BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Home Bible Study

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
EvskiG
21:45 / 06.03.07
I'm not an expert, but I believe it literally means "the earth" or "the land."

(That's what it means in Genesis 1:11 -- not "send forth.")

Israelis also use it to mean "This Land" -- that is, Israel.
 
 
Blake Head
23:19 / 06.03.07
I spent most of this evening engaged in discussion with a friend about this very thread. He pointed out that it was interesting that I was very aware of proposing to reread the Bible without the intention of having my own beliefs radically modified by the reading, and perhaps how different that attitude is from most people reaching for the Good Book. So maybe that’s worth thinking about (for me mainly, I mean).

Hmmmm. Well, discussion of Genesis seems to have already started, so obviously there’s a desire to address that book, but I’m going to propose starting a new thread for the full discussion. I’m wary of trying to direct the discussion too much, but the reason I posted in Temple rather than Books was that I was hoping to discuss the effect or resonance, if any, each book had on people’s personal beliefs, rather than analysis of the books as historical cultural documents. Not that I think anything so far has been unhelpful, but I would rather people didn’t feel inhibited about posting their personal responses to the book amidst a complicated exegesis about what’s actually being said and by whom. [And I hope I haven’t constructed a misleading thread title or am generally being too prescriptive; people can obviously discuss what they want]

With that in mind, I was initially not sure how accessible Genesis would actually be, being in my mind primarily about the creation and order of existence… but… I’m reliably informed by various people that there’s a great deal on personal conduct as well, and that, well, I’m dead wrong basically, so I’ll go ahead and start the new thread tonight. It would be good if people could continue further discussion in the dedicated thread, although if it’s ok I’d rather quotation was used selectively with regard to the points that arise. If that’s ok, then we could continue to use this thread for general pointers on textual and biblical scholarship and discussion of what books it would be most interesting to cover, if people continue to have a desire to do that.

And on that note, I thought it would be good to, perhaps concurrently, cover something from the New Testament as well, that might offer useful talking points that we could relate to personal belief systems. Mathew appealed because of the symmetry, but my above mentioned friend suggested John because of what he described as its featuring several intense vignettes and being written in a more literary fashion (and being a bit shorter and more focused). What would people think about that? Opinions especially welcome from those who are a bit better read regarding the Gospels – grant or Stoats maybe?
 
 
Blake Head
23:23 / 06.03.07
New thread
 
 
EvskiG
03:08 / 07.03.07
I was hoping to discuss the effect or resonance, if any, each book had on people's personal beliefs, rather than analysis of the books as historical cultural documents.

Hmm.

Personally, I'm fascinated by the Bible (as well as the Yoga Sutras, the Tao Te Ching, etc.), and I love discussing it for hours on end, but it has no meaningful effect or resonance on my personal beliefs. While it's enormously influential in the Western world, of course, I see it as just one mythology and belief system among many. I'm simply not a believer and see no reason it should have any particular persuasive effect.

we could continue to use this thread for general pointers on textual and biblical scholarship . . . if people continue to have a desire to do that

I think we've already gone beyond "general pointers" and were covering some interesting territory. (Assuming, of course, that one sees the Bible as a human-created text reflecting its time and its culture -- and perhaps some insight and wisdom -- rather than the divinely dictated and unquestionable word of God.)

I'd be happy to continue in this vein in this thread if people remain interested. (As suggested, the other thread could cover Blake Head's original intent.) At least personally, I'm having fun delving into material I haven't seriously considered or reviewed in years.

What do other people think?
 
 
EvskiG
14:27 / 07.03.07
He pointed out that it was interesting that I was very aware of proposing to reread the Bible without the intention of having my own beliefs radically modified by the reading, and perhaps how different that attitude is from most people reaching for the Good Book.

Do you really think that "most people" reading the Bible intend to have their beliefs radically modified by the reading? I think it's much more likely that most people read the Bible to confirm, sustain, or support their existing beliefs. But your mileage may vary.
 
 
grant
15:44 / 07.03.07
I was hoping to discuss the effect or resonance, if any, each book had on people’s personal beliefs, rather than analysis of the books as historical cultural documents.

I'm not sure I can separate the two.

In fact, I know I can't. But yes, it's tidier to keep actual text discussion in another thread! To Genesis!
 
