Originally posted by FreakyKBHVerse 4 of the second chapter?
The first of this sign posts is verse four which you (thus far) have kept mum regarding.
These are the gererations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heaven...
This? What is there to say about this? What great insight does this
passage have? As far as I can tell, it serves as introductory material
to tell the reader that (after the preceding account) after the preceding
account coming from Semetic Tradition A, here is a commentary coming
from Semetic Tradition B. I have no qualm with this material; it sets
the stage for what will follow, specifically verses 5-7, wherein the author
observes that, 'before vegetation, God formed man.'
It is those verses that the contradiction with the first chapter arises.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThese observations do not concord with recapitular practices in the
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Of course it's smoke and mirrors: it solidly undermines what you insist. The psalm was introduced to refute your out-of-the-blue syntax rule regarding order. It served its purpose in that regard, and is now set aside.
Citing this Psalm is as irrelevant as my quoting the Gospel of St John's
'Bread of Lif ...[text shortened]... one is
compelled to conclude that they are to be thought of separately.
Nemesio[/b]
Hebrew Scriptures.
True, the second chapter does not follow the classic lines of recapitulation (as seen in better examples from other Scripture), but elements of the same are in place as seen in many of the same phrases.
More logical than any of these unlikely conclusions is that there were two authors (very likely) and that the second author (of the first account) was utterly unconcerned with the details of the earlier author (obviously, otherwise the two accounts would concord more fluidly).
This, quite simply, is as laughable as your repeated assertions that the 'devout Jew' wouldn't dream of taking the Bible as anything other than metaphorical. Why is this concept so laughable? For starters, read Deuteronomy or Leviticus--- or better yet, stop off in Genesis at the Flood account--- and keep an eye out for the painstaking details numerated therein.
Equally facetious is the suggestion of a total lack of concern on the part of a supposed second author, especially in light of the veto power of an inferred eventual editor. Nowhere else in the OT are we privvy to multiple views of the same scenario and yet given interactive license to make of it what we will. Throughout the OT, we are given records, just as we are given records here. The first record is of general creation, the second of details surrounding special creation.
Given the out-of-orderedness of the second one (something which you've repeatedly failed to explain), one is compelled to conclude that they are to be thought of separately.
Asked and answered. The second account is not about order of creation, it is about order of post-creation activity which harkens back to creation proper.
Originally posted by NemesioBy contrast, because the author of the second story begins with
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Psalm is a song of praise and thanksgiving for creation.
As you have again stated, the psalm quoted is one of praise. As I am forced to repeat (with several pages to act as footnote support), the psalm was brought out as proof against your ridiculous claim that order of a sentence in Hebrew denotes order of o ...[text shortened]... al
reading of this text entails accepting that man predates the vegetation.
Nemesio[/b]
'Before every plant was in the earth...and the Lord God formed man...,'
there is logical reason to believe that the author was indicating a
timeframe (the key word here is 'before' ).
Damn if that ain't a lot of ...'s! Sometimes, it's the stuff between the lines that yields the missing truth. In this case, it's the stuff between the ...'s that holds the key. You quote the first part of verse five and (again) omit verse six. The last part of five is completed by verse six. Verse six simply tells the source of water provision prior to the natural cycles of rain. Verse seven stands on its own. I emphasize it because you continue attempting to lump it in with verse five, when five is completed by six. Hell, you can make the Bible say a number of things using that cut and paste method!
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
True, the second chapter does not follow the classic lines of recapitulation (as seen in better examples from other Scripture), but elements of the same are in place as seen in many of the same phrases.
It is my understanding that, if it is a recapitulation, its structure is a
unicum example. That is, while we have many hundreds of
recapitulatory passages amongst the various texts of the Hebrew
Scriptures, this one has a totally unique structure.
This undermines any claim that it is in fact a recapitulation, given that
it was a reasonably common literary technique.
This, quite simply, is as laughable as your repeated assertions that the 'devout Jew' wouldn't dream of taking the Bible as anything other than metaphorical.
