Questions about the Creation Myth.

[SkinWalker]

I take it that you believe God does not exist?

There is no reason to believe in any gods (I can only assume that in your case you're referring to one of the Christian gods) that I've ever seen. Surely you haven't forgotten my position after all these years.

And as such the whole scripture thing is just mans imagination?

Imagination. Yes, I suppose it must be. The evidence of an imagination at work in Judeo-Christian literature is clear enough.

 

[Enmos]

Imagination. Yes, I suppose it must be. The evidence of an imagination at work in Judeo-Christian literature is clear enough.

I'm sure it all looked more than plausible at the time.. lol

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

No, that won't do. The animals were created "after their likeness".
Not after how God imagined them to be. Or, at least, it does not say so in the bible.

How do you know?
And why can't you accept it as a possibility?

Which is why I ask you why you think that God had limbs like ours, a head, and a torso.

Try looking at it this way, we have a body like Gods.
That is what is says, isn't it?

You seem to acknowledge evolution. In this light, do you think it is plausible that the pre-universe God looked like us ?

Of course I recognise evolution. Why wouldn't I?

No. Why would I ? All it says is that God (was planning to) put a viceroy on the Earth.

Then proceeds to talk to Adam, teaching him the names of things.

jan.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm sure it all looked more than plausible at the time.. lol

One pretty much did what the priests and religious authorities instructed. That much is universal with all ancient cultures and evident in their physical remains. It stands to reason that early Jewish and later Christian cult members were subjected to similar dictation and authority.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
How do you know?
And why can't you accept it as a possibility?

How do I know ?? All I have as reference is the bible, and the bible says that they were created "after their likeness" i.e. in their own image.
Why do you assume otherwise, as a believer ?

Try looking at it this way, we have a body like Gods.
That is what is says, isn't it?

That's what I'm asking. I think it might not say that.
Even if it is meant that way, I still want an explanation about Gods features.

Of course I recognise evolution. Why wouldn't I?

Ok, you acknowledge evolution.
Is there any reason you chose not to answer the other question ?

Then proceeds to talk to Adam, teaching him the names of things.

jan.

So ? Where does it say that Adam is the viceroy ?

 

[SkinWalker]

And why can't you accept it as a possibility?

Possible describes me winning the lottery. This, however isn't probable since I don't buy lottery tickets and view the process as the tax on the ignorant. So when believers and the superstitious ask the rational why they can't "just accept the possibility," what they really mean is why do we see things so improbable. The answer to this, of course, is there simply is no good reason to accept the fantastic as probable to any degree worth believing in.

Is it possible a god and his adam created the rest of mankind "in their image?" Sure. Its possible. But its far more probable that the next knock on my door will be Ed McMann announcing the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. There is no evidence to suggest an "adam" ever existed and significant evidence to suggest that all life on the planet shares a common set of ancestors. If your god resembles a paramecium or a flagellic bacterium, perhaps the literary interpretation also has some basis in reality.

Otherwise, we're left discussing mythology in strictly literary, sociological, psychological and anthropological terms.

 

[Enmos]

One pretty much did what the priests and religious authorities instructed. That much is universal with all ancient cultures and evident in their physical remains. It stands to reason that early Jewish and later Christian cult members were subjected to similar dictation and authority.

Yes, but I am assuming religion started much more humble much earlier on, mainly as an attempt to explain not understood phenomena.

 

[Enmos]

If your god resembles a paramecium or a flagellic bacterium, perhaps the literary interpretation also has some basis in reality.

Oh !! HAHA

 

[Saquist]

Genesis 1:24-27

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/1.htm



Question 1.
What does it mean when God says that He creates creatures after their kind ?

Depending on bible translation, i know there are some differences but according or after their kind literally means after that which was created. They would continue to resemble the original creatues. It's a statement of reproduction.

Question 2.
When God says, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness," did He mean that He would make man psychically similar to Himself, or perhaps mentally.. what ?

