomy doesn't allow for practical monotheism, but there are possible interpretations that potentially allow for henotheism and monolatry at the very least. It's very difficult to trace all this down from the writings that remain extant. In theory it is not always easy to distinguish between henotheism and monotheism in individual writers. Obviously later Israel follows philosophical monotheism. The debate may never end as to whether or not they always did.
> but it's not really until deutero-isaiah that we start to get rejections of the other gods as fakes, products of human hands.
Except for texts like Dt. 32.39, which seems distinctively different from the Hymn to Amun-Ra, which speaks of "Chief of all the gods' (henotheism).
> as a whole has the elements
The book as a whole follows the form of a mid-2nd millennium BC Hittite treaty. It has the outline structure of such a treaty (preamble, historical urology, stipulations, document clause, curses and blessings) as well as similar kinds of references, terminology, and miscellaneous elements. What I'm NOT claiming is that every component in Deuteronomy follows the format of the ancient treaty.
The book also has the form of an ancient Near Eastern list. So many parts of it seem to date to the mid-2nd millennium BC.
> the book of kings tells us of a major theological and political shift following the discovery of an unknown book in the temple. those shifts are all motivated by features unique to deuteronomy. so the book was probably deuteronomy.
Some agree with this, and some don't. It's an interesting theory with some scant evidence, but can't be claimed as a solid explanation.
> "Elyon." yes, it most frequently is. but it doesn't appear to be here, based on the immediate context.
One of the shortcomings of this theory is what appears to be a quite clear reference to Genesis 10 and the list of nations, as well as to Ex. 1.5 and the record there of the families of Israel. In Gn. 9-10 the deity is YHWH, as is the deity of Exodus 1-3. A reference is being made, and so we have to make the connection. Dt. 5.2, 9, 19 also make the reference, and the connection is to YHWH.
> this is pretty common ancient near eastern monolatry, yes. it's a hyperbolic way of affirming the sovereignty of the primary deity.
The so-called monotheistic roots of Judaism found in the days of Pharaoh Aktenaten only lasted about 20 years. Akhenaten attempted to establish the sole worship of the sun disc, Aten—a god without mythology and portrayed with no human form. It was worship without an image, and also with little use for temple or ritual. It didn't take off. The people didn't buy into it, and it didn't last. Yahwism was unique in the sense that it was radically monotheistic, especially among its neighbors.
There are several levels of monotheism that can be identified and that may have characterized the belief system of various Israelites in various periods: (1) practical monotheism, where they acknowledge a number of gods, but focus their worship on one particular deity; (2) henotheism, where they acknowledge the existence of other gods but insist on the supremacy of one's own god; (3) monolatry, where they determine to worship only one God regardless of where other gods exist or not; and (4) philosophical monotheism, which believes that there has only ever been one God in existence. The text of Deuteronomy doesn't allow for practical monotheism, but there are possible interpretations that potentially allow for henotheism and monolatry at the very least. It's very difficult to trace all this down from the writings that remain extant. In theory it is not always easy to distinguish between henotheism and monotheism in individual writers. Obviously later Israel follows philosophical monotheism. The debate may never end as to whether or not they always did.
> but it's not really until deutero-isaiah that we start to get rejections of the other gods as fakes, products of human hands.
Except for texts like Dt. 32.39, which seems distinctively different from the Hymn to Amun-Ra, which speaks of "Chief of all the gods' (henotheism).
> as a whole has the elements
The book as a whole follows the form of a mid-2nd millennium BC Hittite treaty. It has the outline structure of such a treaty (preamble, historical urology, stipulations, document clause, curses and blessings) as well as similar kinds of references, terminology, and miscellaneous elements. What I'm NOT claiming is that every component in Deuteronomy follows the format of the ancient treaty.
The book also has the form of an ancient Near Eastern list. So many parts of it seem to date to the mid-2nd millennium BC.
> the book of kings tells us of a major theological and political shift following the discovery of an unknown book in the temple. those shifts are all motivated by features unique to deuteronomy. so the book was probably deuteronomy.
Some agree with this, and some don't. It's an interesting theory with some scant evidence, but can't be claimed as a solid explanation.
> "Elyon." yes, it most frequently is. but it doesn't appear to be here, based on the immediate context.
