Bible Translation Wrong — God Didn’t Create The Earth Says Academic

Published on October 11th, 2009

Posted by Uncle Dave in Research, religion, science

Bad translation upon worse translations manipulated for political ends. Here’s another example that makes the God-was-an-alien-experimental-biogenetisist seem more plausible. Assuming you ignore the staggering amount of physical evidence for evolution, that is.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world — and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.
[...]
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”. The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth.”
[...]
She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

[...]“There was already water,” she said.

“There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding.”

163 users responded in " Bible Translation Wrong — God Didn’t Create The Earth Says Academic "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 thefakedvorak said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:33 am

you know, she just might be right

# 2 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:34 am

Hah, hah. She’s nuts.

# 3 Improbus said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am

Here is a secret about the Bible: its fiction. This is like arguing over the meaning of a sentence in The Lord of the Rings.

# 4 ArianeB said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am

It gets worse. The Hebrew uses Elohim for God, which is plural of Eloi. So the first sentence literally translates to In the beginning, the Gods separated the heavens from the earth.

# 5 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:46 am

http://christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

Evidently, ((sic, as in who cares about evidence?)) this is not a new issue at all.

It shall remain a mystery this inviolate word of god. He said it, it was written down, but he didn’t stay around long enough to tell us what it means.

Hah, hah. Silly Hoomans.

# 6 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am

That her thesis is wrong is evident in the usage of BARA itself in Genesis.
Observe, if we substitute the meaning (of BARA) “create, created, etc” with “spatially separate”, this text become gibberish:

KJV Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
SPATIALLY SEPARATED, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Here BARA “created is defined by the author as ASAH[Qal] “made”, “Meaning: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make.”-Strongs

For Prof Van Wolde’s exegesis to be correct, BOTH BARA and ASAH must mean “spatially separated” and it cannot.

Her premise ancient stories of Creation are relevant to the Bible account of Creation, is unproved.

Indeed, the very fact scripture speaks of an infinite God creating “ex nihilo”, but these other ancient stories, penned in different language in foreign cultures, do not…proves they are not dependent upon each other…

The pattern of her argument, when applied to other entities, results in unsound conclusion…for example…Suppose we say “democracy” means the same thing to an American, as it does to a North Korean…that is absurd.

# 7 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:26 am

Uncle Dave–your second link to the oldest ancestor of man is also very informative. Everyone should click on it for a quick read.

Reminded me of someone commenting that each and every fossil is “a transitional species.” Thinking about our development–its magical/spiritual how we separated, some would say “bara”-tized from our environment.

# 8 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:29 am

In all fairness, I doubt this will shake anyone’s faith. This is a fascinating area of investigation of ancient linguistics and shows just how difficult this type of work is.

The Jewish/Christian/Muslim religion is not based on a single scriptural passage but rather thousands of contradictory and difficult to translate passages.

# 9 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:31 am

#3 Although the plural form of Elohim (gods) is commonly explained as a “plural of majesty”, I think it possible, like “crowns” in Zech 6:14, there may be some indication of “parts”…

That is, that God is One yet Three in Holy Trinity:

KJV Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (Gen 1:26 KJV)

ASV Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (Mat 28:19 ASV)

One Name (singular), but three Persons are in that one name.

I seen indications of the Holy Trinity even in the composition of man himself, who is made in God’s image:

KJV 1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1Th 5:23 KJV)

The “reverse mirror image” of God who is One Substance, yet Three as to Persons, is man, who is One Person, yet three as to substance.

# 10 Jägermeister said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:32 am

Don’t believe in this nonsense… Join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

# 11 Jonny H said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:36 am

Even Ardi is not any conclusive evidence for evolution. How can scientists suddenly say “Evolution had practically nothing to stand on, UNTIL NOW THANKS TO ARDI,” if it hasn’t been false all along. Twisted science people. Actually it’s just non-science.

# 12 Michael_gr said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:37 am

Bible Scholar my a$$. It took me all of five minutes to find instances of “Bara” in the OT which make no sense if it means “separate”. The biblical story may have had origins in a myth of a separation of the earth from the water (similar to the Babylonian myth in which the primordial sea existed before the gods, and Marduk created the earth from the body of the god/monster Tiamat). But that’s not what the bible itself says. As others said, the same word is used for creating not just the earth and the heavens, but also the great reptiles, the birds, and people.

# 13 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:40 am

#9–Jag==AMAZING====I see the trinity in the FSM too!! Holy Trioka. We must all worship three!!!! This is going to be good news tonight when I reveal this to my wife and her sister. THREE, much better than ONE. Makes me rethink what one plus one “actually” means.

You know, when the wing nuts can find death panels in a modern document like whatever health plan bill they found it in, its no wonder what highjinks they can come up with various documents from 1000’s of years ago in a language they don’t even speak.

But seriously folks, how can this woman say god didn’t create everything from nothing? He must have, and then he separated it===or whatever====or certainly NOT.

Silly Hoomans.

# 14 fpp2002 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:49 am

Now where is Dr. Dodd claiming there can be only 1 interpretation of the bible?

# 15 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am

Since both creation myths in Genesis are rip-offs of Babylonian stories, it’s interesting to look at the root of bara in Babylonian and Assyrian. The best sense of the meaning of bara there is “to give birth” or “produce”.

Now that put’s a whole different slant on things when you think about it.

# 16 Jägermeister said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am

#11 – bobbo

Have faith, brother!

# 17 God-zila said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:59 am

More interesting reading/interpretation of first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning (he)created God, Heaven and the Earth”

Now the question is: Who is he that created God firs?

# 18 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am

re #8 By “parts” I speak analogically, as in 1×1x1=1, not 1+1+1=3…within the infinite ocean of essence that is God, in whom all things subsist and have their being, all is God equally throughout, the same “I” everywhere equally:

KJV Jeremiah 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. (Jer 23:24 KJV)

In other words, the classic Trinitarian statement officially announced at Nicea, and later augmented at Chalcedon, is correct according to the scriptures.

Unfortunately later councils of the church didn’t maintain the same fidelity to scripture…but that is for another argument.

# 19 Wretched Gnu said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am

That’s nothing. I highly recommend *The Evolution of God*, by Robert Wright.

Biblical scholars have long known, for instance, that the texts of Genesis presume the existence of other gods besides Yawheh.

And don’t bother to tell your Christian friends what’s already in the Bibles on their shelves. The Godly command, for instance, that if your daughter is raped, you must force her to marry her rapist — otherwise, both she and the rapist are to be stoned to death…

There are few people as ignorant of the Bible as Christians…

# 20 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:05 am

#15 Non sequitur…to be created requires finiteness, God is infinite, therefore He cannot have been created.

Also, philosophically speaking, your argument is incompetent…as the infinite regression argument is made to avoid God’s authority over us…but fails to accomplish that purpose…

It is irrelevant if God was made by a greater God, He made us, therefore we are responsible to Him.

# 21 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:07 am

Wretched Gnu, it a terrific book – good recommendation. I was fascinated by his argument around monotheism breeding intolerance and how it has led to “God-on-God” violence and wars.

# 22 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Evolution is as absurd as Socialism, perhaps worse…it flies in the face of reality.

It is elementary complex structures do not evolve…entropy has everything going from the complex to the simple…

Therefore it is just as likely things evolve…that ACORN workers on Government subsidy will get a job for equal pay.

# 23 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:17 am

#17 “You Lie!” just like your mentor Obama…

cite the texts that supposedly proves your point..

# 24 SparkyOne said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am

so give her an ipod loaded with Beatles music as a parting gift and send her on her way. I mean who “really” gives a

# 25 Angel H. Wong said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am

google anonib bara B)

# 26 sargasso said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:37 am

#21. Try Russell’s, History of Western Philosophy. There are a few big words, no pencil sketches of burning bushes. http://bit.ly/34HjA

# 27 Faxon said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:46 am

Academic.
Bible.
Both full of shit.