I notice another strawman (i.e., I said no such thing). I said that a
devout Jew would not require a literal understanding of such
passages; he similarly would not require a metaphorical understanding
of the same. The devout Jew would equally welcome a literal and
figurative reading of this and many, many passages of their Scripture.
Why is this concept so laughable? For starters, read Deuteronomy or Leviticus--- or better yet, stop off in Genesis at the Flood account--- and keep an eye out for the painstaking details numerated therein.
Uh. Haven't you read detailed fiction before? Have you read any of the
highly ornate (indeed florid!) midrash about Moses and his life and
ascension in the non-canonical Jewish literature? Detail doesn't
necessitate non-fiction.
Equally facetious is the suggestion of a total lack of concern on the part of a supposed second author, especially in light of the veto power of an inferred eventual editor. Nowhere else in the OT are we privvy to multiple views of the same scenario and yet given interactive license to make of it what we will.
This is also not true. There are many places in the Hebrew Scripture
which offer two perspectives. Chapter 37 comes to mind, with Joseph's
sale into slavery. The Yahwist source Reuben rescues Joseph from the
Midianites; the Elohist source has Judah rescuing him from the
Ishmaelites.
Such is the case in other places where two separate traditions have
orally passed down material where the tiny details of which have been
muddled but the essential content is the same (Joseph became a
slave in Egypt).
Throughout the OT, we are given records, just as we are given records here. The first record is of general creation, the second of details surrounding special creation.
Or...these are two records from two ancient Semetic sources that were
incorporated upon the unification of these two peoples into one Semetic
tribe.
Asked and answered. The second account is not about order of creation, it is about order of post-creation activity which harkens back to creation proper.
If it is not about order, then why would the author take such great
pains as to say: 'Before vegetation' without offering 'and then
vegetation arose,' or 'Man was lonely' therefore 'God formed animals?'
The first employs an order-based semantic tool (the word 'before'😉, the
latter forms a sentence with cause and effect (Man was lonely, so
animals were formed).
Do you disagree with the definition of the word 'before' as indicative of
some order?
What other reading of man's loneliness can you offer to change what
is otherwise a very literal reading of verses 18 and 19?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe elipses do not hide anything which indicate that the vegetation
[bDamn if that ain't a lot of ...'s! Sometimes, it's the stuff between the lines that yields the missing truth. In this case, it's the stuff between the ...'s that holds the key. You quote the first part of verse five and (again) omit verse six. The last part of five is completed by verse six. Verse six simply tells the source of water provision prior to ...[text shortened]... six. Hell, you can make the Bible say a number of things using that cut and paste method![/b]
had in fact grown before Man was formed, FreakyKBH, and you know
it!
You wrote for your translation:
These are the gererations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
which is followed by 'but a stream was welling up out of the earth and
was watering all the surface of the ground.' This immediately precedes
the formation of Man. Is there any mention of the growth of vegetation?
No. What purpose could these verses serve but to set the stage for
Man's formation? The very weak claim that it is recapitulation doesn't
hold water (yuk yuk) for it fails to recapitulate the material in a
way faithful to the original; it only sets half a stage. That would be a
sign of a very poor grasp of Semetic literary tradition at best and that
he was a lousy author for these glaring omissions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerEr. By 'two peoples' I mean two separate Semitic theological traditions which were united at a
Huh? When did the "two peoples" theory come up?
later period in time, like (on a much smaller scale and shorter timeframe) the union of the
Johannine and Synoptic communities of Christianity, or even the Matthian and Lucan ones.
The 'two peoples' in this case is, of course, the Priestly and Elohist traditions.
From the introduction to the Pentateuch in your edition of the Bible:
The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of the careful and complex joining of several
historical traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly
and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. Each brings to the Torah its own
characteristics, its own theological viewpoint -- a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive
reader will take pains to appreciate.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is, while we have many hundreds of
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
True, the second chapter does not follow the classic lines of recapitulation (as seen in better examples from other Scripture), but elements of the same are in place as seen in many of the same phrases.
