Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: blindguy ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 09:31PM

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/two-creations-in-genesis

This is a very interesting Biblical theory that may offend some. Basically, the author argues that the book of Genesis begins with not one but two different Creation stories with the first story beginning in Genesis 1,1 and ending about halfway through 2,4. The second story begins at about the halfway point of Genesis 2,4 and continues until the end of the third chapter. While the Genesis story looks seamless (and the author explains how this is accomplished near the end of his piece), how and when plants, animals, and humans are created are different in each story.

If the theory holds up to scrutiny, it could put more holes in the creation theory supported by both Christians and Mormons, and it certainly would blow the old LDS Adam God doctrine right out of the water.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 09:52PM

That is pretty well known, blindguy. The standard interpretation is that the first creation was spiritual and the second was physical. The truth, by contrast, was that there were various myths and the writers of Genesis tried to tie them together, sometimes smoothly and sometimes incompatibly.

There is another set of complexities related to the origins of the Hebrews. Donald Redford, an Egyptologist, writes of four origin stories: the Hebrews came from the Garden of Eden, or they came from the Desert following Abraham, or they originated in the mountains like Isaac and Jacob and Esau, or they came out of Egypt.

The truth is that none of these stories are accurate; the Hebrew people didn't even exist as a group distinct from Canaanites until 1000-800 BCE, well after any of those "origins" is supposed to have occurred. The Hebrews were in fact Canaanites. That is where they came from. The rest is a series of myths that existed at the time, and the editors of the Bible tried to compile them in as coherent a form as possible.

Even the God of the Old Testament is a cypher. The Canaanite deity is El. The older Israeli God was Elohim (plural of El). YHWH came from a different tradition, one that gained the adherence of the upper class in Judah. So in the Biblical account, the Creation was done by the Canaanite gods (Elohim) who is then gradually replaced by YHWH.

Genesis is not coherent history. It is a quilt of different fabrics, and the seams between them are readily observable unless one starts from a position of belief. The trick is to put aside, as you apparently have, the official interpretation that apologists thought up later and then read what is actually written. Such an effort yields a truth that is both more accurate and less faith-promoting than what contemporary religions teach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 09:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: oldpobot ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 01:13AM

You're such a killjoy, LW. Next you'll be saying there's no God at all!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:16AM

Moi?










*That's French!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 3X ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:16PM

Merde!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Soft Machine ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 03:01PM

Zut alors!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: macaRomney ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 08:08PM

This Donald Redford Thinkologist Phd misses the obvious. Of course there were many tribes of people in antiquity. There were Bedewin tribes in Ariabia, and slaves in Egypt in ancient times that were called Hebrews. They even dug up Ramses bones recently and found out he was a red headed white man. No scientific smart people needed to speculate there, it is just a fact everyone can see. The Hebrews were what we would call white nationalists. They didn't intermarry much.

Next he'll being saying we come from worms in apples, and the crazy thing is that his students will believe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 08:30PM

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Donald Redford Thinkologist Phd misses the
> obvious.

You obviously haven't read any of his books.


---------------
> There were Bedewin tribes in
> Ariabia, and slaves in Egypt in ancient times that
> were called Hebrews.

That is utter nonsense. Provide a single reference from a reputable source indicating that the word "Hebrew," meaning an ethnic group, appeared in any contemporaneous account.


----------------

> They even dug up Ramses bones
> recently and found out he was a red headed white
> man.

Ramses's body was found in 1881, so you are mistaking your belated discovery for the experience of people who know what they are talking about. And what does the color of his hair--long known--have to do with the Hebrews? He was an Egyptian, not a Hebrew.


-------------------
> No scientific smart people needed to
> speculate there, it is just a fact everyone can
> see. The Hebrews were what we would call white
> nationalists.

The Hebrews were white nationalists? That's a remarkable assertion given that they were Semites from exactly the same genetic background as today's Arabs.


-----------
> They didn't intermarry much.

Have you read the Old Testament? Because that is largely a record of God incessantly condemning the Hebrews for marrying their neighbors, who, after all, were their close relatives.


-------------
> Next he'll being saying we come from worms in
> apples, and the crazy thing is that his students
> will believe.

What you don't seem to understand is that the arguments you are belittling are common knowledge, not the opinions of any one scholar.

Sometimes you spout stuff with absolutely no foundation. This is one of those times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2019 08:44PM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 17, 2019 04:54AM

In the event that you want to know whose erudition you are demeaning, Redford edited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt and has for 40 years run The Akhenaten Temple Project, which is one of the biggest archaeological campaigns in that country. He also wrote:

-History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Toronto University Press, 1967.

-A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Gen 37-50). Leiden: Brill, 1970.

