Genesis Creation Story easily understood?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, isn't it interesting that a thread on Genesis would be posted in Abrahamic Religions > Christianity?

 

[Quahom1]

Parenthetically, isn't it interesting that a thread on Genesis would be posted in Abrahamic Religions > Christianity?

Not at all considering the complete title is "Judeo-Christian", and our "God/Savior/Redeemer" is also a Jew.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not at all considering the complete title is "Judeo-Christian", ...

Rubbish - the complete name is:

Interfaith forums > Religion, Faith. and Theology > Abrahamic Religions > Christianity​

As opposed to:

Interfaith forums > Religion, Faith. and Theology > Abrahamic Religions > Judaism​

The OP is where it is either as a result of (unintended) thoughtlessness or dismissiveness or both.

... and our "God/Savior/Redeemer" is also a Jew.

We can discuss historicity and 'Yeshua' elsewhere if you wish ...

 

[Quahom1]

Rubbish - the complete name is:

Interfaith forums > Religion, Faith. and Theology > Abrahamic Religions > Christianity
​

As opposed to:

Interfaith forums > Religion, Faith. and Theology > Abrahamic Religions > Judaism
​

The OP is where it is either as a result of (unintended) thoughtlessness or dismissiveness or both.

We can discuss historicity and 'Yeshua' elsewhere if you wish ...

No, the complete title to a Christian is "Judeo-Christian". So of course we would discuss the first books of the Bible here. But then, I think you already knew that and are just teasing...

And I'd be happy to discuss Jesus with you or anyone else, at your convenience...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, the complete title to a Christian is "Judeo-Christian". So of course we would discuss the first books of the Bible here. But then, I think you already knew that and are just teasing...

Actually, I 'knew' that there is a long and ugly history of Christian denunciation and denigration of everything Jewish (including the infamous 'Judaizers') that left in its wake untold horrors. Play word-games with someone else ...

 

[Quahom1]

Actually, I 'knew' that there is a long and ugly history of Christian denunciation and denigration of everything Jewish (including the infamous 'Judaizers') that left in its wake untold horrors. Play word-games with someone else ...

Were I one of those that partook in such behavior, then you would have every right to be indignant...but I am not such, and do not play word games with anyone.

Nor do I wish to knock chips off others' shoulders...it's a waste of energy and time.

It is also damaging according to Lashon Hara, and Rechilut.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Were I one of those that partook in such behavior, then you would have every right to be indignant...but I am not such, and do not play word games with anyone.

I'm more than willing to grant the first assertion. The second is clearly nonsense. But, as the resident expert on the etymology of Christian and Judeo-Christian, perhaps you could show the equivalence in - let us say - the works of the ante-Nicene founders.

And it remains interesting that a discussion on Genesis should be located here rather than in the parent or parallel forum. I personally would have opted for the former alternative ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is, by the way, an interesting difference between typical Torah and OT translations. As I noted elsewhere ...

Let's begin with with an earlier rendition offered by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS):

• 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.
  1:2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the water.
  1:3 And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

So far so good - especially when you realize that virtually every translation follows suit ... well, almost every translation.

It turns out that the highly respected Stone Edition Tanach renders Genesis 1:1 as ...

• 1:1 In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth

and treats verse two as a parenthetical.

Similarly, we read in Etz Hayim ...

• 1:1 When God began to create heaven and earth
  1:2 -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --
  1:3 God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The commentary notes:

1. When God began to create The conventional English translation reads: "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." The translation presented here looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence and takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from the second half of 2:4 and of 5:1, both of which refer to Creation and begin with the word "when". [ibid]

To further clarify the implication of this translation, the commentary turns to verse 2:

2. unformed and void The Hebrew for this phrase (tohu va-vohu) means "desert waste." The point of the narrative is the idea of order that results from divine intent. There is no suggestion here that God made the world out of nothing, which is a much later conception. [ibid]

Both Alter's The Five Books of Moses and Friedman's Commentary on the Torah fully concur with this rendition.

And there's more. The well respected Jewish sage Rashi writes ...

But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: “At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness…and God said, ‘Let there be light.’” But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, ... [source]

Finally, while the JPS (1917) uses the 'older' form, the New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text renders the opening line of Genesis as ...

• When God began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and wind from God sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

There is, therefore, an impressive body of highly authoritative translation that sees Genesis 1:1 as the creation of order our of chaos, and not creation ex nihilo. It was no doubt from this perspective that the author of The Rise of Yawism notes:

• It is important to note that many of Ilu's acts of creation take place in historical time. The inhabited world is already there and so we must conclude that the people of Ugarit believed in a kind of creatio continua, like the Egyptians and the Israelites.