According to scripture: No man may see God and yet live.
Collosians 1:15 says that his son, Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible.
Ephesians tells us about the fruitages of the spirit which he expects us to manifest which were Christ teachings. Because Colosians points to Jesus being created first before all things then it is him God speaks too in the begining and through him God made all else, so apparently the "image" they refered to was of the same mind, having similar qualities.

Question 3.
And what's with "Our image" and "Our likeness" ?
Were there more Gods, or is it just some sort of majestic plural (lol) ?

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as a god.
The scriptures also speak of many other gods, even refering to Satan as the god of the Earth but only God "YHWH" "he who causes to become" as the Almighty God abundant in dynamic energy. Only God is described as "from time indefinite to time indefinite"

Scripture is pretty clear on the issue of One God who created all things and there are many examples of the seperates of Jesus and God but some doctrines promote one or two scriptures as a rule which does not justifiy a pattern in canonical scriptures.

 

[SkinWalker]

Yes, but I am assuming religion started much more humble much earlier on, mainly as an attempt to explain not understood phenomena.

Religion undergoes cultural evolution in much the same way lifeforms do: gradual changes over time as a response to the environment. This much is seen very clearly in the material record of humanity.

When I say "this much" I only mean the gradual changes over time in religious thought and belief. There is much about what drives these changes which is left to subjective interpretation and these interpretations are refined and the probabilities of their accuracy are improved with continued dialog, research and investigations which make predictions that are upheld, etc.

The earliest religions very probably were a combined result of questions about what happens to the conscious being post-mortem and the fear of death, which perhaps resulted in forms of ancestor worship. If this hypothesis holds, then we would expect to see some evidence of ancestor worship in the earliest of societies we can find in the archaeological record. Armed with that expectation, we find skull-cults where apparent family members' skulls and skeletons are venerated and stored under raised platforms or within the home as seen in both the cultures of Catalhouyouk and the Natufians.

The introduction of agriculture meant that humans are dependent upon the forces of weather and climate to make conditions favorable and the claiming of land on which to raise crops and animals. The skull cults of the Natufians are perhaps a way of passing land entitlements from one family member to another as well as creating a familial or clan hierarchy in which the entire family or clan benefits from the land they're responsible for working.

The next step from there would be appealing to the forces of nature (weather and climate) in order to make the land productive. Ovicaprids and bovids need grazing land. Raising wheat and chickpeas requires favorable weather. It isn't too much of a stretch to see how humanity is prepared to anthropomorphize the weather and the environment or establish superstitions to explain successes or failures.

This is getting long and drawn out, but it is relevant to the question of what the anonymous authors of early Jewish texts were evolving from when they first penned Genesis. The important thing to consider also is that Genesis isn't a single authored document. It comes from at least 3 maybe 4 sources which are very evident in any literary analysis of the book. The "E", the "J" and the "P" documents referring to "Elohim," "Jehova (Yahweh)," and "priestly" respectively.

The "E" and "J" documents have certain literary styles that are exclusive to them as individual sources and are likely derivative of highland and lowland oral traditions.

Working backwards now, we see that oral traditions are the likely source for the written documents, but these traditions are, in turn, likely the result of a movement from a polytheistic Canaanite culture to monotheistic-leaning Yahweh cult which eventually evolves into a monotheistic Jewish cult(s) which declares itself independent of and separate of its cultural origins.

One of the problems with polytheistic cults that follow a shared pantheon is that control of the peasant class by the elite class is limited by the mode of beliefs: if one god isn't successful or if an adherent becomes dismayed with one god, another can take their place. Cults specific to individual gods are evident in the archaeological record where shrines seem to venerate or give prominence to Baal or El or Asherah, etc.

It stands to reason that once the priestly classes discovered the value of emphasizing their particular god over the others, they would seek to slowly or even quickly eliminate the competition.

To reinforce the reasons why a given god should be followed, new histories, propagandas, myths, etc. are created explaining origins. These myths have to share enough of the "truth" available and already understood by the peasant class in order to have any credibility. If this is the case, then we would expect to see similarities and, in some cases word-for-word, with contemporary and earlier cultures.