# 28 Troublemaker said, on October 11th, 2009 at 10:50 am

When are humans going to get past the madness of believing in such inane fairy tales?

# 29 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am

#24 Typical evasion of facts…Rape merits death in the Old Testament.

Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man forcec her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:-kjv

The text being misunderstood, is this:

Deut 22:28-29. A man who raped an unbetrothed virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce. This protected, to a degree, the girl’s honor and assured her (and her child if she became pregnant from the rape) permanent support. This stipulation may also have served as a deterrent against rape since the man would have to live with that woman for the rest of his life.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1:303). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Had otherwise been done for the girl, a life of poverty and early death resulted…it was truly a man’s world then…and it was for the sake of the woman the man was made to supply her needs…a “life sentence” as it were, for the rape.

# 30 right said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Poor Alfred, his life is disintegrating before our very eyes as his book of fiction is being torn apart. He’s going quote crazy again! Yawn.
Don’t forget to check out evilbible.com and skepticsannotatedbible.com for the critical thinker. Great sites, right Alfred?

# 31 rectagon said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:16 am

Besides the fact that she’s actually wrong… even if she is right… the most troubling thing for Atheists is still the incredibly insightful “in the beginning” part. Go ahead… think of more loony ideas to make the universe eternal… go ahead.

# 32 Alfred's Mom said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Hsi pee-pee is about 10x the size of my sons.

# 33 Alfed's Mom said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am

His – I’m lysdexic.

# 34 ECA said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:28 am

#2,
You arnt right. Its a history and rules to live by. Its not fiction.

Im waiting for someone to estimate that the bible was a Conglomeration of religious beliefs at the time, Gathered together to form 1, that would fit ALL..

# 35 Shubee said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Prof Van Wolde, 54, said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”.

This is not a surprising belief because it’s exactly what Seventh-day Adventists teach. http://everythingimportant.org/genesis

I believe that the Hebrew verb “bara” means “to organize,” which is a form of creating.

# 36 Omar R. said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:35 am

This all begs the question: How BIG is God’s penis, and what exactly does HE do with it?

Silly Hoomans indeed.

# 37 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am

#34–Omar==I think he uses it to paint his image onto toast. God has always instructed us thru bread, bread products, and wheat. We just don’t pay enough attention.

# 38 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Oh great, another God and Bible mocking session… Don’t you people know that football is on?

On the seventh day God said let there be football and it was so. And God saw that it was good.

# 39 a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being said, on October 11th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Yup The Greatest Story Ever Told is just that a story look for it in the fiction section.

There are and always will be a lot of gullible people in the world.

# 40 Joeevil said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Nice reference to Jonathan Coulton in the pic.

# 41 Jägermeister said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

#30 – Alfred’s Mom – Hsi pee-pee is about 10x the size of my sons.

That makes it roughly 5cm.

# 42 B. Lation said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Bible freaks will simply say this translator is misinterpreting the same as Orly Taitz, and HIV freaks will say it’s the same “denialism” that goes with Duesberg’s translation of the HIV bible which some translate as saying HIV is a harmless retrovirus, and not something created in the beginning by Monsanto as a punishment if you don’t accept their drugs as savior.

# 43 Wretched Gnu said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Ah, poor Alfred. Let’s look at the text, shall we?

Deuteronomy 22:28

“If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married, and he seizes her and rapes her, but is caught in the act, the rapist must pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels. She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.”

# 44 TheCommodore said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

The Hatfields and McCoys at it again? Who is scoring points here? And who in his right mind is reading anything this far into the thread? (No I didn’t read them all either – but it’s easy to know where these threads go – theists vs atheists. BORING….)

# 45 bill said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

What’s the big PROBLEM?

Just Google it!

# 46 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

#41–wretched==how many decision points are there in this algorhythm? How many rules?

virgin women
unvirgin women
married women
unmarried women
with child
has children
age limits
Then go thru all above with men, boys, girls, animals with and without cloven hooves, shellfish? What am I missing and what size stones should I use???

I just wanna save my soul!!!

# 47 francoduina said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Ohhh.. this changes the perspective of everything… I’m so relieved… I’ll sleep so better from now on… Alfred, aren’t you the guy who makes fettuccine?

# 48 verycheeky said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

nice try, NOT.. there are other places in the 66 books written by 40 authors that say Jesus Created All Things..

► trying to do away with the guilt are we? Your accountable buddy!

…and who in there right mind would reference to national pornagraphic for proof in evolution! LOL!!!!!!!!

# 49 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

#46–Cheeky==so that was Porn! I didn’t look that hard once there was a signup process to d/l it. I’m not gonna pay for porn, just like I’m not gonna just give my soul to god. If he wants it, he has to pay me for it. If its “my” soul, that should be my right. If its not my soul, and its “his” then I demand to know why he isn’t taking better care of it.

I know my rights!!!!!

# 50 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

#41 You didn’t read it…betrothed…not betrothed…made a difference…

Betrothed was equivalent to being married…hence death for the rape of another man’s wife.

Not betrothed meant the rapist rendered her destitute…without hope of marriage…hence sentencing him to marrying her…without hope of divorce…was analogous to life in prison.

The ancients were smart enough to exact punishments WITHOUT costly imprisonment…

We as a society should envy that…no burden…inexpensive correction…

So scripture manifests a genius far exceeding your intellectual capacity to appreciate.

# 51 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

#30 Amazing, your consistent failure…even when trying to insult someone…

# 52 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

#30 Jägermeister tried to “save” you…and as is his custom, he only gets the Olympic award for stupid:

http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/30/caption-this-photo-34/

# 53 right said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

“So scripture manifests a genius far exceeding your intellectual capacity to appreciate.”

Oh man, that is a rich pile of crap. Any sensible person knows that the information in the bible is 2000 years old and we’ve progressed to be much better and more humane than that.
Alfred has not, he’s a pathetic, sad individual who quotes thousands of year old crazy talk. He’s afflicted with woo hoo and cult soup.
Please don’t feel too sorry for him, just mock him as much as possible to expose his ignorance, and he has a boatload of that.
BTW, don’t forget evilbible.com

# 54 ECA said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

33,
Organizing is NOT creation. Its separating out from what is already there.

48,
and the only problem was..
BEING CAUGHT in the act.. otherwise he was a free man.

# 55 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

#51 There are three kinds of people; those who make things happen, those who watch things happen—and people like you, who wonder what happened.

There aren’t versions of truth…2+2=4 regardless how ancient the equation is.

It is entirely beside the point truthful information be 2000 years old…the incompetence of your argument is exceeded only by your cluelessness…

I normally allow you make a fool of yourself without comment from me…but you have outdone yourself…proving once again, you and Jägermeister are a world class act:

http://dvorak.org/blog/2009/04/30/caption-this-photo-34/

# 56 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Hey Alfie–in the KJV you quote==are the couple consensually together or as in the New Int’l that Wretched is quoting from, is it rape??

but in either case, what if the woman would rather be alone? Or find someone else. Is this an option on her part, punishment for the guy, the girl, both???

What gives? And when did “betrothed” come to mean the equivalent of being married??? It doesn’t mean that at all. Still a virgin while betrothed but deflowered with laid on and entered unto and all that?

You think a society too poor to build a jail is that advanced in their thinking huh? Advanced as in we should change our laws and do it too???? State forcing marriage on people? Thats the highest moral value in this tale of woe?

Also, was fun to read the rest of Deuteronomy. Whats the thinking behind not yoking ox with asses?? I can only think they would pull the plow unequally into a circle? But that whole don’t mixup men and womens clothing or its an abomination–what a fashionista god is, he really doesn’t miss a sparrow falling does he?? Wonder what the Scotts think of those restrictions—is a dress without underwear male or female wear?

# 57 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

#54 You are applying 21 century societal norms on an ancient agrarian agricultural society…

That is taking the text out of its context=unsound eisegesis.