 
EvskiG
15:56 / 07.03.07
I don't exactly see how to separate the two, either.

In any event, I assume we're continuing the ongoing discussion in this thread. So onward!

Here's Genesis 11-25, King James Version:

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

That's a big chunk. Commentary to follow.
 
 
EvskiG
16:15 / 07.03.07
So we've got plants on the third day, the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, water creatures and flying creatures on the fifth day, and land creatures on the sixth day.

Again, this roughly echoes the structure of Psalm 104.

Interesting how flying creatures come from the water rather than the sky.

Also, from a review of other translations I believe that the "whales" in 21 are better translated as "sea monsters" or "sea serpents" -- which again harkens back to earlier mythic stories about battles between Yahweh and Leviathan.
 
 
Blake Head
19:38 / 07.03.07
grant: “I'm not sure I can separate the two.”

Yeah, thinking about it that’s probably about right, I was mainly trying to suggest the focus I’d originally intended, studying the material in order to discuss what if any meaning it has for us, but I shouldn’t have framed it as an either/or – it would be great if we could discuss both.

Ev G: “Do you really think that "most people" reading the Bible intend to have their beliefs radically modified by the reading?”

Well honestly I don’t know. I was mainly basing that on the way the above mentioned friend framed it, which, apologies, was in the context of people picking it up for the first time. In which case I think the point probably holds true and isn’t that controversial that while there are those of us choosing to read it for different ends, that it’s primarily a text which is perceived and used as a document with the potential to dramatically effect an individuals beliefs and values.

One of the things we were actually discussing was from John on the nature of belief and revelation, and I am currently pondering this line from the King James:

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John (1:5)

That idea of the penetration of truth or higher reality into the darkness, which in turn can’t reconcile itself or interact with the light; and going back to Genesis it gives you this great image of a strong light being cast into deep water, the light isn’t in any sense diminished or destroyed by the darkness, there’s just a limit on how much it penetrates into the deep before it becomes diffuse. I'd be really quite interested in looking at John if other people show an interest - or am I getting ahead of myself?

Well, on that note – back to the reading!
 
 
EvskiG
13:24 / 08.03.07
Not sure if this thread is still alive and kicking, but I just thought I'd note that the word for "God" in Genesis 1 is "Elohim," which seems to have the form of a Hebrew plural.

The reason for the plural form is in dispute: some think it's a sign of respect, some think it refers to God's powers, but it seems to me that the most likely reason is that the text originally referred to a pantheon of early Hebrew/Canaanite Gods -- the children of the Ugaritic god El -- who eventually were retconned by monotheistic priests into a single God.
 
 
EvskiG
19:30 / 08.03.07
Got the Oxford study Bible I noted above. All sorts of goodies.

Genesis comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word toledot, which is used 13 times in Genesis and means "story."

The creation story discussed above has parallels with Enuma Elish, the Babylonian epic in which Marduk creates the world by splitting his aquatic enemy Tiamat in half.

Some rabbis were troubled by the fact that God supposedly created the world out of preexisting materials (chaos as dark undifferentiated water) rather than from nothing.

The first three days address the creation of generalities or domains, the next three the creation of the specifics or the inhabitants of those domains in the same order.

Since the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, a midrash said that the light prior to that was primordial light of a different order, which God hid away after the Flood and the Tower of Babel.

Lots more.

Might need to get the Genesis Rabba . . .
 
 
grant
20:08 / 08.03.07
Different light! That's beautiful!
 
 
EvskiG
20:08 / 08.03.07
One more thing: Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed, has some fascinating commentary on Genesis 1.

Among other things, in an attempt to account for all four classical elements in the creation story, he equates the primeval Darkness with Fire -- "Fire Upon the Deep." Good stuff.

I'll shut up now.
 
 
EvskiG
20:41 / 08.03.07
Can't resist -- one more story from the Genesis Rabba:

The letter aleph, being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, was upset about having her place usurped at the creation by the letter bet. (The first word of Genesis, bereshit, starts with bet.)

Aleph was, however, pacified when told that she would be placed at the beginning of the story of the Ten Commandments, for the world had been created only on account of the Torah (which existed before creation), and, if God hadn't foreseen that the Jews would receive and diffuse the Torah, creation would not have taken place at all.