One of the shortcomings of this theory is what appears to be a quite clear reference to Genesis 10 and the list of nations, as well as to Ex. 1.5 and the record there of the families of Israel. In Gn. 9-10 the deity is YHWH, as is the deity of Exodus 1-3. A reference is being made, and so we have to make the connection. Dt. 5.2, 9, 19 also make the reference, and the connection is to YHWH.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: You are polytheistic
by Thinking Bee » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:02 pm
> The spirit world isn't subject to scientific experiments or even empirical evidence. It's something the Bible talks about.
The "spirit world" you describe is invisible, undetectable, and unmeasurable. But if you thought about it, and we had you in an MRI, then we could see the structures of your brain changing as you had those thoughts about the "spirit world". Therefore, I see no difference between the "spirit world" you describe, and anyone else's imaginary "spirit world". Until you can show me that your "spirit world" is real, then I will regard it as imaginary, just like I do to all the others: you're making it up. What can you show me to prove otherwise?
> If you don't believe the Bible because of the evidences
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you." Lev 11:6
The rabbit does not chew the cud, nor does it have a hoof, divided or otherwise. This verse is false. What does this evidence show to you?
The "spirit world" you describe is invisible, undetectable, and unmeasurable. But if you thought about it, and we had you in an MRI, then we could see the structures of your brain changing as you had those thoughts about the "spirit world". Therefore, I see no difference between the "spirit world" you describe, and anyone else's imaginary "spirit world". Until you can show me that your "spirit world" is real, then I will regard it as imaginary, just like I do to all the others: you're making it up. What can you show me to prove otherwise?
> If you don't believe the Bible because of the evidences
"The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you." Lev 11:6
The rabbit does not chew the cud, nor does it have a hoof, divided or otherwise. This verse is false. What does this evidence show to you?
- Thinking Bee
Re: You are polytheistic
by jimwalton » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:02 pm
> The "spirit world" you describe is invisible, undetectable, and unmeasurable. But if you thought about it, and we had you in an fMRI, then we could see the structures of your brain changing as you had those thoughts about the "spirit world".
There are many realities undetectable by an MRI, and many phenomena unable to be distinguished by what an MRI tells. If this is your criteria of truth, there is a severe deficiency in your criteria. If I asked you to imagine by memory your favorite vacation as a child, the MRI would light up in certain areas. There would be no way to discern whether (1) your memory was accurate, (2) your memory was even real. Let's suppose it was real. The MRI cannot show me that. You have landed on a false criteria to determine what is real and what is imaginary.
> Lev. 11.6
Of course the rabbit doesn't chew its cud. Remember this was before the days of our scientific taxonomic classification system. Animals were sometimes grouped according to behavior attributes rather than our scientific divisions. The rabbit uses a jaw motion that look like ruminating. It also has a habit of regurgitating its food and returning to it later, creating the impression that it is incessantly chewing its food. It could make sense to someone who just watches them and never dissects them for scientific study.
And of course it doesn't have a hoof, split or otherwise.
The verse isn't false at all. The evidence shows me that they watched rabbits and didn't eat them, but they didn't try to generate a taxonomic system of classification.
There are many realities undetectable by an MRI, and many phenomena unable to be distinguished by what an MRI tells. If this is your criteria of truth, there is a severe deficiency in your criteria. If I asked you to imagine by memory your favorite vacation as a child, the MRI would light up in certain areas. There would be no way to discern whether (1) your memory was accurate, (2) your memory was even real. Let's suppose it was real. The MRI cannot show me that. You have landed on a false criteria to determine what is real and what is imaginary.
> Lev. 11.6
Of course the rabbit doesn't chew its cud. Remember this was before the days of our scientific taxonomic classification system. Animals were sometimes grouped according to behavior attributes rather than our scientific divisions. The rabbit uses a jaw motion that look like ruminating. It also has a habit of regurgitating its food and returning to it later, creating the impression that it is incessantly chewing its food. It could make sense to someone who just watches them and never dissects them for scientific study.
And of course it doesn't have a hoof, split or otherwise.
The verse isn't false at all. The evidence shows me that they watched rabbits and didn't eat them, but they didn't try to generate a taxonomic system of classification.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: You are polytheistic
by Thinking Bee » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:38 pm
> There are many realities undetectable by an MRI,
How do you know?