# 58 Alfred's Mom said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Jäg, if he cut an inch off he’d have a two inch hole.

# 59 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

As for yoking an ass with an ox, that is cruelty to animals, they walk at different speeds, hurting one another.

The laws in the Old Testament are impeccable, once the context is fully appreciated.

# 60 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

#56 You don’t know when to change the subject…hardly surprising.

# 61 Alfred's Mom said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

I wish I had yoked your ass.

# 62 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

So Alfred, are you saying that the bible is in the main irrelevant to modern day life or it still has moral lessons to teach us like: don’t hitch ox and assess together? I don’t understand your/god’s thinking on this. Shouldn’t the rule be don’t hitch an ox and ass together if they be of different walking speeds? I mean, pretty sloppy on gods part if he can’t make a good rule? Would if then follow that ox and asses cannot be used to plow the same field, farrow, or just not together?? I thought man was supposed to be in dominion over animals anyway. Does this make god an indian giver???

Alfieeeeeeeeee. Why doesn’t god just mind his own business???

# 63 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

#60 I believe society has learned the principle we shouldn’t be cruel to animals…

That was taught in scripture thousands of years ago…and society “got it.”

Your statements are odd…surely you don’t believe all knowledge was learned in our generation…that we owe nothing to our ancestors?

# 64 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

As for God’s business…as part of His creation…you are His business…and He does take a personal interest in you…

Nothing escapes His notice.

# 65 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

“Nothing escapes His notice.”

Does that include my underwear drawer? The cat barfed in there once, and I’ve always wondered why.

# 66 Alfed's Mom said, on October 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

#62 – Son, why doesn’t God stop the priests from fucking little boys? Is that none of his business?? You always had imaginary friends as a small bastard child, I guess it never ends.

# 67 Cursor_ said, on October 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

The bible is rife with bad translation and purposeful mis-translation for personal gain.

The food taboos are a fine example of human self-interest and the Vulgate choice of changing Heylel to Lucifer is a great example of politics.

It doesn’t help when christians cherry pick verses to only state what they want.

Cursor_

# 68 right said, on October 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

See, we have a stupid person ramping up their woo hoo, right Alfred?
You know you are losing to rational thought but due to your low IQ you are not obliged to make a cogent defense. Well, that’s ok.
BTW, don’t forget evilbible.com
and the big one!

I challenged Alfred1 $25,000 that Failin’ Palin will not win in a landslide in 2012 (Alfred is on Palin’s side of course) but we haven’t figured out the monetary details yet.
Alfred, can you please email John to confirm the bet?
Thanks.

# 69 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

#64

The liberal mind is a confusing glob of inconsistency.

You scream homophobe when someone complains about the degenerate gay lifestyle then when one dresses up like a priest and “degenerates” you complain that nobody stops him.

Make up your mind.

# 70 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

#67 They are moonbats, they bark at the moon, not always knowing why, always during a knee jerk response to the words “Christian; Bible; Creation; Republican; Bush; Conservative…etc”

Often they bark only in the general direction of what started their yelping…attention deficit disorder and other irrationality sometimes has them barking at each other…its all quite hilarious.

# 71 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Seriously Dodd, get your facts straight. You’re completely forgetting nuns on roller skates.

# 72 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

#67–Dr Doodiepants==that really either doesn’t make sense, or it demonstrates your point. – - – -OH==ok, I get it. You think all homosexuals are pedophiles. OK. Took me a while to get down to your level of stupidity. At that level, you should enjoy this:

#68–Allfie: bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark,bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, and to be excessively noisy: BARK!!!

# 73 right said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Alfred…anyone home??
Please respond. If you don’t, that bet is absolutely on and you’ll owe me (and a management fee for John) a lot of money.
No bible quotes please.

# 74 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

#68-Alfred1-They are moonbats…

I had a different description in mind, but let’s go with yours.

What is it about moonbats that make them spew venom upon anything that resembles morality then claim to hold the moral high ground?

>>its all quite hilarious.

Definitely rates as a dark comedy.

# 75 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

#70-bobbo-You think all homosexuals are pedophiles.

After you fall to that stage of degenerate behavior do labels really matter?

# 76 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

#70 bobbo

Do you notice how every topic to do with religion always ends with Dodd’s obsession with male gay sex? It’s rather interesting don’t you think?

Anyway, back on topic. I’m amazed no one has talked about bara being the root of the name Barack.

# 77 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

#74–qb==Heh, heh. NO, not until you mentioned it. I guess when you are a hammer, you view the world as a nail???? So–I’m with you on noticeable for its consistency, but interesting???? No, can’t say that. I take that back. The level of hypocrisy really is stunning. Loving your fellow man, not being judgmental, loving the sinner but not the sin==I would say AMUSING how much the bibble quoters can directly violate the core tenets of christianity and still feel as if they are the chosen ones. But my main thesis against religion is that very kind of hypocrisy.

Bara Hussein Obama–the one who creates hope in the near end times? The one who separates the bible quoters from the truly observant? I thought Barrack was Muslim for Barry? Just because a few of the letters are the same, I don’t think thats what root means, but I could be wrong. It may also depend on which of the many bibbles you use.

# 78 Turion said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

You are all squabbling over issues not pertaining to the article. This thread seems to have been hijacked. The point of the article was that the verb “bara” does not mean “create.” According to several scholars, most notably John Walton (Wheaton College) this partly true.
Bara does, in fact, mean create. this is the only definition that fits with the various contexts. this leads to the question of what does “create” mean? This is a contingent definition: it means to bring something into existence. This in turn leads us to ask what existence means, in an ancient Hebrew context in particular, and an ancient near eastern (ANE) context in general?
As it turns out, analyzing various ANE texts leads to the conclusion that existence was not defined materially in ancient Israel (or anywhere else in the ANE) as it is defined in our culture, (I.e. the book exists because I have a sensory perception of it)but rather it was defined functionally. this idea is similar to our idea of a business existing: while it may “exist” legally on paper, it does not actually exist until it starts servicing customers.
So then, bara, “to create,” means to make something functional. When the Bible says that God created light and darkness, the relevant bit is that he called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” It is not saying that God created light independently from the sun and moon, but rather he created the concept of time. The question of whether God materially created the world never would have occurred to the Israelites, and is thus not addressed.
Therefore, the Bible does not make any scientific claims. I don’t know whether God used evolution to create all life on earth, and, frankly, I don’t care.
This research is relatively new, having only been published this year, but I suspect that it will quickly become the predominant view in several denominations.
just wanted to throw that out there.

# 79 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

#72 Its classic “group think,” a loon echo chamber—moonbat circle jerk stroking one another’s ego…

Their consistent response to any reasoned challenge is ad hominem and straw men…its all they know.

Hence they call you names, and twist your statement into something absurd, that they can then respond to…

I didn’t accurately explain what makes them hilarious to behold…because they don’t discuss reasons for belief, only respond with ad hominem and fallacy…they often forget what they were arguing about…and begin barking at things not being discussed…and sometimes each other…totally confused…

That is what is hilarious.

# 80 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

#74-qb-Do you notice how every topic to do with religion always ends with Dodd’s obsession with male gay sex?

Actually that would be Alfed’s Mom at #64 who swerved into that topic, but you keep trying.

If discussing the degenerate homosexual lifestyle opens fresh wounds for you then maybe you should not participate. We know how sensitive your kind is.

# 81 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

#76 What ANE texts are you referring to…and why do you suppose they are relevant to what God wrote through Moses…his use of the word BARA.

I pointed out #5 Gen 2:4 exibits Parallelism. The predominant feature of Hebrew poetic structure is the repetition of meaning in parallel expressions—the so-called poetic parallelism. The biblical verse of poetry normally has two or more of these parallel units. The relationship between the parallel units must be studied to determine the emphasis of a verse as a whole.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1:780). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

KJV Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
SPATIALLY SEPARATED, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Here BARA “created is defined by the author as ASAH[Qal] “made”, “Meaning: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make.”-Strongs

The parallelism is lost if “created” means “spatially separated” but “made” means “make.”