There's a cute children's book (long out of print) about this story: A Book of Hebrew Letters by Mark Podwal.
 
 
grant
13:31 / 09.03.07
Here's something I thought about last night -- God has this way of appearing in the same natural phenomena in what might be the same order a few times in the Bible. Wind, trembling earth, fire/light.

Here, 1 Kings 19 (NAB translation), He appears to Elijah:

9 There he came to a cave, where he took shelter. But the word of the LORD came to him, "Why are you here, Elijah?"
10 He answered: "I have been most zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts, but the Israelites have forsaken your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to take my life."
11 Then the LORD said, "Go outside and stand on the mountain before the LORD; the LORD will be passing by." A strong and heavy wind was rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the LORD--but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake--but the LORD was not in the earthquake.
12 After the earthquake there was fire--but the LORD was not in the fire. After the fire there was a tiny whispering sound.
13 When he heard this, Elijah hid his face in his cloak and went and stood at the entrance of the cave. A voice said to him, "Elijah, why are you here?"


And in Psalm 18:
7 In my distress I called out: LORD! I cried out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry to him reached his ears.
8 The earth rocked and shook; the foundations of the mountains trembled; they shook as his wrath flared up.
9 Smoke rose in his nostrils, a devouring fire poured from his mouth; it kindled coals into flame.
10 He parted the heavens and came down, a dark cloud under his feet.
11 Mounted on a cherub he flew, borne along on the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness the cover about him; his canopy, heavy thunderheads.
13 Before him scudded his clouds, hail and lightning too.
14 The LORD thundered from heaven; the Most High made his voice resound.
15 He let fly his arrows and scattered them; shot his lightning bolts and dispersed them.
16 Then the bed of the sea appeared; the world's foundations lay bare, At the roar of the LORD, at the storming breath of his nostrils.
17 He reached down from on high and seized me; drew me out of the deep waters.
18 He rescued me from my mighty enemy, from foes too powerful for me.


The notes to that passage say:
The introduction to the theophany (Psalm 18:8-9) is probably a description of a violent, hot, and dry east-wind storm. In the fall transition period from the rainless summer to the rainy winter such storms regularly precede the rains.

and

[15] Arrows: lightning

So these accounts might be not just recapitulations of the Genesis creation story (wind on water, shaking of earth, emergence of light/fire), but also exaggerated descriptions of really big storms - wind, then rain, then thunder, then lightning.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:25 / 09.03.07
[panting, out of breath]

christ, I'm gone for a few days and you guys get a great idea and run with it. To genesis!
 
 
EvskiG
18:53 / 09.03.07
That sort of appearance seems to tie in with Yahweh's role as a storm god before he merged with the Canaanite god El and became the Hebrew God.

From a quick web search, Psalm 18 seems to use the Hebrew name Yahweh to refer to God, and so does Kings.

But note that the God in Genesis 1 is Elohim, not Yahweh.
 
 
EvskiG
14:10 / 13.03.07
Might as well finish up the first creation story.

From the King James Version:

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Again, some interesting stuff here.

God creates men and women, apparently at the same time, "in his own image." Then he blesses them and talks to them, telling them to multiply, "subdue" the earth, and "have dominion" over "every living thing." Then he informs humans, animals, and insects that they're vegetarians. Then he looks around, pats himself on the back ("Good job, me"), and takes the next day off.

One fascinating thing (at least to me) is how stark this whole creation myth is. No sculpting of humans from clay, no giant cow or world-egg, no real interaction between characters. God hovers over the waters of primeval chaos, commands things to exist or change, and gives orders. What God wills happens, simply because he orders it to happen. And, after six days of creation, He kicks back and chills for a day.

(Was He tired? What did He do on that day? Sleep late? Read?)
 
 
grant
17:28 / 13.03.07
That "dominion" word I know I've seen translated another way... it's important in environmentalist Christianity.

Lessee.... Yikes! Can't find it! Must be another passage later on in the Garden. The idea is that man is given stewardship over the creation, sort of "I'm leaving you in charge for now." But every translation I just looked up has 1:26 as dominion or rulership.
 