-Akhenaten: the Heretic King. Princeton University Press, 1984. ISBN 0-691-03567-9

-Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books: a Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. (SSEA Publication IV) Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1986. ISBN 0-920168-08-6

-Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton University Press, 1992. ISBN 0-691-00086-7

-The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 16) Leiden: Brill, 2003. ISBN 90-04-12989-8

-Slave to Pharaoh: the Black Experience of Ancient Egypt. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8018-7814-4

-City of the Ram-Man: the Story of Ancient Mendes. Princeton University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-691-14226-5

-The Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology (editor), Berkley, 2003, ISBN 0-425-19096-X


--------------
I'll take Redford's views on ancient Middle Eastern history and archaeology any day over those of someone who thinks that the Hebrews were "white nationalists."



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2019 09:56PM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rocomop ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 10:03PM

Who is the Devil? May I care?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 11:17PM

rocomop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is the Devil? May I care?


http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Pr-Sa/Satan.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 12:30AM

What is wrong with me? I think that the words "son of the morning" are BEAUTIFUL. How can they possibly refer to the consummately evil being? I guess it's a perceptual thing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 12:51AM

Agreed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 01:29AM

Lucifer means bringer of light in Latin and he was identified with the morning star. The morning and evening star are the same of course and the evening star refers to his fall.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: William Law ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:53PM

Anyone who gets up too early in the morning is evil.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 08:59PM

Let me fix that for you.


"Anyone who gets up in the morning is evil."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 10:15PM

Not new and pretty well accepted. No controversy here except for literalists of course

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: bona dea ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 03:01PM

Then I am safe. Lol

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dogblogger ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 11:26PM

There are other origin stories in the OT as well. from my notes, but lacking original web links any more.

Fragments of references to chaos-creation stories can be found in Psalms, where God defeated the many-headed Leviathan, and in Job. Job 41:25 says even the other gods (KJV: The mighty) fear Leviathan.

The 20 (+) Creation Stories in the Bible
A few people emailed me after they caught a comment I made during a brief BBC4 “Songs of Praise” programme last month. Asked by the presenter what I thought about those who wanted to take a literal ‘scientific’ interpretation of Genesis chapter 1, part of my answer was to point out that there were at least 20 creation stories in the Bible, all using different metaphors, pictures, langauge, and that we ought to read them all together, interpreting each in the light of the others, before deciding which, if any, deserves ‘literal’ reading.
So where are these 20 creation stories? Well, for a fuller account of the main structural ones, I do try to cover this in chapters 3, 5 and 6 of Faith and Wisdom in Science. Alternatively, an excellent account of seven very central stories can be found in William P. Brown’s The Seven Pillars of Creation. It is important to understand that priority should not be assigned necessarily to those creation accounts that come early in the canonical Biblical ordering (like Gensis). Remember that the Bible is really like a library, with a history/law section, poetry, wisdom, prophets, gospels, letters – all on different ‘shelves’. Nor should priority follow length – some creation stories are condensed right down to the essential nuggets of heavens and earth, foundations and boundaries (the most condensed on my list is Psalm 102v.25). But these may well represent the earliest and most basic. Genesis 1 and 2 are certainly highly evolved and later than some on the list. So here, in very condensed form, and in no highly-worked out order, are 20 starters:
(1) Proverbs 8 The birth of Wisdom and her co-creative role
(2) Psalm 33 The Creative Word
(3) Psalm 104 Dynamic Creation – fruitfulness at the boundaries
(4) Jeremiah 10 True (the world) and false (idols) creation
(5) Jeremiah 4 An ‘anti-creation’ story: rolling it all back when humans disobey
(6) Isaiah 28 Creation and the husbandry of agriculture
(7) Isaiah 40 Numbering the structures of the cosmos
(8) Isaiah 45 Creation is the backdrop to history
(9) Isaiah 11 The hope of a New Creation
(10) Hosea 2 A New Covenant with Creation
(11) Genesis 1 The Cosmos is God’s real Temple
(12) Genesis 2 Creation as ordering and forming
(13) Psalm 89 Creation is God’s dominion
(14) Psalm 8 Humankind’s glory in creation
(15) Psalm 19 Creation re-echoes God’s creative Word
(16) Psalm 102v25 Foundations of the earth and heavens
(17) Job 26 Spreading out the skies and suspending the earth
(18) Job 28 Wisdom is the perception and measure of creation with God
(19) Job 38 Measuring out the foundations of the earth and heavens
(20) John 1 Logos as the creative form
(21) Revelation 21 The New Creation
OK there was an extra one, but I also left out several others. You need to find the relevant verses in most cases!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 11:41PM

Yes, a lot of these are reflections of other mythologies in the Near East. Some of them are sapiential wisdom, taken from Philistine thought, Zoroastrianism, etc.

