Genesis 1 & 2

[srd44]

Hi all,

I've been writing up a chapter on Genesis' 2 creation myths and posting sections of it over at my blog... looking for some feedback. It's intended to be ... well I know you've heard this before, a book demonstrating textually that the claims of Creationists are not only counter to science, but also the Bible. My goals are 2:

1. To put forward the textual data that convincingly demonstrate the hand of two different authors for Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-3:24
2. To demonstrate that the depiction of the creation of the world and of mankind in both these accounts were conditioned and shaped by subjective and culturally formed beliefs and ideas about the nature of the world as perceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples and cultures. They are not, in other words, divinely dictated, divinely inspired, or objective descriptions. This claim will be supported by the textual data.

I'm pretty sure most of you adhere to these two facts, since any close reader of the Bible quickly perceives this. Since any project attempting to get Creationists and fundamentalist to actually read the texts and be honest to the texts and the beliefs of their authors is bound to fall on mute ears, I suppose I'm just wasting time, but alas....

I've currently posted on:

Genesis 1:1-2 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... ex-nihilo/

Genesis 1:3-5 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... -of-light/

and Genesis 1:6-8 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... firmament/

cheers

[Peter Kirby]

Interesting... thanks for sharing this, srd44.

[srd44]

Thanks Peter,

Ok, maybe to initiate some conversation here as I currently am writing the section on Genesis 1:9-10, here are some observations which all seem to be supported by the text of Genesis 1. Yes?

1st --- Gen 1:1-2 does not postulate a creation ex nihilo as I've argued (link above)... wait, as the text demonstrates is more accurate.

2nd --- the Hebrew eretz in Gen 1:1-2 does not mean planet Earth. There is no concept of planet earth in the Torah, perhaps the whole Tanak. It means "land." This is affirmed in verse 9 where the earth is specifically identified as "dry habitable land" (yabbashah). Thus a more historically accurate translation would be: "In the beginning when God created the land and the skies" (i.e., the solid domed barrier (raqi'a) that keeps back the waters above, sha-mayim).

3rd --- Gen 1:2, although using the word eretz , strongly suggests that no eretz or yabbashah has of yet been created. What exists is tohu wabohu, a "formless and desolate" piece of earth (eretz as the material substance). Comparatively, the opening of the Enuma Elish speaks of that which has not yet been created by also using the specific word of that which has not been created --- earth. "When on high the heavens had not been named, nor earth below pronounced by name...” I would argue that the Israelite scribe is doing the same thing in his eretz as tohu wabohu---namely using language to indicate that which has of yet not been created---land!

4th --- Gen 1:9-10: "And God said, “Let the waters under the skies be gathered to one place and let the dry land be seen.” And it was so. And God called the dry land “earth” and he called the collection of waters “seas.” And God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:9-10). Here, what was once formless, void, desolate earth/land immersed in the primeval waters (1:2), now, after the deity has subdued and tamed both parts of these primordial waters, emerges as yabbashah, i.e., dry habitable, life-bearing land. So once again, the deity of Genesis is portrayed as forming habitable land from a primordial formless and desolate piece of inhabitable earth sunk in the primeval depths of the deep; not creating land ex nihilo! This is reenforced by comparative analysis with Jer 4:32 and Is 45:18, both of which use the language and image of the land of Judah being tohu wabohu after its desolation by the Babylonians.

No where, therefore, is there any concept of planet Earth, and in no way can the text be used to argue that it speaks of or presents the creation of the Earth, let alone of boundless space, and infinite galaxies. This is a piece of earth/land still inside a finite space within an air-pocket all of which is immersed under water, the waters above and the waters below (Gen 1:6-8, link above). These, anyway, are representative of my recent... ehmm. revelation --- the result of a close reading and historically contextualized reading of Genesis 1.