So the thesis is impossible according to Moses’ use of the word BARA…

More weight must be given to Moses’ use of the word, than similar stories, in different languages and cultures, in ANE.

# 82 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

#76–Turion==aren’t you and all other bibble scholars really kinda falling into the same trap? Thinking that x means y without embracing ambiguity? I thought my reference at post #4 was about the word bara having several different meanings?

One thing about “English”–it has more words than any other language==ever. It can be much more precise but in that precision, it may be impossible to give any precision at all to ancient languages that had fewer words? Or maybe that is generally true, but not true in religious words? ((I highly doubt that, but since I don’t know, how can I be dogmatic??))

So, if bara can have 3-4 different shades of meaning, we can never know what the original author meant to say. He “knew” what he meant, wrote it down, and was happy to explain it. Never thought it was going to be the bibble or that god was on the brink of self imposed exile.

When it comes to how to plow a field using animals in a yoke, I might consult the bible. When I want to know how the world/universe started, I have to go with science. Thats how I roll.

Now Dr Doodiepants–Alfie may have dropped the deuce, but you ran over and scooped it up. We all saw you do it.

# 83 Dr Dodd said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

#77-Alfred1-they call you names, and twist your statement into something absurd, that they can then respond to…

Exactly right and well spotted. This tactic does make for a difficult discussion about… anything. If it wasn’t for the comedic value this would fall into the time wasted category.

# 84 Jägermeister said, on October 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

The Alfred1 family photo.

# 85 Wretched Gnu said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Alfred, I wonder if I can impose upon your time (I’ll bet I can) to give me your inimitable spin on some of God’s other Laws.

And remember these are Laws as articulated by the Lord, not “cultural customs” of the day:

Deuteronomy 13:13-15

“If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. [...] That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt.”

… or how about this gem:

Deuteronomy 22:20

[If a man accuses his wife of not showing signs of virginity on their wedding night, the bride's parents must produce such evidence.]

“If the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman’s virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.”

What a fine, utterly moral religion.

# 86 Turion said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Bobbo, my point is that the Israelites would never have thought to use the word “bara” in a material sense. Throughout the ANE, deity was viewed as being intimately involved with nature. In the ancient view, the world couldn’t have come from anywhere else. It may have been intended to mean “to separate” in some contexts; I don’t know, as I have never studied Hebrew. What I do know is that whenever it occurs in a context from which the meaning is easily discernible (which is how ancient Hebrew is studied), it means “to create”. Two more points: wouldn’t, in this context, “separate” mean the same thing as make functional?” Also, how does one separate sea-creatures? Were they all stuck together?
Alfred, I was referring mostly to Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian, and Hittite creation myths. If you want particulars, look at the Egyptian “Papyrus Insinger,” the Babylonian “Enuma Elish,” or the Sumerian text “the Debate between Winter and Summer.” I am not attaching the same truth-value to these as to the Bible; I am saying that they are indicative of the way that ANE cultures thought. a modern parallel would be to look at modern western cultures, such as Canada, England, France, etc. and say that, since their writings seem to imply a material definition of existence, we can infer that America, being a similar culture, holds that same definition.

# 87 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

#83 In context, both exhibit impeccable moral standards…

In Dt 13:13ff, the Israeli’s were in covenant with God, to have no other gods before him, or the penalty was death…To that proposition, all of Israel agreed:

KJV Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen…

KJV Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deu 27:26 KJV)

In Dt 22:20 it was the height of wickedness to claim your wife was not a virgin on her wedding night…it was to defraud her of life itself…a false witness.

Parents kept the sheets proving their daughter lost her virginity on her wedding night, for just such an occasion, as proof.

In ancient society, to defraud one’s bride this way was to kill her, and possibly shame her family into becoming outcasts…

It was truly an evil that required death as the penalty…

All these laws are meant to dissuade the action…they are not inflicted with glee, their harshness was meant to change behavior…All ancient Israeli’s were trained in these laws…from childhood on…

Unlike our society where the laws are largely unknown, until one is arrested for breaking them, these laws were recited by children as part of their upbringing:

KJV 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Ti 3:15 KJV)

# 88 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Turion, do the natural Gods of the ANE lose something when they are stuffed into monotheistic God of the Israelis? For example, does the notion of God become unnatural (i.e. materialistic)?

# 89 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

#78 Dodd

Sorry you missed again. I said you always associate religion with gay sex. If you want to interpret that as me (or you) being gay, go right ahead but I certainly wonder about the source of your obvious hateful obsession.

faith != religion

Basically you have religion, but you obviously have little faith.

# 90 Wretched Gnu said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Alfred sez,

“In ancient society, to defraud one’s bride this way was to kill her, and possibly shame her family into becoming outcasts…
It was truly an evil that required death as the penalty…”

… clumsily eliding the fact that the Law decrees a woman should be *murdered* for her non-virginity, or for her inability to produce a hymen blood-sample.

… just as he ignores the fact that God’s Law is to murder those who *happen to live in a town* where some people have a religion other than your own.

This “morality” is almost as wise and sublime as that of a rabid wolf!

# 91 Angry Black said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Man, some of these muthafuckas are nuts!

# 92 Church supplies said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

All I can say are we needed to be careful in translating every word in the bible. Coz’ once we get wrong, we will be criticize… It is true that Nobody’s perfect, but still we need to take care about translating God’s words.

# 93 Bill said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Wow, we’ve misunderstood this text for 3500 years! All it took was this simple observation and now all is cleared up! Sheesh!

The Tanach (Hebrew Bible) also says, “There’s nothing new under the sun,” i.e. there’s a new idiot every day.

If you don’t want to believe the Bible, well, fine. But trying to make it say what it doesn’t say is an exercise in futility. And repeating the repeated errors of yesteryear is more so. Snore. Zzzz…

# 94 Grandpa said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Please join my church. The Church of RA. We believe in energy. God created energy and so energy was transformed into mass and space, and so here we are. Looketh upon the master of the universe RA, the Sun of God, creator of energy.

# 95 right said, on October 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Hey Alfred – do you really think we follow your tortured mis-logic?
Look, we as a group of normal people, want you to have as normal a life as possible. Please look for help. HEY, I have a great idea, seeing as you are one of the first in line for stuff…..

# 96 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

#83 I almost missed what you addressed to me…its best if you separate replies to different people, in different posts.

I disagree with your main premise, that ANE cultures were analogous to Canada and the USA…

Both Canada and USA were once one under British rule…the Revolution divided us…and we both speak English…neither is true of the cultures in ANE.

As for the Papyrus Insinger, it is dated around the 1st century AD, and it is well accepted the method of composition resulted in transpositions, variations, omission and other changes and errors…I cannot fathom why you believe it relevant to Moses’ Hebrew of 1445 BC.

It is a hasty generalization fallacy to infer dependence from the few similarities between Enuma Elish and Genesis, that Moses copied it…it could well have been the reverse.

Moreover, Genesis exalts monotheism while the Enuma Elish polytheism, exalting f Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonian parthenon.