 
EvskiG
17:39 / 13.03.07
The New JPS version, which probably most accurately translates the original Hebrew, uses "rule" -- e.g., "Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on the earth."
 
 
Princess
17:49 / 13.03.07
Mild-offtopica:

The only translation I can lay my hands on is the Good News Bible. Does anyone know what kind of thinking went into it's translation? Is there any reason why it's not particularly good?
 
 
grant
18:29 / 13.03.07
All I know is that it's abridged (doesn't have all the books) and came out in the '70s. I think of it as the "Jesus People" Bible (evangelical hippies, like the cast of Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell). Denim cover (like the pockets for your jeans!) and very 1970s line art.

I haven't looked at one in years, though.

Oh, there's a Wikipedia article on it! They made it a whole Bible (more or less -- that's actually a very contentious statement, since different denominations include different books) by the end of the '70s. Based on "thought for thought" translation philosophy, rather than "word for word," which drives some literalists batty.
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:32 / 14.03.07
For 'thought for thought' I often prefer the Message. Though I find it does often sound somewhat patronising or rather like a Bruckheimer script.

For word for word I tend to use the NIV (mostly on the recommendation of christian friends who have been known to refer to it as the nearly infallible version), though I've recently started hearing goof things about Young's Literal Translation.
 
 
EvskiG
20:56 / 14.03.07
Holy Moses! (In a manner of speaking.)

Just discovered that the Hebrew Bible is available online with commentary from Rashi, probably the most important Jewish commentator of all time.

Insanely detailed stuff with lots of mystical goodies.
 
 
Princess
21:23 / 14.03.07
Young's Literal Translation is amazing! I like it soo much. I will buy a copy of it! Oh yes. Oh yes I shall!

Ev G, the Rashi stuff sounds interesting, so I'm all over it. Thanks.
 
 
Princess
21:47 / 14.03.07
Hmm, I've read more of the translation. Maybe not.
How's about the Amplified Bible? That's looking generally quite nice.

Although I can't stop imagining Foamy...

"IN THE BEGGINING WAS THE WORD!!!"
 
 
Unconditional Love
11:44 / 15.03.07
"Rubenstein represented that radical edge of Jewish thought working through the impact of the Holocaust. In a technical sense he maintained, based on the Kabbalah, that God had "died" in creating the world. However, for modern Jewish culture he argued that the death of God occurred in Auschwitz. In Rubenstein's work, it was no longer possible to believe in the God of the Abrahamic covenant. He felt that the only possibility left for Jews was to become pagans or to create their own meaning."

I found the above in a wikipedia article entitled God is dead, mostly about Nietzsche But the idea that God died to create intrigues me as it is a common theme in alot of other mythological creation stories, more can be found out about Richard Rubenstein at wikipedia.

Does anybody know what is refered to in a kabbalistic sense when God is described as dying within his act of creation, it brings all sorts of pessimystic gnostic notions forth of flesh being nothing but a corpse and prison etc

From what i can tell from my reading, mythologies that embody creation as a masculine/feminine process or feminine
act view matter as a more living embodyment.

The associations with death in relation to christian creation and ressurection mythologies seemed to lead to the idea of the mortification of flesh being a viable precept, that somehow suffering was an inherent whole of living, not that living does not involve suffering, but thats not the whole picture.

This whole male dominated creation process is not only sexist, but seems unhealthy and as can be seen in the world by looking at the effects of such a narrative on peoples experience, highly unbalanced, it really was a bad idea to leave gods wife out of the narrative, to just include a son without a daughter. If people are going to write a narrative/myth thats going to be used as an effective form of social control surely they should think about its overall effect and not just a short sighted attempt to please a current empire.

Just out of intrest are there any reengineered social biblical texts, for example a feminist bible or a gay bible, that use the narrative structure of the bible to create pertinent modern storys and parables. So for example is there a new testament about a gay jesus?

Was Jesus Gay
 
 
EvskiG
14:20 / 15.03.07
Getting back to Genesis, just had to note one more clever bit from Rashi.

Genesis 2.2 says "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

How could God both complete his work on the seventh day AND spend the entire seventh day resting? Especially since He appears to have created everything in the first six days?

At least two possibilities: first, that God completed his work the instant the sixth day became the seventh day, and it therefore appeared as if He completed His work on the seventh day. Second, that on the seventh day the only thing the world was lacking was Rest. So when God rested, the work was completed and finished.

Note that there's no authoritative answer, just a debate with multiple interpretations. That's generally how Jews interpret the Bible.
 
 
grant
15:34 / 15.03.07
I just wrote a short piece on the St. John's Bible -- anyone here heard of it? Kind of interesting. St. John's Abbey & University (in Minnesota) hired six scribes using quill pens and traditional inks to create the first handwritten Bible in 500 years.

They'll be selling full-sized reproductions (seven volumes, 2x3 feet, 160 illustrations) for $115,000 each, along with coffee-table versions of each volume for way less.

They're using the New Revised Standard Edition, if that matters.

-------

wolfangel: I've never heard of a specifically gay-friendly translation, or even a feminist translation. I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing existed, somewhere, though -- although it'd be far more likely to exist in the form of criticism & analysis before being written out as a new text.

-------

So, geared up for the Eden story?
 
 
EvskiG
16:07 / 15.03.07
"Headin' out to Eden

Yeah, brother . . ."

 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:29 / 15.03.07
Does any of the various types of Old Testament/Hebrew Bible have anything to say about what happens to you after you die? I seem to remember the Catholics had to invent the Harrowing of Hell to redeem Adam and Eve but I can't recall anything much about what the first people had to look forward to when their time had come. And Paradise is presumably different unreal estate to the Garden?
 
 
Scarlett_156
18:29 / 15.03.07
The only mentions in the OT that I can recall of an afterlife involve what happens when such figures as Moses and Abraham die, and it says "he was gathered unto his people". In the NT of course the references to afterlife become more specific, ex., when Jesus becomes irritated at questioning about who can claim to be the "real" husband of a multiply-married widow: "They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven."

The OT references seem at face value to bear out what many of us recall from near-death experiences, i.e., meeting one or more of one's deceased relatives at Death's door, and also the shamanistic experience of contact with one's ancestors.
 
 
jentacular dreams
18:56 / 15.03.07
Agreed. In fact the afterlife is mentioned so little in the OT (and not at all until about halfway through) that I suspect that the Jews might not have believed in an afterlife in the current sense. The reward/punishments for following God's laws were entirely earthly (like a forerunner of the protestant work ethic). Then again many old religious texts (especially non-evangelical ones) simply skim over things which seem obvious to the writers and intended audience. If the Jews believed that only they went to heaven, or that they went to their heaven and the worshipers of other gods go to theirs, or in reincarnation or whatever, it may not be worth mentioning unless they were trying to sell their faith.
 
 
grant
19:09 / 15.03.07
The psalms have scattered references to realms of the dead. Sometimes these are translated as Sheol, a capitalized word that makes it seem like a specific place -- but I think this actually simply means "pit" with the connotation of the trash-heaps where garbage was buried.(*)

The note here, on verse 6 of Psalm 6, has a little more -- says favorable references to the afterlife didn't really pop up until the 2nd century BCE, and mentions Daniel 12:1-3, which says...
At that time your people shall escape, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some shall live forever, others shall be an everlasting horror and disgrace. But the wise shall shine brightly like the splendor of the firmament, And those who lead the many to justice shall be like the stars forever..

Sheol shows up as the opposite of "the heavens" (though not "Heaven") in Psalm 139.

(*) Oh, and it's translated literally as "earth" here, in Psalm 61. The note says "earth" was used to imply "underworld".

Wikipedia is little help in clarifying things.
 
 
EvskiG
19:53 / 15.03.07
I suspect that the Jews might not have believed in an afterlife.

I don't believe Judaism ever reached any meaningful consensus on the issue. Wikipedia has a (poorly-sourced) discussion on the subject, though.

I can say that, growing up in a moderately-observant Jewish household, I never thought much about the issue, and no one (including the rabbis at our temple) ever mentioned anything about it. Jews don't really focus on the afterlife in the same way as many (if not most) Christian denominations.

As a result, though, I never had even the slightest concern about Hell.

If the jew believed that only they went to heaven

"the jew"?

Just as a matter of form, in the future you might want to use something like "If Jews believed that only they went to heaven . . ."
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply