The Bible

[Minimalist]

12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
12:11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

Abraham's wife Sarah – an irresistible beauty at 70

Looks like Popeye in drag.

---

Primitive men, it would seem, had no trouble inventing gods to explain things. Ancient Near Eastern goat herders are not an exception.

What is your point?

That mankind has no trouble inventing gods....including Ancient Jews and there is no more reality to their stories than anyone else.

[Ashendant]

That is what we need to do with Genesis 1, just like any other piece of ancient or modern literature. We need to ask the basic questions: What type of literature is this? Who is the audience? How would they have understood this language? Without those giving us a framework, casual dismissal of Biblical literature because it contains language that we are not used to or statements that we don't understand in our modern paradigms is baseless (and actually a form of cultural discrimination).

Stempy

The genesis is a ancient proto-euroasiatic myth about abandoning hunting for farming, yes that's the original sin, Farming.

[GANIMEDE]

Well first off, it is the sheer immorality in the Bible that makes it so hypocritical. The OK from "Yehova" to mow down and practically canabalise the Caananites. The deities favoritism toward "His Chosen" and his "Children of the Covenant". "YHWH-Yahwe-Yehova" started out as a Hebrew Tribal Deity, just like so many other tribal deities of the dessert. The rediculous food regulations, as if their "Deity-Creator" deliberately and joyously lays out traps for Humanity to stumble over and thus appearantly takes great joy in seeing Humans suffer and struggle; and what with all the plagues, sicknesses and poisonous life forms their tribal god thoughtfully included in his "Creation". The Bible is full of contradiction of the circumstances concerning the conception and birth of the "Christ", (of which there were in fact several), which certainly, in their turn, contradict Jewish proficy concerning their "Messiah". There is not one shred of evidence for a "Massacre of Innocents" by King Herod, nor was there ever a "Roman Census" requiring people to return to their birthplace. "Jesus of Nazareth" was in fact from Nazareth and not born in Bethlehem neither was he a "Son of David". Close examination of the New Testament proves this. The Crucifixion Event, is also a composit story of many different such events. False Messiahs were common in Ancient Judea and most were punished by crucifixion for blasphemy, heresy or sedition.

The trial of a "Jesus from Nazareth" in the court of the Roman Consul Pilatus may well be based on truth, but there were several "Jesuses" on trial, including a "Jesus bar Abbas", claiming to be the "Son of the Father". The story of the trial clearly shows the liberal policy of Roman "Pax Romanus" law, which allowed local subject peoples to govern according to their own, (in this case Hebrew), traditions.

The New Testament is quite an artificial work of art: Close examination shows that Luke contrdicts Mathew which does not agree with Mark etc. etc. Ofcourse we all know that different versions of the Bible get written and re-written every few years, so I am confident the next re-invented edition will show more consistancy! Then there is the long list of "books" which have been deliberately omitted by biblical scholars themselves, both Jewish and Christian. The list is well known and can be viewed on the Internet.

I think the best indightment of the Hebrew Bible is in Genesis concerning the battle over the Forbidden Fruit, which gave knowledge and sexuality to Adam and Eve, which angered the "God" so intensely. Here the deity acts with unbelievable vengeance and appearant jealousy of human sexuality. And ofcourse there is the employment of an "Ultimate Scapegoat" in the form of a former "Angel of Light" who accepts the blame for "All Things Evil" and conveniently disapears into a "Bottomless Pit". Christianity is certainly the most colourfull of the three Dessert Religions. I prefere not to list all the passages literally here in the post.

The Bible is clearly an atempt to map out the Human Psyche. Sigmund Freud, Ivan Pavlov, and Desmond Morris have done enough scientific work, (among so many other good scientists), which is needed for a basic understand of the function of guilt and the role psycho-sexual energy plays in human social interaction, social relations and societal structure. For example; the descriptions of the "layercake psyche" etc. explain enough about human behavior to give anyone a better understanding of the underlying symbolic psychological currants within the Bible and Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies. One thing must be made clear: Neither Christians, nor Muslims, nor Jews have a monoply on decent human behavior!

My conclusion: There is no evidence that the Universe had a beginning, (including the so-called "Big Bang"; the "Red Shift can easily be explained by intersteller dust). We all know that from nothing comes nothing. That life comes only from life. Why cannot the Universe, with all its intellegence and design, have to have been created by a Deity which himself is exempt from having been created ? ? ? The fact is, the Universe needs no "Day of Creation" and will never see a "Day of Doom". Beauty requires no justification for existing and it is the mystery in life which makes it so beautiful and enjoyable . . . .

[Stempy]

Primitive men, it would seem, had no trouble inventing gods to explain things. Ancient Near Eastern goat herders are not an exception.

What is your point?

That mankind has no trouble inventing gods....including Ancient Jews and there is no more reality to their stories than anyone else.

What reasons are there to think that the Ancient Jews invented YHWH?