And let us not discount these accounts may have depended upon the same event in history, albeit with differing interpretation of it…

As for the Sumerian Text, I fail to see any parallels:

(Tablet II)
He named him [ ]-man [ ]‍8‍
He built a fort (?) [ ]‍9‍
In the shade of that throne-dais a poplar sprouted [ ]
On its crown an eagle crouched, [and a serpent lay at its base].
Every day they would keep watch [for their prey (?)].
The eagle made its voice heard and said to the serpent,
“Come, let us be friends,
Let us be comrades, you and I.”
(10) The serpent made its voice heard and spoke to the eagle,
“[You are not fit for] friendship [in the sight of Shamash!]
You are wicked and you have grieved his heart.
You have done unforgivable deeds, an abomination to the gods.‍10‍
(But) come, let us stand up and [make a pledge (?)]”‍11‍

That is nothing like this:

KJV Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
(Gen 3:1-5 KJV)

# 97 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

#88 The Bible does no such thing…

Marriages were arranged, economic units designed to benefit both families and the tribe…

To defraud a woman of her virginity, by refusing to marry her because of alleged lack of virginity…not only doomed her to certain death and or, poverty…but her family as well and brought disrepute upon the whole tribe…

Children were raised reciting the law against doing that evil…therefore, doing it was also a act of total disrespect for God, all one learned about God, from childhood on…

Only a bad seed would act that way, truly a good for nothing person worthy of death…

# 98 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

#94 If you left to visit all the normal people who also are your friends, you’d be back in a minute.

I don’t believe “mis-logic” is a word…and I don’t believe you would have the right answer, if someone said “Hello” to you.

# 99 Alfred1 said, on October 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

In fact, you would consider it a trick question.

# 100 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Insinger Papyrus is a retranslation of an older text. Both it and books on the old testament (especially the Book of Proverbs) share the same common Greek influence, prevalent in BCE Eurasia. Read the Insinger then read Proverbs – it’s an eye opener.

The monotheism of Genesis probably comes from a political and social reaction to Babylonian rule by the Jews. They adopted much of Babylonian culture and religion but took monotheism from Aten worship from Egypt and Zoroastrianism (that’s tough to spell). Egyptians, Hittites and Hurrians are featured heavily in Genesis.

Polytheism has been difficult to shake though. Even monotheistic Christians prefer a Trinitarian God.

# 101 Thomas said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

The Alfred1 hit list:

#53
> There aren’t
> versions of truth…2+2=4
> regardless how ancient
> the equation is.”

And yet you deny evolution. Christians are the very definition of hypocrisy.

#54
> You are applying
> 21 century societal
> norms on an ancient
> agrarian agricultural
> society…

Yet, you find comfort in applying first century norms onto a modern society.

#60
> I believe society
> has learned the principle
> we shouldn’t be cruel
> to animals…

Remember kids: animal sacrifice doesn’t count as cruelty.

#85
> In Dt 13:13ff, the
> Israeli’s were in covenant
> with God, to have no
> other gods before
> him, or the penalty
> was death”

So, if you disagree with more logical minds, we can have you put to death right? That’s following “impeccable” “moral” “standards” right? What rubbish.

> It was truly an
> evil that required
> death as the
> penalty…

Apparently, not.

#95
> Marriages were
> arranged, economic
> units designed to
> benefit both families
> and the tribe…

Which, obviously, you still consider moral, right?

You do realize that it is to the point that your lose your own arguments merely by posting don’t you? You talk yourself into ridiculous logic circles until you sound like a Flat Earther and everyone simply pities you. Personally, I find you to be high entertainment value akin to midgets at the circus and John finds you to be an advertisement Midas.

# 102 Thomas said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

#76
Actually, the fundamental point is that arguing about the meaning of “bara” is akin to arguing whether Superman or Batman is the better superhero.

# 103 Turion said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

#94,
well, even ruling out England and Canada, we still have France. We could add to the list Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and probably Italy and Mexico. My point is that cultures from the same geographic and temporal location will usually be rather similar, and that the cultures surrounding Israel at the time are necessarily more like Israelite culture than ours is. Also, while it is true that America and Canada are transplants from England (or, at least, they were) Israel could, in the same way, be considered a transplant from Canaan or Egypt. Abraham was a Canaanite, and the Hebrews were Egyptian slaves.

Basically, you are (groundlessly) assuming that Israelite culture was more similar to our culture now.

The list of texts I provided is not exhaustive. My point regarding the Insinger is that,though it is not from the same culture, the 1st century Egyptian culture is still more similar to the Hebrew culture than ours is. While not exhaustive proof in and of itself, it does add strength to the argument. I did not argue that there were parallels between the Sumerian text and Genesis, or between the Enuma Elish and Genesis, or the Insinger. What I am looking at is their concept of existence and creation, which you seem to have ignored.

#86- no. God is a spirit, not material. I don’t see how having only one God instead of many gods would somehow change how Moses understood the word “bara.”

#98- You seem to misunderstand the concept of the Trinity: it is, in fact, monotheism due to God’s trancendent nature, we cannot understand how this is so, but that does not make it untrue; it is a mystery, not a contradiction. One way to put it may be that the three persons in the godhead are, perhaps, different faces of the same entity. However, there really is no good analogy. I would also claim that Israel’s monotheism was a result of revealed truth, rather than a political reaction, but would not expect you to believe this, as it is more of a claim of faith.

# 104 Glass Half Full said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

The Hindu gods are the only real Gods. Jesus and Yahweh are made up fictional local tribal gods. Nothing serious. I mean the Norse gods are the REAL gods, the Hindu gods are silly myths. No, the Egyptian creation story is REAL, the native Americans don’t know what they’re talking about!

An atheist someone who thinks there are 39 fictional magical superstitions in the world pretending to be religions. A “true believer” is someone who thinks there are 38 fictional magical superstitions in the world pretending to be religions, and one real non-fiction one.

Look you crazy religious freaks, until YOUR god ACTUALLY shows up (I mean Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Native American, Jewish, Hindu, etc) you’re just silly people running around believing in invisible super powered people. Grow up. OR have YOUR god come down on camera on earth and do something about it. I dare you. Go on…make your magical invisible being show up and doing something. Any of you…come on. Waiting? Jesus coming back? Yeah, we’ve been waiting 2000 years. Maybe in another 5000 the faith will start to wane, but until then we have to put up with stupid shit like this.

# 105 qb said, on October 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Turion, if you feel it’s a matter of faith I won’t argue against it. BTW, I do understand the whole ideas around the Trinity and spent time reading Irenaeus and the Neoplatonists. But even as a kid being raised Catholic I never thought the whole notion carried any logical coherency. I’ve always felt it was a unnecessary and distracting from the central themes of Christianity.

# 106 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm

#102–Glass==you look fully full to me. It is funny. Present the one true religion with the other equally assured 38 true religions and they say with no sense of inquiry at all: “They are wrong, and we are right!” — All 39 of them. Heh, heh. Nothing sticks at all.

I also like the sociology of it all: 98% of believers believe what religion they were brought up in. Just as if religion is a social phenomenon instead of a revealed truth. Again highly amusing and nothing sticks.

My favorite has to be when faced with a direct contradiction on any of very many issues, the issue becomes “a mystery.” Hah, hah. Yes, mystery indeed.

Silly Hoomans.

# 107 furrypotato said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

I’ve met god, and she told me she doesn’t exist.

# 108 Glenn E. said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

The atheist academics are getting desperate to keep their Darwin belief system alive. And well funded! So now they’re attacking the language of the Bible itself. In order to undermine it enough, to allow for evolution to have some coexistence with it. Yeah, I’ve heard all this crap decades ago. Teachers claiming, “Well maybe a Day was really millions of years”. So it tool six million years for life to appear (which is still too brief a time) on earth. Oh come on. How could anyone know what happened millions or billions of years ago, in order to write about it as if it happened yesterday? They’d either have to be God, or receive some message from God. And if that’s true, I think God could get the grammar right. And make sure the human got it right too. Or else, why the hell bother?!

If anyone’s guilty of screwing up, it’s Darwin. He couldn’t even explain how the eyeball evolved. How could something remain a useless organ for so many generations, until all the parts accidentally mutated into perfection? And it finally was of any use or benefit to the lifeforms that were burdened with it until then? So we’re supposed to “believe” that evolution had these magical leaps, and natural selection made maddening exceptions for so long? Sorry, it just doesn’t wash. Apply Occam’s Razor to how the eyeball developed. And Evolution isn’t going to be the simplest answer.