> If I asked you to imagine by memory your favorite vacation as a child, the MRI would light up in certain areas. There would be no way to discern whether (1) your memory was accurate, (2) your memory was even real
Precisely. My brain can imagine all sorts of things that are not real. Gods, for example. I can imagine gods are real and even believe in them, and my brain would light up under an fMRI.
> The MRI cannot show me that. You have landed on a false criteria to determine what is real and what is imaginary.
I didn't claim that an MRI would show me what is real and what is not. I am saying that you have no evidence that this "spirit world" you claim exists actually exists. We do, however, have a way of showing that the "spirit world" you imagine is no different from the imaginations of other people who are imagining things that are not real. Wiccans believe that they can contact a "spirit world" and cast "magic spells". I think their "spirit world" is imaginary, too. How can you convince me that yours is real while theirs is imaginary?
> Of course the rabbit doesn't chew its cud.
The rabbit doesn't even have a cud! That's not the way its digestive system works!
> Remember this was before the days of our scientific taxonomic classification system.
We're not talking about a scientific classification system. We are talking about the Bible, which is allegedly the perfect word of a divine being. I think it's the superstitious writings of a tribal, primitive people. Do you agree with me, or do you instead allege that it's the word of a god?
> The verse isn't false at all. The evidence shows me that they watched rabbits and didn't eat them, but they didn't try to generate a taxonomic system of classification.
The Bible doesn't merely "not try to generate a taxonomic system of classification". It states that the rabbit "chews the cud" (false) and "doesn't have a split hoof" (false -- rabbits do not have hooves). The evidence shows me that they were primitive people with a poor grasp of reality, and this is NOT the word of a god. I have much higher expectations of a being who is allegedly omnipotent and omniscient. I can do better than that, and so can you. Why can't your god get the rabbit right? Don't you think he would know that the rabbit doesn't chew the cud and doesn't have a hoof, especially considering he created it?
How do you know?
> If I asked you to imagine by memory your favorite vacation as a child, the MRI would light up in certain areas. There would be no way to discern whether (1) your memory was accurate, (2) your memory was even real
Precisely. My brain can imagine all sorts of things that are not real. Gods, for example. I can imagine gods are real and even believe in them, and my brain would light up under an fMRI.
> The MRI cannot show me that. You have landed on a false criteria to determine what is real and what is imaginary.
I didn't claim that an MRI would show me what is real and what is not. I am saying that you have no evidence that this "spirit world" you claim exists actually exists. We do, however, have a way of showing that the "spirit world" you imagine is no different from the imaginations of other people who are imagining things that are not real. Wiccans believe that they can contact a "spirit world" and cast "magic spells". I think their "spirit world" is imaginary, too. How can you convince me that yours is real while theirs is imaginary?
> Of course the rabbit doesn't chew its cud.
The rabbit doesn't even have a cud! That's not the way its digestive system works!
> Remember this was before the days of our scientific taxonomic classification system.
We're not talking about a scientific classification system. We are talking about the Bible, which is allegedly the perfect word of a divine being. I think it's the superstitious writings of a tribal, primitive people. Do you agree with me, or do you instead allege that it's the word of a god?
> The verse isn't false at all. The evidence shows me that they watched rabbits and didn't eat them, but they didn't try to generate a taxonomic system of classification.
The Bible doesn't merely "not try to generate a taxonomic system of classification". It states that the rabbit "chews the cud" (false) and "doesn't have a split hoof" (false -- rabbits do not have hooves). The evidence shows me that they were primitive people with a poor grasp of reality, and this is NOT the word of a god. I have much higher expectations of a being who is allegedly omnipotent and omniscient. I can do better than that, and so can you. Why can't your god get the rabbit right? Don't you think he would know that the rabbit doesn't chew the cud and doesn't have a hoof, especially considering he created it?
- Thinking Bee
Re: You are polytheistic
by jimwalton » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:02 pm
> How do you know?
Because we know that all an MRI tells is that it lights up parts of the brain with various degrees and colors. It can't tell what I'm thinking, what I'm remembering, how I feel, or what I'm dreaming. That's not what it's for, and it can't do that.
> Precisely. My brain can imagine all sorts of things that are not real.