And we do.

 

[munty13]

Genesis 1:24-27
Question 2.
When God says, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness," did He mean that He would make man psychically similar to Himself, or perhaps mentally.. what ?

I've often pondered this. The only thing that can fulfil this role between man and God is consciousness. I refer to consciousness as a simple empty awareness. Zen relates to this empty awareness as being the Universe itself.

It's impossible to point to consciousness as 'my' consciousness, because as soon as we do, it no longer remains empty. Perhaps this is why the writers of the Bible were keen to preserve the idea of 'our'.

 

[Enmos]

Depending on bible translation, i know there are some differences but according or after their kind literally means after that which was created. They would continue to resemble the original creatues. It's a statement of reproduction.

I could agree with this meaning in Genesis 1:24, but Genesis 1:25 says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind". It states that he made the beast after their own kind. This either means that he personally creates every single offspring as well, or that he creates the beasts after their own physical appearance. Neither possibility strikes me as plausible.

According to scripture: No man may see God and yet live.
Collosians 1:15 says that his son, Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible.
Ephesians tells us about the fruitages of the spirit which he expects us to manifest which were Christ teachings. Because Colosians points to Jesus being created first before all things then it is him God speaks too in the begining and through him God made all else, so apparently the "image" they refered to was of the same mind, having similar qualities.

Now that I find more sensible.

John 1:1 refers to Jesus as a god.
The scriptures also speak of many other gods, even refering to Satan as the god of the Earth but only God "YHWH" "he who causes to become" as the Almighty God abundant in dynamic energy. Only God is described as "from time indefinite to time indefinite"

Scripture is pretty clear on the issue of One God who created all things and there are many examples of the seperates of Jesus and God but some doctrines promote one or two scriptures as a rule which does not justifiy a pattern in canonical scriptures.

I know, scripture is pretty clear on that. But that's all the more reason to be surprised about what is described in Genesis.
I'm going with the many Gods explanation as Skinwalker explained it.

I hope you don't mind me asking but if you characterize God as being, "he who causes to become," and, "from time indefinite to time indefinite," how come you don't conclude that God is an anthropomorphism of the universe, or reality if you will, itself ?

 

[Enmos]

Religion undergoes cultural evolution in much the same way lifeforms do: gradual changes over time as a response to the environment. This much is seen very clearly in the material record of humanity.

When I say "this much" I only mean the gradual changes over time in religious thought and belief. There is much about what drives these changes which is left to subjective interpretation and these interpretations are refined and the probabilities of their accuracy are improved with continued dialog, research and investigations which make predictions that are upheld, etc.

The earliest religions very probably were a combined result of questions about what happens to the conscious being post-mortem and the fear of death, which perhaps resulted in forms of ancestor worship. If this hypothesis holds, then we would expect to see some evidence of ancestor worship in the earliest of societies we can find in the archaeological record. Armed with that expectation, we find skull-cults where apparent family members' skulls and skeletons are venerated and stored under raised platforms or within the home as seen in both the cultures of Catalhouyouk and the Natufians.

The introduction of agriculture meant that humans are dependent upon the forces of weather and climate to make conditions favorable and the claiming of land on which to raise crops and animals. The skull cults of the Natufians are perhaps a way of passing land entitlements from one family member to another as well as creating a familial or clan hierarchy in which the entire family or clan benefits from the land they're responsible for working.

The next step from there would be appealing to the forces of nature (weather and climate) in order to make the land productive. Ovicaprids and bovids need grazing land. Raising wheat and chickpeas requires favorable weather. It isn't too much of a stretch to see how humanity is prepared to anthropomorphize the weather and the environment or establish superstitions to explain successes or failures.

This is getting long and drawn out, but it is relevant to the question of what the anonymous authors of early Jewish texts were evolving from when they first penned Genesis. The important thing to consider also is that Genesis isn't a single authored document. It comes from at least 3 maybe 4 sources which are very evident in any literary analysis of the book. The "E", the "J" and the "P" documents referring to "Elohim," "Jehova (Yahweh)," and "priestly" respectively.