[Mental flatliner]

Hi all,

I've been writing up a chapter on Genesis' 2 creation myths and posting sections of it over at my blog... looking for some feedback. It's intended to be ... well I know you've heard this before, a book demonstrating textually that the claims of Creationists are not only counter to science, but also the Bible. My goals are 2:

1. To put forward the textual data that convincingly demonstrate the hand of two different authors for Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-3:24
2. To demonstrate that the depiction of the creation of the world and of mankind in both these accounts were conditioned and shaped by subjective and culturally formed beliefs and ideas about the nature of the world as perceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples and cultures. They are not, in other words, divinely dictated, divinely inspired, or objective descriptions. This claim will be supported by the textual data.

I'm pretty sure most of you adhere to these two facts, since any close reader of the Bible quickly perceives this. Since any project attempting to get Creationists and fundamentalist to actually read the texts and be honest to the texts and the beliefs of their authors is bound to fall on mute ears, I suppose I'm just wasting time, but alas....

I've currently posted on:

Genesis 1:1-2 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... ex-nihilo/

Genesis 1:3-5 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... -of-light/

and Genesis 1:6-8 http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... firmament/

cheers

This will be quite a trick on your part.

Every clay text uncovered in Mesopotamia (currently numbering about 300,000 discovered) was religious in nature unless it was a trade invoice or ration tablet.

How, exactly, do you expect to prove that cultures obsessed with religion somehow came up with non-divinely inspired creation myths?

**************
I just attempted to read your first entry on Genesis 1:1-2. It's my custom to read until I arrive at the first major false premise and then stop.

You made a doosey.

You claim that the Enuma Elish predates Genesis. I know that it's customary to believe this, but did it ever occur to you to try to give evidence of this claim before you continue? Genesis 1 in Hebrew preserves elements of the Sumerian language in it's infancy (the dialects spoken before 3000 BC), and Genesis 2 does not. Also, some Sumerian myths predating the Enuma Elish quote Genesis as if Genesis 1 existed when they were written.

I would suggest you rethink.

[srd44]

I have a PhD, in the field, payed for by your tax money. Thank you. I've spent more hours thinking as you so non-nonchalantly put it, than you have been alive most likely. For shame, 21st century man, supposedly created by a divine being and gifted with divine-like gifts, but at every turn of the page he refuses to use those gifts. Might as well be apes! Here's 1 helpful hint, divinely-written, non-personal authored texts were part and parcel to the ancient Near East. It is a rhetorical topos. Trying reading Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, 2007. The 6th c. BC Aaronid priestly guild that penned Gen 1 would have himself acknowledged his Babylonian predecessor. You must be one of those humans still living in the water bubble god Yahweh created. I realize that it can be difficult to think outside of that enclosed finite spaced bubble.

[ficino]

How, exactly, do you expect to prove that cultures obsessed with religion somehow came up with non-divinely inspired creation myths?

Seems to be a de dicto / de re problem in the words bolded above.

[semiopen]

This will be quite a trick on your part.

Every clay text uncovered in Mesopotamia (currently numbering about 300,000 discovered) was religious in nature unless it was a trade invoice or ration tablet.

How, exactly, do you expect to prove that cultures obsessed with religion somehow came up with non-divinely inspired creation myths?

**************
I just attempted to read your first entry on Genesis 1:1-2. It's my custom to read until I arrive at the first major false premise and then stop.

You made a doosey.

You claim that the Enuma Elish predates Genesis. I know that it's customary to believe this, but did it ever occur to you to try to give evidence of this claim before you continue? Genesis 1 in Hebrew preserves elements of the Sumerian language in it's infancy (the dialects spoken before 3000 BC), and Genesis 2 does not. Also, some Sumerian myths predating the Enuma Elish quote Genesis as if Genesis 1 existed when they were written.

I would suggest you rethink.

One has to gasp at what kind of crap you would have posted had you not carefully thought about it before hand.

Professor Mouse, who has been banned, had the major premise that LXX was written before the Hebrew bible. His views, although insane, are probably more reasonable than yours.

How can you make such an outrageous statement that Genesis 1 is older than Genesis 2-3 without giving some kind of reference?

Genesis 1 may have been written to support a weekly day of rest. There is an old opinion that Sabbath was a festival on the full moon in first temple times. Nowadays this type of speculation seems to have gone out of style, but there is near unanimity that Genesis 1 was not written before the 6th century BCE. An interesting question is whether this was written before or after Genesis 2-3.