Creation ex nihilo looks very much like a later re-interpretation of the Torah.

 

[Saltmeister]

Parenthetically, isn't it interesting that a thread on Genesis would be posted in Abrahamic Religions > Christianity?

It's asking for the Christian perspective.....

We can discuss historicity and 'Yeshua' elsewhere if you wish ...

Maybe in the Abrahamic forum. Bananabrain generally doesn't like it when we take Jesus into the Judaism forum. If we do, we must present it as a Jewish matter rather than a Christian one. Actually, he prefers it that we discuss it here. That's his policy. Being offended in one's own house is less dignifying as being offended in someone else's house. Every house has its own rules. Trying to change the rules is offensive to the owner of the house.

As for the Genesis story, that can go pretty much anywhere......

Not at all considering the complete title is "Judeo-Christian", and our "God/Savior/Redeemer" is also a Jew.

No, the complete title to a Christian is "Judeo-Christian". So of course we would discuss the first books of the Bible here. But then, I think you already knew that and are just teasing...

If it's Judeo-Christian then what makes it "Jewish" or "Judaic?" I think a title is invalid if one of the two signatories to it doesn't accept or agree with it.

If the complete title must have a second signatory, I think a better candidate might be "Hellenism." Hellenism had its strongest influence on Jews in the first century, which was when Christianity first emerged. The brief interaction between Judaism and Hellenism meant that Hellenistic influences crept into the writing of the New Testament.

Therefore, I think a more fitting title for a Christian today might be "Hellenisto-Christian."

Actually, I 'knew' that there is a long and ugly history of Christian denunciation and denigration of everything Jewish (including the infamous 'Judaizers') that left in its wake untold horrors. Play word-games with someone else ...

Opposition to anything Jewish is difficult to miss, but I think the more important question is "why." Why did this happen?

Two thousand years separate us from Jesus, his disciples and the apostles.

I have little doubt that the people who trashed Judaism really believed in what they were doing, but I am convinced they were misguided, "naive" and "ignorant." I also think the "anti-Jewish" attitudes of later times were different (and maybe even incompatible) due to the differences in the politics that inspired "anti-Jewish" attitudes.

I don't consider "Judaizers" bad for Christianity in this century. Actually, I think they would do it a lot of good. That's because "Judaizers" in this century are likely to be of a different nature to the ones in the first century. There are different kinds of "Judaizers," some good, some bad. Many of the "Judaizers" in the first century would have been followers of Beit Shammai which dominated Judaism back then. Being anti-Jewish back then was equivalent to being anti-Shammaite.

I think Hellenisers have done more harm to Christianity than Judaizers. It was Hellenisers that distorted the meaning of Christianity. Hellenism has a big legacy in Christianity and most Christians today follow the "Hellenistic" variation of Christianity as opposed to the "Judaic" one. For most Christians, Hellenistic Christianity is the only Christianity they know. There is no other Christianity.

I used to be a Hellenistic Christian. Not anymore. I no longer believe in Hellenism. I wouldn't condemn Judaizers. Actually, I would welcome them -- as long as they follow Beit Hillel and not Beit Shammai.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Interesting post. Thank you.

Just a couple of quick points ...

• Therefore, I think a more fitting title for a Christian today might be "Hellenisto-Christian." ...
  I think Hellenisers have done more harm to Christianity than Judaizers.

  The Hellenisers did quite a job on Judaism as well, one of the outcomes being Christianity.

• Actually, I would welcome them -- as long as they follow Beit Hillel and not Beit Shammai.

  Shammai is an acquired taste. In my opinion he's more than a bit underrated.

 

[Quahom1]

I'm more than willing to grant the first assertion. The second is clearly nonsense. But, as the resident expert on the etymology of Christian and Judeo-Christian, perhaps you could show the equivalence in - let us say - the works of the ante-Nicene founders.

And it remains interesting that a discussion on Genesis should be located here rather than in the parent or parallel forum. I personally would have opted for the former alternative ...

No Jay, none of it is nonsense. And I would be happy to discuss the history and actions of those opposed to the Nicene Counsil. And as for placing such a discussion in the Judaism Forum, there is no reason one could not, should they chose.

v/r

Q

 

[Amergin]

On the 1st day God created heaven(space?) and the Earth. Then on day 2 he divided the Waters. On day 3 god created plants. Plants grow out of the earth using water up the stems of plants that produce air, and grow toward the Fire of the sun of day 4. sorry for the big sentence

Wait! If God created everything, he did it on the first day 14 billion years ago in the Big Bang. On the first day, God created energy in the form of subatomic particles expanding at faster than light speeds for millions of years. On the second day, he lowered the temperature so particles could fuse and form the first atoms. Atoms accreted to form stars which by nuclear fusion made the heavier elements Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Iron, etc.