---

The genesis is a ancient proto-euroasiatic myth about abandoning hunting for farming, yes that's the original sin, Farming.

Right...and your back up for this?

[Edwardo Piet]

So to confirm: the objective meaning of Chuck's statement is the literal one, independent of whether he intended it to be a metaphor? And I should interpret the statement by its objective meaning, just like the way Chuck interprets the 7 days of Genesis?

You should interpret it by its literal and objective meaning only if you think that what he is saying is literal and objective and not metaphorical and subjective. How could you know whether he was being literal or metaphorical?

You can only really trust the context using your intuition, I guess.

But IF his meaning IS literal then that IS objective.

[Stempy]

You should interpret it by its literal and objective meaning only if you think that what he is saying is literal and objective and not metaphorical and subjective.

We agree then: authorial intent (in this case, what Chuck means to say) determines the meaning of a statement.

[Edwardo Piet]

Not if it's literal or a metaphor that is - literally - in an accepted dictionary. The meaning is only vague if the meaning is being made up on the spot, e.g: A metaphor being created by the author on the spot - and so not in an accepted dictionary.

What a meaning actually is and what you think is meant by it are separate.

[Ashendant]

Primitive men, it would seem, had no trouble inventing gods to explain things. Ancient Near Eastern goat herders are not an exception.

What is your point?

That mankind has no trouble inventing gods....including Ancient Jews and there is no more reality to their stories than anyone else.

What reasons are there to think that the Ancient Jews invented YHWH?

---

The genesis is a ancient proto-euroasiatic myth about abandoning hunting for farming, yes that's the original sin, Farming.

Right...and your back up for this?

Because they invented a bunch other gods with YHWH, YHWH trough time became the head god of the pantheon and then the only god of the pantheon

Also both points i read it on this forum but don't remember exactly where i read it

[Stempy]

Not if it's literal or a metaphor that is - literally - in an accepted dictionary. The meaning is only vague if the meaning is being made up on the spot, e.g: A metaphor being created by the author on the spot - and so not in an accepted dictionary.

What a meaning actually is and what you think is meant by it are separate.

I think we're talking across each other here, because we're using two different senses of the word "meaning".

"What did he mean when he said that?" vs "What does this word mean?"
When I am using the word 'meaning', I am referring to the semantic content, in particular, the content wished to be expressed by a particular person. That semantic content is expressed by a sentence or set of sentences using words, phrases, grammar, and the context (which can include things like the genre, nature of the audience, etc.).

When you are talking about 'meaning' you are talking about what words and phrases can refer to: definitions included in the semantic range of those words and phrases.

Now, if we try and apply your use of 'meaning' to a sentence, it doesn't make much sense: sentences as a whole don't have a definition; what they "refer" to as a whole is precisely the semantic content wished to be expressed by the person saying the sentence.

Knowing all the definitions of the words and phrases used in a sentence is not enough to know the content wished to be expressed by the sentence. Definitions underdetermine the semantic content. In fact, they massively underdetermine the semantic content. We are very familiar with jokes involving "double meanings" - and they are only possible because sentences, when taken out of the context of author, situation and audience, can possibly mean (in my usage of the term) different things. It is also clear that even knowing the situation and audience is not enough to determine the semantic content. We are also very familiar with things like sarcasm, and we know very well from experience on forums that often it is not clear when someone is being sarcastic or not. And the only reason that it is not clear is because the author's intent is not known. Ultimately, the author's intent is what finally determines the semantic content.

Hopefully that makes my meaning clear.
Stempy.

[Minimalist]

What reasons are there to think that the Ancient Jews invented YHWH?

Invented? Probably the wrong word in the context I think you are using it. Gave him his final promotion from a junior member of the Canaanite pantheon into the Supreme Creator God? Yes.

We have no evidence at all for any sort "Jewish" religion as we now know the word prior to the so-called "return from the Babylonian 'exile' ". There is not a single artifact from any sort of temple in Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian sacking of the city. The earliest texts we have are written in Greek and date from the 3d century. Perhaps Yahweh was nothing more than the local deity of Judah in much the same way that Marduk was the Boss Hooter in Babylon.

In any case, recent scholarship indicates that the initial compound which was set up in Jerusalem by the returning "exiles" was miniscule....on the order of 400 people. This is in keeping with Philip R. Davies theory from the early 1990s that "Judaism" was invented to give the returning exiles ( who were really little more than Persian/Babylonians) who had the mission of establishing Persian authority in the region. One suspects that the people who remained behind to work the field could have cared less whether they were being whipped by Babylonian or Persian overseers....but give them a song and dance about how their "rightful rulers" were being returned to them by the grace of Cyrus the Great.
In any case it worked. Judah remained a loyal subject of Persia until Alexander the Great came rolling through.

Note, if you will, that Yahweh did nothing to stop the Greeks even though he is supposedly really pissed off at their homosexual tendencies.

Maybe Yahweh was having an off day?