It is my understanding that, if it is a recapitulation, its structure is a
unicum example. That is, wh ...[text shortened]... fer to change what
is otherwise a very literal reading of verses 18 and 19?[/b]
recapitulatory passages amongst the various texts of the Hebrew
Scriptures, this one has a totally unique structure.
Again, in the strictest sense, the passage cannot be considered classic. However, using the definition of recapitulation:
"The stating once more of a topic or point previously discussed — usually for reasons of clarification,"
one certainly sees how it was employed.
The devout Jew would equally welcome a literal and
figurative reading of this and many, many passages of their Scripture.
I was speaking to the intent of your assertion, namely that somehow the whole account is one big quagmire of haziness, and the 'truly devout' sees it as such. As though the truly devout has determined--- and from good Authority, mind you--- that the only thing we can really know is that we can't know anything. This whole account (and, really, all of these accounts) are to serve no other purpose than to let the devout know that they will never know.
If that were God's intent, than He wouldn't have said anything at all.
Detail doesn't necessitate non-fiction.
Agreed. But that is not what is meant by the reference to the "painstaking details." You are suggesting that the entire work is fiction? The detail found within the law books was deliberate. The measurements proscribed for the temple was deliberate. The law and the temple were pictures of an unseen reality, provided by God to help drive the truths home.
God provided details of Creation for a purpose. While the days and the elements created (indeed, all of the physical world has some spiritual significance) are pictures of deeper things, there is nothing within the passage which indicates metaphor or any other type of figurative language intent.
where the tiny details of which have been muddled but the essential content is the same (Joseph became a slave in Egypt).
Muddled? How about simply not reading it aright? Walking into the preconception of error, you'll likely find it everywhere you look. If you wish to discuss another passage, you can open a separate thread and I will gladly try my hand at setting it straight for you. Given my lack of success in getting the points through to date, I don't have much hope for such a venture, however.
why would the author take such great
pains as to say: 'Before vegetation' without offering 'and then
vegetation arose,'
The first employs an order-based semantic tool (the word 'before'😉,
Hasn't this been anwered repeatedly? The 'before' refers to the time when the mist watered the ground, as in 'before God caused it to rain.'
"for the LORD God had not caused it to rain...but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."
Or, am I missing the question?
The order you impose on God's actions are ill-placed. His creation was complete. The account recounts that completed creation. God had formed the animals during the completed creation, brought them before Adam in His post-creation activities.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hasn't this been anwered repeatedly? The 'before' refers to the time when the mist watered the ground, as in 'before God caused it to rain.'
Um. Yes, before rain, as the text says. So, our author says: Before rain, before vegetation,
&c. &c., there was a stream. And Man was formed.
Seems a big gap there...So, you call it recapitulation (reminding the reader of past events). But,
wait! The recapitulation is totally unlike any other recapitulation in the Bible. But wait some more!
This 'recapitulation' fails to set the stage sufficiently. In fact, it's downright misleading; to the
literalist, it seems like the author is setting a stage to point out that man was created before
vegetation (for why would this recapitulation otherwise be there? What literary purpose does it
serve if not to provide the background the author wanted?).
The account recounts that completed creation. God had formed the animals during the completed creation, brought them before Adam in His post-creation activities.
So, verse 19 which says And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
entails slipping verse 7 (formation of man) in between. That is, 'out of the ground God formed
every beast...and then God formed Man...and brought the animals to Adam.
But wait! This can't be right, because in verse 18 God said: it is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
So, you would have it that verse 19 is not a response to 18 (that is, animals were not formed
because the existing man was lonely) as any literal and reasonably semantic interpretation would
suggest.
So, reviewing your tortured interpretation.
Verses 4-6 - When God was creating, before there was rain and vegetation, there was a stream.