The "E" and "J" documents have certain literary styles that are exclusive to them as individual sources and are likely derivative of highland and lowland oral traditions.

Working backwards now, we see that oral traditions are the likely source for the written documents, but these traditions are, in turn, likely the result of a movement from a polytheistic Canaanite culture to monotheistic-leaning Yahweh cult which eventually evolves into a monotheistic Jewish cult(s) which declares itself independent of and separate of its cultural origins.

One of the problems with polytheistic cults that follow a shared pantheon is that control of the peasant class by the elite class is limited by the mode of beliefs: if one god isn't successful or if an adherent becomes dismayed with one god, another can take their place. Cults specific to individual gods are evident in the archaeological record where shrines seem to venerate or give prominence to Baal or El or Asherah, etc.

It stands to reason that once the priestly classes discovered the value of emphasizing their particular god over the others, they would seek to slowly or even quickly eliminate the competition.

To reinforce the reasons why a given god should be followed, new histories, propagandas, myths, etc. are created explaining origins. These myths have to share enough of the "truth" available and already understood by the peasant class in order to have any credibility. If this is the case, then we would expect to see similarities and, in some cases word-for-word, with contemporary and earlier cultures.

And we do.

Very good post Skin, I agree 100%.

 

[Enmos]

I've often pondered this. The only thing that can fulfil this role between man and God is consciousness. I refer to consciousness as a simple empty awareness. Zen relates to this empty awareness as being the Universe itself.

It's impossible to point to consciousness as 'my' consciousness, because as soon as we do, it no longer remains empty. Perhaps this is why the writers of the Bible were keen to preserve the idea of 'our'.

Perhaps, but it seems like a lot of speculation.

 

[nietzschefan]

Abrahamistic religions all trace creation myth back to the inherited one from the Sumerians.

The Sumerian god of water and the giver of life, father to human beings - "Enki" is the same as "God" in the Bible, Yahweh in the Torah.

He Created man with the goddess Ninmah, which was a somewhat hard to "translate" process in volving the mechanical use of semen and some accounts - what could be interpreted as artificial insemination.

One interpretation:

http://everything2.com/e2node/Enki%20and%20Ninmah%3A%20The%20Creation%20of%20Man

79-82 Ninmah threw the pinched-off clay from her hand on the ground and a great silence fell. The great lord Enki said to Ninmah: "I have decreed the fates of your creatures and given them their daily bread. Come, now I will fashion somebody for you, and you must decree the fate of the newborn one!"

83-91 Enki devised a shape with head, ...... and mouth in its middle, and said to Ninmah: "Pour ejaculated semen into a woman's womb, and the woman will give birth to the semen of her womb." Ninmah stood by for the newborn ....... and the woman brought forth ...... in the midst ....... In return (?), this was Umul: its head was afflicted, its place of ...... was afflicted, its eyes were afflicted, its neck was afflicted. It could hardly breathe, its ribs were shaky, its lungs were afflicted, its heart was afflicted, its bowels were afflicted. With its hand and its lolling head it could not not put bread into its mouth; its spine and head were dislocated. The weak hips and the shaky feet could not carry (?) it on the field -- Enki fashioned it in this way.

92-101 Enki said to Ninmah: "For your creatures I have decreed a fate, I have given them their daily bread. Now, you should decree a fate for my creature, give him his daily bread too." Ninmah looked at Umul and turned to him. She went nearer to Umul asked him questions but he could not speak. She offered him bread to eat but he could not reach out for it. He could not lie on ......., he could not ....... Standing up he could not sit down, could not lie down, he could not ...... a house, he could not eat bread. Ninmah answered Enki: "The man you have fashioned is neither alive nor dead. He cannot support himself (?)."