The four I mentioned above are, I argue, more important in the sense that they are recounted in detail in the foundational narrative of Hebrew origins. They aren't simple allusions to creation or other divine experiences but rather extensive passages woven as critical material into Genesis.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: mel ( )
Date: March 13, 2019 11:37PM

Thanks blindguy. I hadn’t heard this before.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:22AM

as we Again see, the opportunistic ChurchCo can spin any ambiguity or uncertainty in almost anything to their advantage;

two accounts of the creation, an event wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before any written records can cover (i.e., handed down mouth to ear), instantly fits into the ChurchCo scenario; How Convenient!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: levantlurker ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 08:23AM

https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman-ebook/dp/B07M7S79BT/

IMHO the best book on the historical authorship of the Hebrew Bible. I often reference this material whenever discussing with TBMs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: You Too? ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:31PM

2 different religions combining their beliefs.

There are about 4 or 5 different religious tracks in the Hebrew scriptures.

One easy to track them is to see how God is being referred to. I say easy but actually it can be tricky if you are using the King James or some other translations because they don't render an accurate translation.

"God" which is the KJ version of Elohim and Genesis 1. "Lord God" which is the KJ version of Jehovah (Yahawah) is Genesis 2. "El Shahada" who was a mountain god crops up somewhere.

Did I mention that El (singular of Elohim) was probably a phallic symbol.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 03:05PM

El was a Canaanite god, the consort of the Mother Goddess who represented fertility, birth, rebirth, the cycle of life. El's job was to impregnate the Goddess. So yes, I'm sure he was represented frequently as an ithyphallus.

Among the Mother Goddess's symbols were the tree, which creates life according to the annual cycle of death and rebirth; and the serpent that sheds its skin annually and unites the underworld (holes in the ground) and the heavens (climbing in trees). So pre-Hebrew religious art in Canaan often has a Goddess standing under a tree and holding a snake, with a male god off to the side. In many pieces of art there is also a male child, the offspring of the divine union and himself destined ultimately to become the fertility god.

It's easy enough to see how the patriarchal Hebrews reinterpreted that scene. The Mother Goddess (Asherah) was demoted to the woman who cooperated with the snake (devil) while the consort became God, and the male baby became the woman's equal, Adam. The drama of Adam and Eve takes place in the shadow of the Tree of Life and the snake, with woman's help, ruins everything. Thus the pantheon is overturned.

The constant priestly wars against Asherah and her temples and groves throughout Canaan reflected the tenacity of a matriarchal folk religion, which persisted long after the Hebrews adopted patriarchal religion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: You Too? ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 02:42PM

I wonder if and how Lilith fits in there. Although in the written record she comes along much, much, later. The troublesome wife the Adam gets rid of and becomes something of a, oh, what would be the right word, and dangerous female.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 02:51PM

I speculate.

We know that after the dispersion Mesopotamia/Babylon became a center of cabalistic thought. They took the name Lilith from the locals, since she was a class of female demons in the old mythology.

So my guess is that the patriarchal Jewish thinkers adopted her name for the evil feminine in their own tradition. That would explain why the name first surfaces in the Torah as written in Mesopotamia.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: You Too? ( )
Date: March 20, 2019 12:56PM

Makes sense.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:35PM

I was musing the other day about creation myth. Recorded history goes back about 5000 years, starting with Cuneiform script/ pictographs around 3000 B.C.

If the earth is only about 6,000 years old, and the Adam and Eve story was true, I would think there would be very few creation myths if any, other than Adam and Eve. 1000 years of oral tradition, then 4000 years of recorded history could accommodate keeping that story common among humans.

Because there are so many different creation myths, it suggests that there is no one true creation story....and there should be if the earth is only 6000 years old.

Since there is no true religious creation story like Adam and Eve, and the earth isn't 6000 years old, humans had way more time to wonder how they came to be and make up stories to fit their cultures. And here we are.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken N. Backpacks ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 02:44PM

If God had sprung for Amazon Prime, he could have gotten Creation with free shipping!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Roy G Biv ( )
Date: March 14, 2019 06:08PM

True. And there would be a hassle free return policy for us if we aren't satisfied with the product delivered.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 02:46PM

So which one is the true one ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 04:03PM

Once again I refer you to "The Lost Book of Enki" for a logical creation story!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Bunko ( )
Date: March 16, 2019 08:22PM

Zechariah Sitchin and Joseph Smith had a great deal in common. Both claimed to be self-taught "experts" in translating ancient languages. Both used that "expertise" to create books of fiction. In both cases when real scholars translate the same ancient writings, it is shown that both Sitchin and Smith made the whole thing up.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

http://www.skepdic.com/sitchin.html

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

http://web.archive.org/web/20011021110403/http://www.ianlawton.com/mesindex.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20010613030125/http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/siren.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **      **   ******   ********   ********  **    ** 
 **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **        **   **  
 **  **  **  **        **     **  **        **  **   
 **  **  **  **        ********   ******    *****    
 **  **  **  **        **         **        **  **   
 **  **  **  **    **  **         **        **   **  
  ***  ***    ******   **         ********  **    **