On the third day, God used dark matter to pull the billions of stars into groups called galaxies. Dark Energy then caused an increasing expansion of the billions of groups of galaxies. On the nine billionth year of this third day, God's physical laws pulled together dust clouds swirling in disks to create third generation stars. This allowed residual dust in the revolving disk cloud to accrete into satellites of the Sun called Planets. Dense rocky planets formed the inner four closer to the Sun, two gas giants beyond the asteroid belt, and two Ice planets furthest out. Wow, what a long day.

On the fourth day, God's laws of planetary motion counting mass, velocity, balanced to the Sun's gravity allowed 2 planets to be too close to our star, one planet 93 million miles away in the Goldilocks Zone, one (Mars) on the edge of Goldilocks zone, and Gas and Ice Giants progressively farther out.

On the fifth day, God's laws caused the third planet to be very hot and molten with no life yet. The Laws allowed the surface to cool and oxidized hydrogen (Water) was able to fall on the surface making oceans. Lighter rock from the mantle rose to the surface forming the first continents. Mantle currents caused the crust to break into large plates that moved over the flowing magna mantle causing continental drift. No life had formed yet.

On the sixth day, God's laws allowed atoms to form molecules, which in turn formed larger and larger molecules that are more complex. It is likely that at hot thermal steam vents at tectonic plate boundaries provided energy for some molecules to produce cell walls of lipoprotein and then collagen glue to allow multicellular life to form at the vents. The Atmosphere was a toxic mix of Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, with Nitrogen. Life in the ocean could not survive on land. Late in that day, God allowed a unique bacterium forming stromatolites that release an exhaust gas called Oxygen. The Orange sky gradually turned blue as Oxygen approached 10-29 degrees.

On the seventh day, God's Laws of biochemistry allowed some bacteria to grow on the otherwise lifeless continents. Ocean plants living in shallow water near the shore were occasionally exposed to drying with the tides. Some of them adjusted to dryness so well that they move up the shoreline where they evolved into thousands of other plants to live on land. With edible plants on land, God's laws of Chemistry-biology allowed animals to start to colonize the land with rich Oxygen in the atmosphere. Arthropods, worms, fish with ability to live on land whose future would include frogs, salamanders, lizards, turtles, mammals, dinosaurs, birds, and advanced mammals the primates (us.) That was a long friggin day.

On the eighth day, God rested. He was remembered in many different forms (Zeus, Brahma, JHWY, Allah, Dagda, Aed Alainn, and Quetzalcoatl) by humans but not as a named being but a collection of macro-forces and nano-forces better understood by Quantum Physicists. God is not a man, not a conscious being, not an emotional being, not resembling a human warlord. God is just our name for the Physical Laws producing our Universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our biologically compatible planet, and all animal and plant species including us.

Amergin

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., as the resident expert on the etymology of Christian and Judeo-Christian, perhaps you could show the equivalence in - let us say - the works of the ante-Nicene founders.

... I would be happy to discuss the history and actions of those opposed to the Nicene Counsil.

Oh, my ...

<mild embarrassment>

The ante-Nicene founders were those active prior to the First Council of Nicaea, not folks "opposed to the Nicene Counsil" [sic!].​

</mild embarrassment>​

And, while I truly appreciate your gracious willingness to discuss church history, it's becoming a bit difficult to consider you an overly credible source.

 

[bananabrain]

<moderator>look, enough of the cheap shots, we all get fat fingers sometimes. quahom has been contributing to this site for seven years and you've been here a month. i don't think you're in any position to leap to informed conclusions about his views, let alone judge him. this is a dialogue site, which means that we presume that people are engaging in good faith. i've already had to pull you up for unnecessary rudeness elsewhere - i don't want to see a trend developing here.</moderator>

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Quahom1]

Oh, my ...

<mild embarrassment>

The ante-Nicene founders were those active prior to the First Council of Nicaea, not folks "opposed to the Nicene Counsil" [sic!].
​

</mild embarrassment>
​

And, while I truly appreciate your gracious willingness to discuss church history, it's becoming a bit difficult to consider you an overly credible source.

Not embarrassed at all Jay. I thought you meant "Anti", and was willing to discuss issues about those that were opposed to the Nicene counsil, as there were quite a few...

As far as my "credibility" concerning the history of the Catholic church...well opinions vary on the matter.

You could ask Thomas, for one...