I think things like Eyeball, and the Bees and Flowers relationship. Are a few of many damning “Inconvenient Truths” that confound the atheists’ evolutionary origins of life. What the Bible is saying about those first six days. Is that a whole mess of interdependent living systems were set into existence. Which couldn’t have occurred separately. Nor exist apart from each other. The odds of life evolving accidentally is astronomical enough, in isolation. The odds of living systems spontaneously occurring accidentally, in thoroughly integrated relationships, is so far beyond being “astronomically” against it. That it calls into question the sanity of all those who still hold it’s a scientifically proven fact.

And NO… there ISN’T a “staggering amount of physical evidence for evolution”. Just a staggering amount of fools who believe in it. And are willing to reinterpret everything they come across to prove it. Like finding bones in the wrong geological order. Or messing with Biblical text, to muddle its message, and confuse its believers. Maybe we should start taking the sacred text of Darwin to pieces. All fair, ain’t it?

# 109 Colin said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Interesting that NatGeo once again shows NO photos of this new find. Every picture of
“Ardi” is a drawing. Where’s that proof again?

# 110 Glenn E. said, on October 11th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

This is the “divide and conquer” strategy of the atheist camp. Claim “God” merely “divided” what already existed. And if you swallow that, the atheists have conquered (or soon will). Cause then they can just write “God” off as being some Superman or very powerful alien race. That showed up one day and altered earth into discreet forms. From its previous muddy mess of pre-planetary stew. Thus making it ready for their next trick. Seeding life there (here). After which, everything evolved, so to keep all the Darwinists happy. But I just don’t buy that some Superman race, terraformed the earth. And then just walked away from it, and allowed it to go to hell on its own. Not very good farmers, these aliens. They don’t weed, they don’t fertilize, and they don’t harvest and replant. Some gods they are!

# 111 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on October 12th, 2009 at 12:51 am

The caption should be, “pull my finger.”

Those of you that think alf is an asshole, can I get an AMEN?

# 112 Hugh Ripper said, on October 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am

OMG the old myopic ‘how did the eye evolve’ (pun intended) argument. Do you evolution naysayers have ANY idea of the time scale evolution operates? Can you even conceive of the amount of CHANGE that happens in a million years, let alone the hundreds of million of years that the eye had to evolve. DO you have ANY idea of the sheer staggering amount of mutation combinations and natural selection brewing over a hundreds of millions of years?

Oh I forgot, the earth’s only 4000 years old. Silly me…

Some things that creationists fail to consider can be found here.

Also, kind of on topic, O’Reilly VS Dawkins cage match (all too brief)

O’Reilly thinks that not allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools is fascism. Sounds like some of the Christian hoopleheads on DU.

# 113 Alfred1 said, on October 12th, 2009 at 2:43 am

#99 The text of Papyrus Insinger has errors, rendering the original meaning uncertain. Its cited as proof wisdom literature existed before the Hebrews appeared…but there is no dependence…for example, Greek influence is NOT found in Proverbs…

Clearly your opened eyes only saw what they wanted to see…another way to denigrate scripture regardless of the facts.

Greek influence is not found in the book of Proverbs…therefore you have no point.

As for scripture’s monotheism, God revealed He is One as to Substance, Three as to Persons. This is completely unlike polytheism as there is only One Being that is God, not many. Your confusion on this mirrors your confusion about lots of things…precision in thinking is simply not your forte.

# 114 Dallas said, on October 12th, 2009 at 4:16 am

KILL HER !!!

# 115 tristan said, on October 12th, 2009 at 4:35 am

I’m not religious, but was always impress by how adaptive the Christian was over the ages. This is just another conspiracy by the Christian religion to update their standing based on modern facts in our current understanding of this universe. God, like infinity and time-travel never make sense. Who made God or Dog, he made himself? Kids have their imaginary friends, God(s) are also adult’s imaginary friend(s). God bless “everybody”.

# 116 Don Quixote said, on October 12th, 2009 at 4:35 am

Where is god now? She – He – It was on top of the mountain until someone climbed it. In the sky until some one took a close look. Now it is no longer an existence, just an idea used to control the terminally stupid.

# 117 smartalix said, on October 12th, 2009 at 4:51 am

How many times did Christ quote the old testament? Why should any Christian?

# 118 Alfred1 said, on October 12th, 2009 at 4:52 am

#114 U must be religious…as you must be God to know for certain infinity is impossible…

As for B. Russell’s infinite regression argument, its premise is fallacious, therefore its unsound logically…

To be created one must be finite, and God is infinite.

Philosophically you lose also…as his argument was meant to deny any responsibility to God, as he didn’t know who was His Maker…which is incompetent, as even if the God who made us, was made, He still made us…hence we are responsible to Him, and not the unknown God who made Him.

As for your ditty about imaginary friends…there you do again, claiming omniscience…godhood…billions of people on the world, millions of whom of much greater IQ than you, testify God is real to them…

I say He is more real to me, than you…While I experience Him daily, you are just a name on my screen.

# 119 Wretched Gnu said, on October 12th, 2009 at 5:56 am

qb, bobbo et al. — You’ve actually made this thread informative and entertaining. I thought about applying an Alfred filter ™ to the thread — but, honestly, his sincere effort is both admirable and entertaining.

Onward…

I wonder why it is that religious types are so eager to cite “translation problems” in the bible, or misunderstood “cultural context” — *except* when it comes to their own interpretations?

The text of the bible commands slaves to be happy with their lot and faithful to their masters. — “Translation! Cultural context!”

The book also frowns upon homosexuality — “Hey, it’s in the Bible!”

# 120 jbellies said, on October 12th, 2009 at 5:58 am

Theda Bara separated the men from the boys.

Seriously, though, folks. What happened in the beginning? Can we apply Occam’s Razor? What if there was nothing? No energy and no matter occupying no space. Then a quantum fluctuation in the energy level (still no space, mind you) caused the mess we’ve got now. In that sense, god, heavens and earth are all whatevered at once.

#7 To write that all religions are not based on a literal interpretation of a scripture could get you stoned (and I don’t mean in a good way) in some places.

If the Bible is the immutable word of God that must not be changed, why aren’t fundamentalists required to read it in its original languages? Would that not elevate the level of discourse?

# 121 qb said, on October 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am

Gnu, I find the whole topic fascinating actually. The whole idea of how religions come into being and how they shape culture and politics (and vice versa) is always a good lesson to learn. Look at the US and the Middle East today and you see two societies where religion has taken the upper hand.

One word of warning to my American friends, especially the Christians. Watch out for the guys from the Dallas Theological Seminary, they’ll ruin your faith and your country.

jbellies, I used to read old Greek and Aramaic when I was a Christian. It’s very, very hard work and made my head hurt. I’ve completely lost my chops since I read computer languages now. I think people don’t do it because they’re lazy and it would make them face uncomfortable problems where a static, fundamentalist answer is easier.

# 122 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Another fairly new interesting tack on religion is its DARWINIAN base: why do homo sapiens believe??

Right now, one initial theory is that the “God Gene” has been located and is a cluster of 5-6 genes and it comes down to the human baby looking at and copying what it sees and believing and doing what it is told to do by its parents===pure Darwinian survival instinct. Monkeys have one type of it not as good as humans===DOGS another pack creature excells at certain aspects of it.

Makes me feel all noodlely all over.

# 123 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:04 am

This kind of thing just makes me giggle all over.

Thousands of years, and thousands of Scholars have looked at these texts, and this one thinks they’re all wrong. Thanks for a good laugh…

# 124 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:13 am

Scholar Defined: one who studies and repeats what earlier scholars have determined.

# 125 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:20 am

But is this scholarship? Reading the article it looks like a strawman argument. But its a good attempt to undermine the bible. If you can attack and discredit the first sentance then you could discredit the whole book.

I also like how patronizing she is towards the end of the article.