102-111 Enki answered Ninmah: "I decreed a fate for the first man with the weak hands, I gave him bread. I decreed a fate for the man who turned back (?) the light, I gave him bread. I decreed a fate for the man with broken, paralysed feet, I gave him bread. I decreed a fate for the man who could not hold back his urine, I gave him bread. I decreed a fate for the woman who could not give birth, I gave her bread. I decreed the fate for the one with neither penis nor vagina on its body, I gave it bread. My sister, ......."

The Sumerians went into a shitload more detail than the Torah does that's for sure. I guess the creation myth got "dumbed down for mass consumption - along with making 3 gods - one god.


In Sumerian myth, the Gods actually walked the earth. This created in his own image stuff actually makes a lot more sense that way.

Wiki:

Influence

Enki and later Ea were apparently depicted, sometimes, like Adapa, as a man covered with the skin of a fish, and this representation, as likewise the name of his temple E-apsu, "house of the watery deep", points decidedly to his original character as a god of the waters (see Oannes). Of his cult at Eridu, which goes back to the oldest period of Mesopotamian history, nothing definite is known except that his temple was also associated with Ninhursag's temple which was called Esaggila, "the lofty head house" (E, house, sag, head, ila, high; or Akkadian goddess Ila), a name shared with Marduk's temple in Babylon, pointing to a staged tower or ziggurat (as with the temple of Enlil at Nippur, which was known as Ekur (kur, hill)), and that incantations, involving ceremonial rites in which water as a sacred element played a prominent part, formed a feature of his worship. This seems also implicated in the epic of the hieros gamos or sacred marriage of Enki and Ninhursag, which seems an etiological myth of the fertilization of the dry ground by the coming of irrigation water (from Sumerian a, ab, water or semen). The early inscriptions of Urukagina in fact go so far as to suggest that the divine pair, Enki and Ninki, were the progenators of seven pairs of gods, including Enki as god of Eridu, Enlil of Nippur, and Su'en (or Sin) of Ur, and were themselves the children of An (sky, heaven) and Ki (earth)[16]. The pool of the Abzu at the front of his temple, was adopted also at the temple to Nanna (Akkadian Sin) the Moon, at Ur, and spread throughout the Middle East. It remains as the sacred pool at Mosques.

Whether Eridu at one time also played an important political role in Sumerian affairs is not certain, though not improbable. At all events the prominence of "Ea" led, as in the case of Nippur, to the survival of Eridu as a sacred city, long after it had ceased to have any significance as a political center. Myths in which Ea figures prominently have been found in Assurbanipal's library, and in the Hattusas archive in Hittite Anatolia. As Ea, Enki had a wide influence outside of Sumeria, being equated with El (at Ugarit) and possibly Yah (at Ebla) in the Canaanite 'ilhm pantheon, he is also found in Hurrian and Hittite mythology, as a god of contracts, and is particularly favourable to humankind. Amongst the Western Semites it is thought that Ea was equated to the term *hyy (life)[16], referring to Enki's waters as life giving. Enki/Ea is essentially a god of civilization, wisdom, and culture. He was also the creator and protector of man, and of the world in general. Traces of this view appear in the Marduk epic celebrating the achievements of this god and the close connection between the Ea cult at Eridu and that of Marduk. The correlation between the two rise from two other important connections: (1) that the name of Marduk's sanctuary at Babylon bears the same name, Esaggila, as that of a temple in Eridu, and (2) that Marduk is generally termed the son of Ea, who derives his powers from the voluntary abdication of the father in favour of his son. Accordingly, the incantations originally composed for the Ea cult were re-edited by the priests of Babylon and adapted to the worship of Marduk, and, similarly, the hymns to Marduk betray traces of the transfer of attributes to Marduk which originally belonged to Ea.