FREAKY INSERT -- But God made it rain, our author gave an incomplete and misleading 'recapitulation'
unlike any other recapitulation in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Verse 7 - God formed man.
Skip a bit...
Verse 18 - Man is lonely. God will make a partner for him.
Verse 19 - God forms animals.
FREAKY INSERT -- The time stamp on these verses is reversed, even though in verse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
How on earth can you consider this a 'literal reading?' How on earth can you consider this not
tortured?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAt this point, we are obviously speaking in different languages. I am saying (or, at least I think I'm saying) that two plus two equals four, whereas you are saying my math is wrong. Granted, there are paranthetical propositions in play, but--- to me--- the math here looks fairly straight-forward and blatant.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Hasn't this been anwered repeatedly? The 'before' refers to the time when the mist watered the ground, as in 'before God caused it to rain.'
Um. Yes, before rain, as the text says. So, our author says: Before rain, before vegetation,
&c. &c., there was a stream. And Man was formed.
Seems a big ...[text shortened]... 'literal reading?' How on earth can you consider this not
tortured?
Nemesio[/b]
To you, your math is equally simple and obvious. However, we are unable to reach a consensual agreement on the viewed material, despite how obvious it appears to either of us. Who is to decide, then? By no means is either of us willing to part with our tightly-held perspective.
You refuse to be convinced by any appeal (from me or other sources) that the account contains no contradiction. Having previously held the same position and subsequently persuaded to my current perspective, it is highly doubtful that my perspective will be lightly removed.
We (clearly) are not arguing for the sake of others; we are arguing for the sake of ourselves. That being said, I leave you with your opinion and my good wishes.
Originally posted by NemesioWhat makes you think freaky is "on earth"?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Hasn't this been anwered repeatedly? The 'before' refers to the time when the mist watered the ground, as in 'before God caused it to rain.'
Um. Yes, before rain, as the text says. So, our author says: Before rain, before vegetation,
&c. &c., there was a stream. And Man was formed.
Seems a big ...[text shortened]... 'literal reading?' How on earth can you consider this not
tortured?
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
At this point, we are obviously speaking in different languages.
We (clearly) are not arguing for the sake of others; we are arguing for the sake of ourselves. That being said, I leave you with your opinion and my good wishes.
LMFAO!
I summarize your argument with your bogus claims, and you abandon ship?!?
I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOO shocked!
We are indeed speaking different languages. I am speaking culturally-informed Hebrew
translated into English, you are speaking 21st-century Literalist Bible DoubleSpeak.
This only further proves the degree to which you are willing to stick your head in the sand to
preserve the concept of 'literal inerrancy' when it clearly does not exist.
Thanks for the 'debate,' Mr Closed Minded.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhoops, I missed this.
By no means is either of us willing to part with our tightly-held perspective.
You are speaking solely for yourself on this issue. If you provide me with a rational, logical,
semantically reasonable presentation for your 'argument,' you will find that I will abandon my
perspective without hesitation.
My summary above (with the 'Freaky Inserts'😉 illustrates how absurd your perspective is, and
yet you are unwilling to alter it. In fact, you never ever answered my question which asked if
you were able to fathom a circumstance that would allow you to abandon a literally inerrant
Biblical perspective.
I think your tortured, non-semantic, nearly illiterate translation demonstrates that your answer
is a resounding 'NO!'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOne last thought for the sake of clarity.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]At this point, we are obviously speaking in different languages.
We (clearly) are not arguing for the sake of others; we are arguing for the sake of ourselves. That being said, I leave you with your opinion and my good wishes.
LMFAO!
I summarize your argument with your bogus claims, and you abandon shi ...[text shortened]... when it clearly does not exist.
Thanks for the 'debate,' Mr Closed Minded.
Nemesio[/b]
You claim to speak with a 'culturally-informed Hewbrew' mindset, and then you go about insulting the very Hewbrews from whom came this account.