# 126 qb said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:23 am

#124 Thinker

I agree. She doesn’t really persuade me.

# 127 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:32 am

124–thinker==why don’t you?==think that is??

Any change to the status quo is “undermining” religion. The same idea in science “advances” it.

You sound like the Catholic Church in 16th Century==criticizing the selling of indulgences undermined the authority of the church. Its a corruption to translate the bibble from Latin/French into English. Nevermind the status quo bibble was translated previously from other languages. Hah, hah.

Did you google Ellen van Wolde at all? No?—Just a knee jerk spastic reaction to anything you disagree with??? Actually, you only CONFIRM my definition. What is undermining except disagreeing with prior scholorship? Good boy.

Even just reading this thread you get the idea that this issue is “old news” and that even some sects are BASED ON this reading of the word “bara?”

I thought just the opposite from you when I read the article. She egotistically “corrects” the interpretation of bara but maintains the most central error that there is a god to begin with.

How anyone can study the bibble and note all the errors/bad morality it contains and still use it as one means to validate the notion of god is beyond me, but being presented with the stupidity you represent, I can see how god is perpetuated.

Keep on thinking.

# 128 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:40 am

#125–qb==I’m curious:

1 On what basis do you critique her analysis?
2 On what issue/basis do you remain unpersuaded?
3 What is your position on the meaning of bara.
4 What do you base your position on?

# 129 Jägermeister said, on October 12th, 2009 at 7:44 am

#116 – smartalix – How many times did Christ quote the old testament? Why should any Christian?

More importantly… Why has Jesus’ followers been denied the entire collection of books?

# 130 ECA said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:04 am

Can I suggest something.
That the OT was taken originally from the Jewish faith.
The stories FROM the bible are from the jewish faith.
The problem we have is translations from the OLD original translations. Even the Jewish people debate their OWN religion and interpretation.
The original text has been Carried around for Over 2000 years.
Go find a full 36+ volume concordance of the bible.. THEN discuss this.

After the transcription of the Jewish books on religion, WE the European White man, has EDITED the piss out of this book. There are very few that go back to the Original for understanding. The the KJ version was made to placate the protestant and Catholics in Britain.

# 131 amodedoma said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:06 am

For those of us who live in the perfect universe, god is an irrelevant symbol.

# 132 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:19 am

#110, Sister,

AMEN

I hate insulting assholes with this comparison, by Dr. Dudd has the homosexual self abuse in denial thing monopolized and <pedro has the retard thing all to himself.

Damn, there should be a special category for Alphie. Where is Bubba Ray and his Dip Dork Award?

# 133 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:30 am

#115, Don Quixote

It was on top of the mountain until someone climbed it.

Actually, it was on top of the mountain until Mr. Peabody’s coal train carried away the top of the mountain.

# 134 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am

#126 Bobbo,

Well I seem to have struck a nerve… I’m not commenting on this persons other works. Looking at the story I’m utterly unconvinced.

She reminds me of myself years ago in college before I became a Christian. I also would have said I ‘held God in a special place, and He should be respected’. She may not have evil in her intentions, but I do wonder what her motives were. The Bible has stood the test of time, it is not going anywhere.

If I Google Ellen van Wolde , will I find she was a part of the Jesus Seminar? or part of the Book of J? Must I know all or any of her works to see that in this case, as it is presented she’s barking up the wrong tree??

Perhaps she may be misquoted in the article by some journalistic hack, its possible.

I don’t need to be able to translate the Bible to evaluate it on its merrits, and just because this lady is an Academic doesn’t mean she has anything near a point.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss what the Bible says, or debate interperetations. I am saying that I think her thesis has the merit of stating ‘The moon is made of Green Cheese’ and wishing to be taken seriously.

# 135 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:36 am

#133–Thinker==keep thinking.

# 136 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:46 am

Bobbo,
Funny, I was thinking the same thing…guess this is an article of faith for both of us.

# 137 qb said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:51 am

#127 bobbo

For me her views of separation == bara seemed a little clinical and missed the essence of the word. From what I remember (old neurons firing) bara had it’s roots in Assyrian and/or Babylonian where the word meant more than just the act of separating something out (like a lump of clay from a large pile) but also involves making or shaping (like making a bowl from the clay). It also is sometimes used to mean “give birth” in older languages.

I kind of get where she’s going with the idea of spatial separation, but I think there is more to the word than just that. It’s a good insight, but too narrow and confining. There is a idea of creation or making in there but it doesn’t imply the Christian mean of “creation out of a void”.

That’s just my personal view and probably isn’t “scholarly” enough.

# 138 Colin said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am

It appears (though not surprised, as it is the interwebs) that many here are posting remarks that appear quite misinformed on the subject, those who are curious to learn more should check out a well informed sermon on how we got the Bible.

# 139 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:06 am

#135–Thinker==not an article of faith being demonstrated. Rather I think the root of conservative vs liberal thinking.

Conservative–against change.
Libeal–lets make things better.

It does bara us.

#136-qb==well you emphasize what I took from the article: bara does not mean “creates from nothing” but rather has several different meaning other than that. You are saying the same thing. So, you weren’t persuaded by her analysis because you already had the same position? Being excessively/misleadingly unchristian in your assessment of her work aren’t you?

# 140 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:13 am

Well not against change, just change for change’s sake.

I’m not going to hold on to something just cause its always been that way. That said I have a high bar for change and rarely do it quickly.

# 141 qb said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:16 am

bobbo, maybe I’m being overly critical. You’re right. I’m not concerned about being unchristian. I am concerned about being uncharitable though.

Thank you for the reminder – it’s always appreciated.

# 142 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:24 am

#139–Thinker==that sentiment is a shopworn barrier to what you actually think which was posted at #133. Simply stated: “YOU LIE!” and I think it is in the later post rather than the earlier one. Change yourself over entirely and prove me wrong? ((No one would do that–hah, hah!)) Just recognize for your own benefit who you really are and decide for youself if that is what you want. If you are a normal person, you will see you can always be a better person. Just look at qb and myself!!!!

# 143 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 9:41 am

#141
Nice tagline, I agree…

But not ‘You lie’, or ‘I lie’, we fundamentally disagree. (ok #133 was a bit patronizing, sorry)

But change over to what?? Where is this research of van Wolde going to take us?

# 144 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 12th, 2009 at 10:16 am

#142–Thinker===WELL!!!! That is an excellent question. Depends on who you are in all cases. Would affect different people differently. Me different than you. The guy at Post #133 differently than the guy at Post #139.

I don’t think her article should lead one anywhere. Instead, I would take it at as an invitation to think for yourself. What difference would any of the various different meanings of the word have to you===trace them out. Should it make a difference? If so, why?

I think in the end, questioning what any authority “really” means actually is undermining to that authority===even when that authority morphs into your very self. Always question authority, but be aware of the mob, be aware of your own bias. Or NOT. Its all as you choose.

For myself, as in so many things, a real thinker when asked “What does x mean?” the answer of a non-thinker is “X means Y.” Thinkers will conclude: “X means a,b,c,d,e according to what you think h,i,j,k mean.” Then the wise will say: “but the real question is ???” and thats where the real fun is.

What do YOU think the REAL question is?

# 145 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am

The real question?? The question I really wonder is why she asked the question in the first place…what led her down this path and created this thesis?

Admittedly the article in the Telegraph was far too vague and superficial (an inadequate forumn to contain such a topic.) One of the captions said God created the animals and such after the earth was here. Well a Creationist would tell you thats what Genesis says in the text.

But I would be interested to read her paper, at least the abstract, to see what she has to say. The real question is why is she asking this and after this quesiton whats then next one? Whats the question behind her question? Where is she trying to take us/herself?

Yes, this is just the thing that grabs headlines, but looking past that my first question is, ‘Whats going on here?’, and I’m also wondering why she is traveling that way as well.

Just a few questions that come to mind… If anyone does see the paper i’d love to see the link.