Srd is a welcome addition to this forum.

[Mental flatliner]

How can you make such an outrageous statement that Genesis 1 is older than Genesis 2-3 without giving some kind of reference?

I'm certain that comparing me to some unknown crazy person is the highest form of intellectual argument you can make, seeing as how you chose this over the much simpler approach: giving the evidence I asked for.

Are you sure you're qualified to discuss this?

(I'm going to make a wild guess and claim that you're misquoting this mouse fellow. It's an extremely cowardly act to defame him when he's not here to defend himself. Were he here, would he characterize himself differently? And if you can so easily misrepresent him, I'm sure you can misrepresent Genesis.)

[semiopen]

How can you make such an outrageous statement that Genesis 1 is older than Genesis 2-3 without giving some kind of reference?

I'm certain that comparing me to some unknown crazy person is the highest form of intellectual argument you can make, seeing as how you chose this over the much simpler approach: giving the evidence I asked for.

Are you sure you're qualified to discuss this?

(I'm going to make a wild guess and claim that you're misquoting this mouse fellow. It's an extremely cowardly act to defame him when he's not here to defend himself. Were he here, would he characterize himself differently? And if you can so easily misrepresent him, I'm sure you can misrepresent Genesis.)

You just posted in all the threads here. Mouse was a major contributor. Wouldn't a guy who isn't blowing hot air read the contents of a thread before posting?

Rather than defaming Mouse, I was complementing him; stating that his views are much better than yours. True, I did say he is insane, but overall I don't see anything all that bad in my comment.

Actually you asked srd for evidence not me

Enûma_Eliš

The composition of the text probably dates to the Bronze Age, to the time of Hammurabi or perhaps the early Kassite era (roughly 18th to 16th centuries BCE), although some scholars favour a later date of c. 1100 BCE.[2]

Is your contention that Genesis 1 was written before 1100 BCE? - that's just stupid. Are you suggesting Genesis 1 was written in the 18th - 16th centuries BCE? - that is even more absurd.

Reconstruction of the broken Enûma Eliš tablet seems to define the rarely attested Sapattum or Sabattum as the full moon. This word is cognate or merged with Hebrew Shabbat (cf. Genesis 2:2-3), but is monthly rather than weekly; it is regarded as a form of Sumerian sa-bat ("mid-rest"), attested in Akkadian as um nuh libbi ("day of mid-repose"). This conclusion is a contextual restoration of the damaged tablet, which is read as "[Sa]bbath shalt thou then encounter, mid[month]ly."[8]

I think this is cool because it expands my statement above -

Genesis 1 may have been written to support a weekly day of rest. There is an old opinion that Sabbath was a festival on the full moon in first temple times.

Assuming that the wiki is correct, I wonder how Enuma Elish could have a monthly Sabbath and Genesis 1 have one every seven days, if Emuna Elish is more recent.

Regarding the Genesis_creation_narrative

We don't see many scholars saying first temple (or before) anymore.

As for the historical background which led to the creation of the narrative itself, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial, is "Persian imperial authorisation". This proposes that the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community

This theory is at least reasonable, but even without that, we have the issue of the seven day week. Going backwards in the wiki -

A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one existing today.[6] The two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–24 is Jahwistic.

This order, Genesis 2 before Genesis 1 makes the most sense, but the idea of Genesis 2 being written after 1 is intriguing. Obviously this wouldn't change the exilic or after nature of Genesis 1. The 7th century looks a little early to me in any case. It should be kept in mind that Genesis is undoubtedly the latest book in the Pentateuch.

[Mental flatliner]

Is your contention that Genesis 1 was written before 1100 BCE? - that's just stupid. Are you suggesting Genesis 1 was written in the 18th - 16th centuries BCE? - that is even more absurd.

It's my contention that Genesis 1 was written before 3000 BC.

And yes, I understand your need to use personal-level attacks and epithets, you evidently have little else to rely on.

I usually have quite a bit of fun with people who try to argue a recent date for Genesis. These claims come from people who have little or no clue of Bronze Age history or rely entirely on someone else to do their thinking for them.

Are you sure you want to do this?