But your brain can also remember things that ARE real, which was the point of what I was saying, and the MRI cannot tell you what it is you're thinking, and how real it is. That's not what an MRI is for.
> I am saying that you have no evidence that this "spirit world" you claim exists actually exists.
Sure I do, but it can't be measured by scientific instruments. Science is using the wrong measure for a phenomenon, just like I wouldn't use a thermometer to determine miles per gallon. Wrong tool.
> The rabbit doesn't even have a cud! That's not the way its digestive system works!
Of course it doesn't. You're right. As I said, that Bible verse was about appearances, not the science of it.
> We are talking about the Bible, which is allegedly the perfect word of a divine being
That's correct. You're right. As you read the Bible, you'll notice it always works according to the scientific understanding of the people it was written BY and TO. The Bible never introduces any new scientific information, but always accommodates the scientific understanding of the writer and the audience, which it does perfectly.
> I think it's the superstitious writings of a tribal, primitive people.
No wonder you're so critical. The Bible is an astounding literary and historical work. It has some of the best literature known to humanity. And though the people were primitive by modern scientific standards, let's not think they were ignorant. Any study of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians will reveal that they were astoundingly intelligent, and accomplished some things that we still don't understand how they did them and how they knew that.
> Do you agree with me, or do you instead allege that it's the word of a god?
It's the Word of God, fer sher.
> It states that the rabbit "chews the cud" (false)
The rabbit masticates with a side-to-side mandible action, just like a cow or sheep. Though it doesn't have multiple stomachs and doesn't regurgitate its food into its mouth for repetitious chewing, it can easily be observing chewing side to side, and therefore the Bible makes that observation. It is not to be taken as a scientific statement, but as an observational one.
> "doesn't have a split hoof" (false -- rabbits do not have hooves).
Of course it doesn't have a hoof, let alone a split one. The Bible is correct: it doesn't have a split hoof. The point of Leviticus 11 is that only animals with split hooves were considered edible, and though the rabbit doesn't even have hooves, it most certainly doesn't fit into the category of "domesticated animals with split hooves," and therefore it is disqualified. This is not a mis-statement that rabbits have whole hooves. Neither is it an incorrect statement. It's true that a rabbit doesn't have a split hoof.
Suppose the category were "feathered wings." Any could look at you or me and say, "Nope, no feathered wings." While you might protest that you don't have wings at all, that's not the point. The point is that the assessment was for feathered wings, and we don't qualify. That's all the text is claiming.
> The evidence shows me that they were primitive people with a poor grasp of reality, and this is NOT the word of a god.
Nah, this isn't the case at all. They were categorizing animals by observations of a few particular traits pertinent to their dietary rituals, that's all.
Because we know that all an MRI tells is that it lights up parts of the brain with various degrees and colors. It can't tell what I'm thinking, what I'm remembering, how I feel, or what I'm dreaming. That's not what it's for, and it can't do that.
> Precisely. My brain can imagine all sorts of things that are not real.
But your brain can also remember things that ARE real, which was the point of what I was saying, and the MRI cannot tell you what it is you're thinking, and how real it is. That's not what an MRI is for.
> I am saying that you have no evidence that this "spirit world" you claim exists actually exists.
Sure I do, but it can't be measured by scientific instruments. Science is using the wrong measure for a phenomenon, just like I wouldn't use a thermometer to determine miles per gallon. Wrong tool.
> The rabbit doesn't even have a cud! That's not the way its digestive system works!
Of course it doesn't. You're right. As I said, that Bible verse was about appearances, not the science of it.
> We are talking about the Bible, which is allegedly the perfect word of a divine being
That's correct. You're right. As you read the Bible, you'll notice it always works according to the scientific understanding of the people it was written BY and TO. The Bible never introduces any new scientific information, but always accommodates the scientific understanding of the writer and the audience, which it does perfectly.
> I think it's the superstitious writings of a tribal, primitive people.
No wonder you're so critical. The Bible is an astounding literary and historical work. It has some of the best literature known to humanity. And though the people were primitive by modern scientific standards, let's not think they were ignorant. Any study of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians will reveal that they were astoundingly intelligent, and accomplished some things that we still don't understand how they did them and how they knew that.
> Do you agree with me, or do you instead allege that it's the word of a god?