# 146 bobbo, no omphaloskepsis here said, on October 12th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

#144–Thinker==so even with heavy handed prodding on my part, you will continue to place the “real” questions outside of yourself?

To each his own.

# 147 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

umm not sure of your meaning. If God is relavent, then He is relavent to me, or you in a personal walk along on the sidewalk and talk sense. (as well as being Holy, and Mighty and all that.)

If not, then the Bible doesn’t mean much more than a Cisco Router Admin Manual. So yes from the perspective of omphaloskepsis I do look at it from a personal sense. When Christ died on the Cross He had to die for me, for my sins, not in a catholic sense, but as real as my credit card debt.

I’m looking at it from me. Isn’t that where our journey stops at the end of the day, with ourselves? What is the ramifications of van Wolde’s argument and how does it apply to my relationship with God?

Do you see where I’m coming from/what I’m saying? I love getting into theology and looking at the how, what, why, etc. Then there’s the aspect of how it relates to us on a personal level as well.

# 148 SIDs said, on October 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

The actual translation goes something like:

And in the beginning there was nothing. Then the Lord’s cat coughed up a nasty hairball and the Lord named it Jupiter.

Then the Lord said “Let there be light” and holy shit, you could see for fucking miles without a flashlight !!!

Then the Lord said “Let there be rain”. And Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, it pissed like hell all fucking weekend.

Then the Lord said unto Moses, “Come forth”. And fucking Moses, being the fucking little jew boy he is, came second. Blew the trifecta. Wow. God had a bundle laid down on that one. Talked about being pissed. Made the fucking jew boy wander around the desert for a few years to teach him a lesson.

And things started downhill from there.

# 149 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on October 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

#146–Thinker==yes, that all guilt/redemption by Munchhausen is an interesting perversion.

Somehow, “we” are punished/condemned/must suffer for the sins of other people, Adam and Eve, BUT THEN we are saved/forgiven/offered salvation by the action of another other person, Jesus Christ.

Being internal as I am==I accept no responsibility for what others do, be it pro or con. Just gripe No 9478 I have with christian dogma. It doesn’t sound true, doesn’t feel true, and if it is true===I’m against it. Hence, I’m “anti.” I don’t see much “knowledge” in such a swirl of logical/moral inconsistency/wrongheadedness. I advise all others to join me on their “personal” journey to meaning.

# 150 Wretched Gnu said, on October 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Again, I think people who like to trace the literary and cultural origins of the bible would really like *The Evolution of God*.

One of the cool questions it answers is why the bible weirdly says that God, in his creation, has to “subdue” the sea. Why would the creator of the sea have to fight it?

It turns out it’s because the monotheists who would later “clean up” the bible didn’t bother to remove this reference to an earlier polytheistic story. Most Christians don’t know that Yaweh had a history before monotheism took hold, and the “subdue the sea” passage is left over from that. I forget which god it was that was associated with the sea (was it Baal?), but the passage was clearly put in there to affirm Yaweh’s victory over him.

# 151 ECA said, on October 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

“on earth as it is in Heaven..”..

Ok yu religious nuts, when are ya going to do it??
MAKE this world as good as heaven?
Iv been trying my best, but I havent seen any of you HELPING. And Im not religious.

# 152 Thinker said, on October 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

#149 Bobbo,

I know what you mean about the sins of others. Although its doctrinal about the sins of Adam, I really only relate to my own sins, I’m very familiar with them.

# 153 Alfred1 said, on October 13th, 2009 at 4:20 am

Lefty philosophy has cursed mankind, and still does, with death, destruction and poverty…Hitler, Stalin, Marx…have killed uncounted millions…

And today, rather than tax cuts and less regulation to create jobs…lefty plans to put more small business under with health care, cap & tax, abound.

And the loons pushing such darkness, abound here, blaspheming God (who is the source of all good)…

How typical…bite the hand that feeds…

Analogous to taxing and regulating the rich out of existence, and then wondering why they don’t hire, as unemployment skyrockets!

# 154 Alfred1 said, on October 13th, 2009 at 4:37 am

#150 Your wretched thesis is contradicted by you citing “subdue the sea”…where was the “cleaning” as this phrase exists in scripture?

It must be hard lugging around such a big brain large enough to hold so much ignorance.

Poetic license was taken to extol God

Verses [Psalm 77]16–18 depict the Lord coming in the storm to battle his enemies and subdue the sea. There is no record of such a storm in the historical account of the Red Sea crossing. The language the psalmist uses here is stereotypical and originates in Canaanite myth, where the storm god Baal subdues the sea in his quest for kingship. The psalmist has employed the stereotypical imagery to portray the exodus vividly and at the same time affirm that it is not Baal who subdues the sea, but Yahweh.-Footnote, NET Bible.

# 155 Wretched Gnu said, on October 13th, 2009 at 6:02 am

Alfred — Your NET Bible commentary proves the point I made quite nicely. Thanks!

# 156 Alfred1 said, on October 13th, 2009 at 6:18 am

#155 I suspected you would continue to misinterpret this…its poetic license…designed to denigrate Baal, and extol YHWH…it does not show dependence, or ancestry at all…

An analogy would be the Catholic church’s appropriation of old pagan feasts, and changing them into Christian holidays…for the purpose of destroying the old pagan belief.

Christmas falls into that category…Christ and the teachings about him do not originate in the Roman beliefs about Saturnalia…making Dec 25 his “birthday” was meant to destroy the old Roman belief in such paganism…replacing it with Christianity.

So NO DEPENDENCE is proved by this poetic license…contrary to your premise.

As for the alleged “cleansing of the Bible,” that did not happen, and the fact it didn’t happen, are the very texts you critics cite…to spin additional blasphemies against God’s Word.

# 157 Alfred1 said, on October 13th, 2009 at 6:21 am

That is, the very texts you cite showing “pagan ancestry of Bible teachings” proves the alleged “cleansing” of such texts, never happened.

# 158 Alfred1 said, on October 13th, 2009 at 6:23 am

And neither do these texts prove your thesis of “pagan ancestry”—you are misinterpreting this data also.

# 159 Wretched Gnu said, on October 13th, 2009 at 6:40 am

Keep posting, Alfred, you’ll convince yourself eventually.

# 160 qb said, on October 13th, 2009 at 7:09 am

It depends on what you mean by the cleansing of the Septuagint (and others books). More than likely, the somewhat current version of the Septuagint was translated by Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria in the 3rd century by dozens of scholars.

After this it flowed to the Christian church through the Jews of the Dispersion. Pre 3rd Century, it’s a fragmented mess which is why scholars (faithful or not) study similar texts and languages from earlier times looking for origins. All these stories were oral history for a long time and were written down at various times in various places.

# 161 bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes dogma said, on October 13th, 2009 at 9:26 am

#160–qb==if you make it back here and care to answer: in your opinion, is the bible/god then really a carry on development of an earlier mythos that had THE VERY SAME GOD contesting with other gods in an already formed universe?

Seems what little comparative religion and history of religion I have dabbled in started after this issue got entangled in the modern/hebrew? bible.

Fascinating if the Holy Trinity and subduing the oceans and what not is FAIRLY SPEAKING revealing of that apotheosis?

# 162 Thomas said, on October 13th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

#156
Frankly, no one can say with certainty whether the Church deliberately set the date for Christmas. There is insufficient evidence to implicate or exonerate. Most of the customs of the festival definitely derive from non-Catholic sources and what information we do have about his birth, presuming it is accurate would argue against a winter birth but that is not enough to argue a deliberate decision whereby the Church leaders knew his birth to be on a different day but chose December 25th. There is some evidence to suggest that the date was picked to coincide with the Natalis Invicti (solar feast) which would make Mithraism the source of the date but again, there isn’t enough to say for certain.

# 163 segaar said, on October 14th, 2009 at 5:35 am

Alfred rocks!

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!