For reasons unknown, your 21st century mind is able to discern that the differences (not, as you insist, the contradictions) between the two accounts is a sure sign of multiple authorship, and yet not one person who came before YOU was able to set the record straight. Those closest to the source were all a bunch of ignorami, but YOU, the pinnacle of textual critics, the arbiter of reason, brings home the bacon. It's been noted previously, but it bears repeating: loopy.
The only reason I abandon ship is because the ship has a contrarian at the helm. When one doesn't listen to reason, refuses clear and concise instruction, one is aptly labeled a contrarian. You bear it with disctinction, however. Congratulations.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You claim to speak with a 'culturally-informed Hewbrew' mindset, and then you go about insulting the very Hewbrews from whom came this account.
For reasons unknown, your 21st century mind is able to discern that the differences (not, as you insist, the contradictions) between the two accounts is a sure sign of multiple authorship, and yet not one person who came before YOU was able to set the record straight. Those closest to the source were all a bunch of ignorami, but YOU, the pinnacle of textual critics, the arbiter of reason, brings home the bacon. It's been noted previously, but it bears repeating: loopy.
Let's review. Can you find an authoritative modern Jewish source that says that a literal
interpretation is the only right reading of the Genesis text? No, you cannot. Can you find an
ancient Jewish source that says that a literal interpretation is the only right reading of the
Genesis text? No, you cannot.
Regarding the former, you will find that many modern Jewish scholars recognize that the
evolution of the first two chapters of Genesis -- two independent mythologies -- is an
accepted possibility. Consider these three sites:
1) http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/environment/TO_Environ_Trad_Teachings/Permission_to_Despoil.htm
Note the second paragraph, wherein the author (A Director at a Rabbinical college) speaks
of the distinctions between the two myths.
2) http://myjewishlearning.com/texts/Weekly_Torah_Commentary/Bereishit_JTS.htm
Note the author, Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor of Jewish Theological Seminary writes:
I should like to suggest that the inclusion of a second creation story from a cosmic perspective,
with all its inelegant redundancy and contradictions, was prompted by a need to address a deep rift
that had appeared within the expanding legacy of sacred texts that would eventually crystallize as
the Hebrew Bible.
Two things should strike you: first, the inclusion of a second story acknowledges that the
two accounts are separate; and second, its inelegant redundancy and contradictions points
out that this prominent Rabbi acknowledges a difficulty reconciling the accounts (and I would
suspect that he would have the similar sorts of difficulties that I have).
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon (yet there is universal agreement regarding the literal understanding of the time of the creation of Adam). One of several notable exceptions may be the Tosafist commentary on Tractate Rosh Hashanah, where there seems to be an allusion to the age of creation according to a literal reading of Genesis. The non-literal approach is accepted by many as a possible approach within Modern Orthodox Judaism and some segments of Haredi Judaism.
Not that Wikipedia is the end-all resource for information, but this speaks to at the very least
controversy amongst historic Rabbinic commentaries regarding a literal reading of Creation and
that the non-literal approach amongst modern Orthodox Jews is at the very least accepted
if not common.
If I'm loopy, then I'm in some scholarly company. By contrast, my little summary of your account,
which I'll copy below, is what seems loopy to anyone who 1) can understand simple grammatical
concepts; 2) appreciates the role of semantics; and 3) has an iota of rationale.
If you feel that my summaries are somehow inaccurate, perhaps you will provide summaries of the
passages in a similar format for the benefit of others reading this thread.
Otherwise, me and my rabbi friends will just hang around with the other 'ignorami.'
Verses 4-6 - When God was creating, before there was rain and vegetation, there was a stream.
FREAKY INSERT -- But God made it rain, our author gave an incomplete and misleading 'recapitulation'
unlike any other recapitulation in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Verse 7 - God formed man.
...
Verse 18 - Man is lonely. God will make a partner for him.
Verse 19 - God forms animals.
FREAKY INSERT -- The time stamp on these verses is reversed, even though in verse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio