Jump to content

Genesis Chapter One - What tha?


old man emu
 Share

Recommended Posts

I posted these verses elsewhere, but I want to comment on them here.

 

In the beginning God created ...

Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, ..."

Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

 

First, if there is only one God in the Abrahamic system, why does that God use the words "us" and "our"? Is it simply an example of the Royal plural, or is it an example of one culture borrowing from the Creation stories of others?

 

Secondly, Verse 27 indicates that both sexes were created at the same time. But later on in Genesis, we get the story of God creating a mate for Adam, indicating that males were created before females. Also, mankind was made in his own image, but two sexes. Is God an hermaphrodite?

 

When I first read the end of Verse 27, I wondered if I was reading the translation according to Yoda.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rgmwa said:

Lost in translation from 2000 year old poorly hand-written Aramaic?

Actually most of the mistranslations come as a result of the Semitic languages not using vowels within words. You have to guess at the word  from the context. That means that a group of letters, if you only use consonants, can represent several different words. If the words are close in meaning, then confusion reigns. Even the lack of capital letters can confuse, eg, Gog made man has a different meaning than God made Man. Plus changes in meanings of words over time add to the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Ahh.,. Aramaic.. long lost memories of after shave as a youngster.. 😉

 

That post stinks of Lynx.

 

10 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Looking for internal logic in the bible, OME?  Best of luck with that!

Nah. Just pointing out a thing that what is written in that compilation of societal history and laws is probably not the actual words or actions of a supreme being, but a paraphrasing of the collected thoughts of the nations of the Levant.

 

The Levant is an approximate historical geographical term referring to a large area in the Eastern Mediterranean region of Western Asia. It is equivalent to a stretch of land bordering the Mediterranean in southwestern Asia, i.e. the historical region of Syria ("greater Syria"), which includes present-day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and most of Turkey southwest of the middle Euphrates.

 

If you separated those parts of the Old Testament that deal with the history of the Hebrews, and only kept the theological and legal content, you would have a much thinner tome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think the greatest single problem with how people approach the Biblical writings, is believing that every word in it, is direct from Gods mouth.

I believe a lot of the Bible is individuals written opinions - just like forum posts, and not backed up by any facts.

 

Then of course, there's the problem of interpretation, after the Biblical books and chapters went through about 4 or 5 language translations.

I understand there were a lot of language scholars trying to determine the exact meaning of Biblical words and phrases, to produce a meaning in English. Then English underwent serious modification over 600-800 years.

Thus we have about 15 or 20 different translations of the Bible today, to try and get a better understanding as to what was meant in the original writings.

 

Then there was the problem of trying to figure out what books and letters were to be included in the Bible, and which weren't deemed to make the cut. I don't know how they worked that one out.

Another part I find strange, is the lack of physical descriptions of people in the Biblical days. You'd imagine someone, somewhere, drew up a physical description of important people.

 

We only have carvings and statues to go on, for the dictators/pharoahs/kings/leaders/athletes of the olden days. 

There's no physical description of Jesus Christ readily found anywhere - yet the painters of old always drew him as an olive-skinned bloke, with dark brown hair and beard, wearing long robes, that don't appear to jell with the common dress of the era.

I've read that hidden away in the Vatican archives, is a physical description of Jesus Christ by a Roman notary - and that physical description varies enormously with the generally-accepted position - in that the Roman notary described Jesus Christ as possessing pale skin, grey eyes, and blonde hair. It's all rather strange.

 

Then there's the curious part of the Bible (Revelation) dealing with Prophecy, far into the future. This reads like John had scoffed a feed of magic mushrooms, but it's accepted as Truth.

What's more, it reads like science fiction, and it's nearly impossible to make sense of it. There's no exact description of timing for these so-called Apocalyptic events, it's all couched in terms of cycles of numbers.

 

To add to the confusion, the Bible warns believers not to indulge in necromancy, mediums, fortune tellers, or anyone who claims to be in touch with the spirit world.

Yet the Bible prophesises, and the Christian true believers claim to be in touch with the spirit world!

I do believe there's an omnipotent God, but I also believe there's a lot of crap spouted by his followers.

 

Edited by onetrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to swear on the Bible once before signing some legal papers. It was a curious experience for an unbeliever, but apparently it increased the authenticity to my signature.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, old man emu said:

why does that God use the words "us" and "our"?

I suspect those words were chosen by King James's faithful scribes. Or even previous scribes. Possibly in order to please their employer/s.

 

Would any self respecting all seeing, all knowing, creator entrust his/her/it's  message to a known defective, sinful creature (one of multitudes of short lived, defectives that it created)?

Edited by nomadpete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, old man emu said:

the story of God creating a mate for Adam

Read up on what happened to Adam's first wife. She wasn't subservient, so he ditched her and asked god for a less bossy version.

 

Looking at that, god didn't really help us males out there, did he...... (he/she/it) !

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd cut out the false self righteousness for a starter.. MY Gods the only one Ha Ha. . Man's brain is capable of thinking in the abstract and senses art. but seeks a God to justify being here. That's a conceit to assume we are THAT important. Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, old man emu said:

If you dropped all the god stuff from the various holy books from around the world, you'd end up with a pretty good ethical code for Mankind to live by. 

Not sure I agree completely there. There is a lot of what I call 'immoral' in the old testament. Don't know enough about other breeds though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I should have specified that you ditch everything except the "thou shalt nots" and Proverbs from the Hebrew books and those of other religions.. Don't raise the Book of Leviticus because most of the rules and practices in that one are aimed at the High Priests, and not so the common people, except the one about not sacrificing your children to Moloch. If they get too much there are always their grandparents. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Read up on what happened to Adam's first wife. She wasn't subservient, so he ditched her and asked god for a less bossy version.

 

Looking at that, god didn't really help us males out there, did he...... (he/she/it) !

I have a painting of her (well, a print, anyway).  This one.  John Collier, 1887.

 

Lilith (John Collier painting).jpg

 

When my mother in law first saw it she said "Oh!  You've got a painting of Lilith!  She was the first feminist!"  - basically got all excited about it.

 

I didn't have the heart to tell her I only bought it because it was a hot naked redhead with a snake.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Poor Lilith got a bad rap. Ever since that day, ex wives have been portrayed as evil immoral beings.

 

Lilith.... Or....Eve.....

 

I know which one would be more fun!

Edited by nomadpete
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had never heard of the name "Lilith" before this, but after learning a bit about her, I now get the joke in the sitcoms "Cheers" and "Frazier" where the ex-wife  of Frazier Crane is Lilith, and she's a bitch.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...