It is, however, as the third figure in the triad (the two other members of which were Anu and Enlil) that Ea acquires his permanent place in the pantheon. To him was assigned the control of the watery element, and in this capacity he becomes the shar apsi; i.e. king of the Apsu or "the deep". The Apsu was figured as the abyss of water beneath the earth, and since the gathering place of the dead, known as Aralu, was situated near the confines of the Apsu, he was also designated as En-Ki; i.e. "lord of that which is below", in contrast to Anu, who was the lord of the "above" or the heavens. The cult of Ea extended throughout Babylonia and Assyria. We find temples and shrines erected in his honour, e.g. at Nippur, Girsu, Ur, Babylon, Sippar, and Nineveh, and the numerous epithets given to him, as well as the various forms under which the god appears, alike bear witness to the popularity which he enjoyed from the earliest to the latest period of Babylonian-Assyrian history. The consort of Ea, known as Ninhursag, Ki, Uriash Damkina, "lady of that which is below", or Damgalnunna, "big lady of the waters", originally was fully equal with Ea but in more patriarchal Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times plays a part merely in association with her lord. Generally, however, Enki seems to be a reflection of pre-patriarchal times, in which relations between the sexes were characterised by a situation of greater gender equality. In his character, he prefers persuasion to conflict, which he seeks to avoid if possible.

 

[Enmos]

Abrahamistic religions all trace creation myth back to the inherited one from the Sumerians.

The Sumerian god of water and the giver of life, father to human beings - "Enki" is the same as "God" in the Bible, Yahweh in the Torah.

He Created man with the goddess Ninmah, which was a somewhat hard to "translate" process in volving the mechanical use of semen and some accounts - what could be interpreted as artificial insemination.

In Sumerian myth, the Gods actually walked the earth. This created in his own image stuff actually makes a lot more sense that way.

Wiki:

Good info. So.. God is really the Sumerian god of the watery 'underworld' ?

 

[Saquist]

I could agree with this meaning in Genesis 1:24, but Genesis 1:25 says, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind". It states that he made the beast after their own kind. This either means that he personally creates every single offspring as well, or that he creates the beasts after their own physical appearance. Neither possibility strikes me as plausible.

I'll look it up for you. It's a good question. My gut tells me that it's an akward translation of the aramaic. English tends to be unforgiven when it comes to translating that why questions of this nature always lead back to the last known language translated in.

I've only done so much reseach myself.
I"ll get home and look it out. Maybe good study material.

I know, scripture is pretty clear on that. But that's all the more reason to be surprised about what is described in Genesis.
I'm going with the many Gods explanation as Skinwalker explained it.

His explanation is based on a seat of assumptions and speculations on literary styles. Not an exact science at all. Assuming Mosess did indeed write the first five books, writting styles have been known to change especially as a person gets older and wiser. Which of course why it's not an exact science.

I could give you some furuther information diametricly if you like. When it comes to the scripture it seems best to let it tell the story as it was closer to the time in question that we. As a matter of rule we tend to question things written and unwrittern whether there is good reason to or not.

My position is usualy that the written history has to be unseated first before entertaining speculation to the contrary. As concerns the Chrisitian and Aramaic Scriptures (hebrew) that has not occured yet. Anything else is just confidence, isn't it?

I hope you don't mind me asking but if you characterize God as being, "he who causes to become," and, "from time indefinite to time indefinite," how come you don't conclude that God is an anthropomorphism of the universe, or reality if you will, itself ?

Let me look up anthropomorphism first:

anthropomorphism n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Sounds like personification.
In refrence to the universe.

Okay we're talking about the nature of space in the astronomy forum. The nature of Space is energy and movement. And as you pointed out God is represented by Dynamic energy who is capable of becoming what ever is necessary to accomplish his goal. (not litteraly but as roles goes)

There are definitely similarities but the problem is that the Hebrews had no concept of Space even though they described Earth's enviroment as "nothing" which is perceptualy accurate.

The differences create a further gap. God has no begining where the bible relates the universe as having a begining. The universe is also subject to time but from those same scripture we can surmise that for an infinite being time has no real meaning. We also know that time is a product of a physicial universe, especially as we know it. (time).

I'm not saying you can't compared them. There are similarities but the Hebrews wouldn't have known any of the information on the universe so God as a personification of the universe seems like reaching.

(at least to me)

 

[nietzschefan]

Good info. So.. God is really the Sumerian god of the watery 'underworld' ?

The Abraham God is influenced mainly by 3 Sumerian Gods. Anu(lord of Heavens), Enhil(angry god of earth) and Enki (the loving god that creates man and tells them how to survive a flood from Enhil later).

 

[SkinWalker]

His explanation is based on a seat of assumptions and speculations on literary styles.

True. But these assumptions hold when looking at the literature of every other culture. It holds, therefore, that these assumptions would hold for Judeo-Christian literature and mythology as well. There is simply no reason to accept or hold an a priori assumption that a supernatural force is at work or responsible without evidence. Therefore, we look at the natural explanations which include literary and cultural interpretations.

To accept literary and cultural interpretations as valid for other cultures and other texts is to invoke special pleading and, thus, is illogical and can be rejected as such.

Not an exact science at all. Assuming Mosess did indeed write the first five books, writting styles have been known to change especially as a person gets older and wiser. Which of course why it's not an exact science.

The only evidence for the Moses character of mythology is the mythology, so we can, thus, reject him as an author -particularly in light of the literary interpretations. However, I do accept that religious adherents and believers already have a preconceived notion and conclusions about what is "true" and to question or inquire into this "truth" is to be blasphemous, lose faith, etc., so if you are a believer, perhaps this isn't the thread for you nor the forum.

This being a science forum, we'll stick to literary, intellectual, academic and scientific explanations and explorations on the phenomenon of religion. There are, after all, plenty of religious forums out there on the innertubes.

 

[Enmos]

I'll look it up for you. It's a good question. My gut tells me that it's an akward translation of the aramaic. English tends to be unforgiven when it comes to translating that why questions of this nature always lead back to the last known language translated in.

I've only done so much reseach myself.
I"ll get home and look it out. Maybe good study material.

Thanks.

His explanation is based on a seat of assumptions and speculations on literary styles. Not an exact science at all. Assuming Mosess did indeed write the first five books, writting styles have been known to change especially as a person gets older and wiser. Which of course why it's not an exact science.

I could give you some furuther information diametricly if you like. When it comes to the scripture it seems best to let it tell the story as it was closer to the time in question that we. As a matter of rule we tend to question things written and unwrittern whether there is good reason to or not.

My position is usualy that the written history has to be unseated first before entertaining speculation to the contrary. As concerns the Chrisitian and Aramaic Scriptures (hebrew) that has not occured yet. Anything else is just confidence, isn't it?

Well, I haven't heard conclusive evidence for either theory. So I'm going with the one that seems to most probable to me, until of course another one gains convincing evidence.

Let me look up anthropomorphism first:

anthropomorphism n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Sounds like personification.
In refrence to the universe.

Yes, like personification.

Okay we're talking about the nature of space in the astronomy forum. The nature of Space is energy and movement. And as you pointed out God is represented by Dynamic energy who is capable of becoming what ever is necessary to accomplish his goal. (not litteraly but as roles goes)

No no, you misunderstood. I'm not referring to space, I'm referring to 'all that exists', or 'everything' put simply.

There are definitely similarities but the problem is that the Hebrews had no concept of Space even though they described Earth's enviroment as "nothing" which is perceptualy accurate.

That's not as much a problem as you seem to think it is. 'All that exists' or 'everything' would have meaning to them. Perhaps they thought the heavens and the Earth was all that existed..

The differences create a further gap. God has no begining where the bible relates the universe as having a begining. The universe is also subject to time but from those same scripture we can surmise that for an infinite being time has no real meaning. We also know that time is a product of a physicial universe, especially as we know it. (time).

I'm not saying you can't compared them. There are similarities but the Hebrews wouldn't have known any of the information on the universe so God as a personification of the universe seems like reaching.

(at least to me)

This could be explained away by what I said above. If they thought that 'all that exists' was the heavens and the Earth, it would indeed have had a beginning. And God being reality itself was the missing link for them, even though they had no understanding of the outer universe.
It goes without saying that reality 'created' everything in existence. And reality has always been around.
Anyway, this is the one and only way any religion could ever make sense to me.