It's the Word of God, fer sher.
> It states that the rabbit "chews the cud" (false)
The rabbit masticates with a side-to-side mandible action, just like a cow or sheep. Though it doesn't have multiple stomachs and doesn't regurgitate its food into its mouth for repetitious chewing, it can easily be observing chewing side to side, and therefore the Bible makes that observation. It is not to be taken as a scientific statement, but as an observational one.
> "doesn't have a split hoof" (false -- rabbits do not have hooves).
Of course it doesn't have a hoof, let alone a split one. The Bible is correct: it doesn't have a split hoof. The point of Leviticus 11 is that only animals with split hooves were considered edible, and though the rabbit doesn't even have hooves, it most certainly doesn't fit into the category of "domesticated animals with split hooves," and therefore it is disqualified. This is not a mis-statement that rabbits have whole hooves. Neither is it an incorrect statement. It's true that a rabbit doesn't have a split hoof.
Suppose the category were "feathered wings." Any could look at you or me and say, "Nope, no feathered wings." While you might protest that you don't have wings at all, that's not the point. The point is that the assessment was for feathered wings, and we don't qualify. That's all the text is claiming.
> The evidence shows me that they were primitive people with a poor grasp of reality, and this is NOT the word of a god.
Nah, this isn't the case at all. They were categorizing animals by observations of a few particular traits pertinent to their dietary rituals, that's all.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: You are polytheistic
by Spiderman » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:16 pm
> Context has to be considered.
sure, i absolutely agree. i was just establishing that this word can have a mundane context. clearly there are more supernatural ones too -- the nachushtan was some kind of idol.
the question then is "what kind of context is gen 2/3?"
וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the Lord God had made.
now, i would say that this places the nachash firmly within the mundane realm -- a wild beast that yahweh made.
on a more comparative mythology level, this whole narrative is taking elements from other myths, and making them mundane. for instance, where the sumerian myth has a goddess whose name means "creator of life" and "rib", genesis has a normal woman. the serpent is probably drawing on gilgamesh, where a serpent steals the equivalent of the tree of life, sheds his skin, and then moves on, while gilgamesh naps on the shore after retrieving the plant from dilmun. even that snake is a normal snake.
there may be supernatural influences as heiser suggests, but there are also mundane ones in the relevant mythology, and the overall context is de-mythologizing those other myths.
> I was talking primarily about Isaiah 14.
that's fine, these two passages are normally associated. i think we agree that they aren't necessarily.
sure, i absolutely agree. i was just establishing that this word can have a mundane context. clearly there are more supernatural ones too -- the nachushtan was some kind of idol.
the question then is "what kind of context is gen 2/3?"
וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים
Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the Lord God had made.
now, i would say that this places the nachash firmly within the mundane realm -- a wild beast that yahweh made.
on a more comparative mythology level, this whole narrative is taking elements from other myths, and making them mundane. for instance, where the sumerian myth has a goddess whose name means "creator of life" and "rib", genesis has a normal woman. the serpent is probably drawing on gilgamesh, where a serpent steals the equivalent of the tree of life, sheds his skin, and then moves on, while gilgamesh naps on the shore after retrieving the plant from dilmun. even that snake is a normal snake.
there may be supernatural influences as heiser suggests, but there are also mundane ones in the relevant mythology, and the overall context is de-mythologizing those other myths.
> I was talking primarily about Isaiah 14.
that's fine, these two passages are normally associated. i think we agree that they aren't necessarily.
- Spiderman
Re: You are polytheistic
by jimwalton » Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:16 pm
> the nachushtan was some kind of idol.
Sometimes it was, sometimes not (as in Num. 21.8-9).
> now, i would say that this places the nachash firmly within the mundane realm -- a wild beast that yahweh made.
Oh, not at all. There was nothing mundane about the environment of Garden of Eden or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the ancient world the serpent would have been viewed as a chaos creature from the non-ordered realms, promoting disorder. There was nothing mundane about any of this.
Genesis e is much more about the encroachment of disorder (brought about by sin) into a world that was int he process of being ordered than about anything that ties in with mythology. It is about how humanity lost access to the presence of God. Genesis is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how it works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world. So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature," though it doesn't work the same way as modern historiography does.
Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal (not metaphorical or allegorical)—representing the whole human race. As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d'être. The elements of the literature emphasize God's power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam's intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.
The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.
Dr. John Walton writes, "Throughout the ancient world, the serpent was endowed with divine or semi-divine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil, and was often worshipped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East. In the context of Genesis, however, the serpent is merely one of the creatures God created. It is shrewd but not sinister. Unlike later Christian theology, in Israel there was no inclination to embody all evil in a central figure or trace its cause to a single historical event. Therefore, the Israelites were quite willing to recognize the serpent as representing an evil influence, without attempting to associate it with a being who was the ultimate source or cause of evil.
"In fact, it would appear that the author of Genesis is intentionally underplaying the role or identification of the serpent; this would correlate with the other polemical elements of the early chapters of Genesis. It is important to remember that, in the ancient world, most cosmological models were built around a god taming or defeating the chaotic forces, often represented in the sea. In Canaanite literature, this role of chaos was played by the serpentine Leviathan/Lotan. In contrast, the biblical narrative asserts that the great sea creature was simply another of the beasts God created (1.21). This demythologizing polemic may explain why the author avoids explaining the existence of evil with any conspiratorial uprisings theory."
In other words, this story has almost nothing in common with the structure and purposes of ancient mythologies.
Sometimes it was, sometimes not (as in Num. 21.8-9).
> now, i would say that this places the nachash firmly within the mundane realm -- a wild beast that yahweh made.
Oh, not at all. There was nothing mundane about the environment of Garden of Eden or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the ancient world the serpent would have been viewed as a chaos creature from the non-ordered realms, promoting disorder. There was nothing mundane about any of this.
Genesis e is much more about the encroachment of disorder (brought about by sin) into a world that was int he process of being ordered than about anything that ties in with mythology. It is about how humanity lost access to the presence of God. Genesis is markedly different in nature and purpose than any of the ancient mythologies, separating it from them. Mythographies are not interested in portraying events (history), but want to show how it works and how it got that way. A myth is an attempt to explain reality from theological vantage point, and are not meant to connect those stories, as stories, with events in the real world. So the Genesis story is "event-oriented, truth-telling literature," though it doesn't work the same way as modern historiography does.
Regarding Genesis 2-3, Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Cor. 15.45-49 let us know that Adam is considered to be historical, but the Bible's primary interest in him is archetypal (not metaphorical or allegorical)—representing the whole human race. As we go back to Genesis, we can see the archetypal elements of the narrative that clue us in to its raison d'être. The elements of the literature emphasize God's power, desire for relationship, care, warnings, provision, and purposes. We learn of Adam's intelligence, moral awareness (and therefore culpability), his role and function in relation to God, earth, and other humans, his mortal nature, and the spiritual choice laid before him with its consequences. The primary archetypal elements are mortality, morality, and the choice of self vs. God—elements that are essential human struggles from time immemorial to the present.
The story is not necessarily one of material origins, but one of relational origins: Human is capable of a relationship with God. Will humans choose God and the path of fellowship and life, or will they choose self and the path of separation and destruction? These paths still lie before each one of us as we determine the course of our own lives by the choices that we make.
Dr. John Walton writes, "Throughout the ancient world, the serpent was endowed with divine or semi-divine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil, and was often worshipped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East. In the context of Genesis, however, the serpent is merely one of the creatures God created. It is shrewd but not sinister. Unlike later Christian theology, in Israel there was no inclination to embody all evil in a central figure or trace its cause to a single historical event. Therefore, the Israelites were quite willing to recognize the serpent as representing an evil influence, without attempting to associate it with a being who was the ultimate source or cause of evil.
"In fact, it would appear that the author of Genesis is intentionally underplaying the role or identification of the serpent; this would correlate with the other polemical elements of the early chapters of Genesis. It is important to remember that, in the ancient world, most cosmological models were built around a god taming or defeating the chaotic forces, often represented in the sea. In Canaanite literature, this role of chaos was played by the serpentine Leviathan/Lotan. In contrast, the biblical narrative asserts that the great sea creature was simply another of the beasts God created (1.21). This demythologizing polemic may explain why the author avoids explaining the existence of evil with any conspiratorial uprisings theory."
In other words, this story has almost nothing in common with the structure and purposes of ancient mythologies.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest