Do we all pray to the same God?

[Thomas]

It's pretty plain in the black and white...

Ah, if only the Bible was so!

It's things like this on IO that come up, things I'd never heard of, that send me looking to the texts and the commentaries.

In short, the 'eighth day creation' has found favour in certain quarters, and sometimes with significant racist overtones! The idea being that God created man on the sixth day, but the white man on the eighth. This then solves the problem of who Adam's sons took as wives, etc. and stems from a too-literal reading of the text.

I can't find any credible scholarship that follows the eighth day idea, although the notion first appears as far back as Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD). Then again, Philo is never given credence in Torah commentaries, although he is referenced by some of the early Christian sources.

The scholarly consensus follows the Documentary Theory of difference, that of a number of oral traditions fed into a document that was compiled at a later date. The 4-source JEPD theory (Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly) held sway until the close of the last century, but more recent scholarship has favoured alternative explanations. Deuteronomist scribe(s) still hold as the significant compiler(s) of the text, but the E and P sources have become increasingly fragile.

 

[juantoo3]

I can concede that the KJV English is a translation, but the context remains quite clear in the Interlinear (direct translation from the Hebrew).

I'm sorry, but this is an instance of inventing a mystery where the text is quite clear. Not sure what the "Fathers" have to say about it, but in this case I would say either they are politically motivated or simply got this one incorrect.

As for how the information has been used, that is irrelevant. Information can be abused by anyone. I would suggest whomever was behind those comments has an agenda of their own. I have never personally used this passage in any such manner as suggested, whereas by contrast I have frequently encountered the claim that the races stemmed from Noah's sons...rather convenient, but not textually accurate...and every bit as inflammatory regarding discriminatory practices.

I will retain my understanding on the matter, I have considered it for a very long time. The end result is a loving G-d who created all humans (nay, all creatures) to be cherished, and goes far to agree with what we have already discovered about our own human ancestry...that there were people here before Adam and Eve.

I can go on that the word used in the Hebrew "ha-Adam" (the man Adam) referred to a specific individual who happened to be ruddy complected (sp?), meaning he was able to "blush." The Hebrew Bible, and by extension the Christian Bible, is the story of this man's family. That he happened to be ruddy complected is incidental to the story, not the overriding gist.

A great deal revolves around how much effort one wishes to read into the Bible in order to make it fit one's preferred view of the world. We both already know my preferred view of the word "truth."

Even returning to the Hebrew...the "Adam" of the sixth day is not the same "ha-Adam" of the eighth day...very clearly. So, does one read the text for themselves to grasp what it actually says, or focus on the commentators? I'll read it for myself, and where the commentators agree with the text, great! Where they don't, I will question.

By the way, since we're on the subject, I seem to recall a quaint little story about a piece of the "apple" getting stuck in Adam's throat, and that is why men now have an Adam's Apple. I was taught that was Biblical by a very well meaning and no doubt devout person when I was very young. After reading the Bible through, I never found that part of the story. Can you point me to it? It is certainly possible I missed it...

 

[Thomas]

I can concede that the KJV English is a translation, but the context remains quite clear in the Interlinear (direct translation from the Hebrew).

As an aside, I've never understood why some hold the KJV as if it were a Revealed Translation, as it were ... it's just a translation, that happens to be the best that could be achieved at the time, according to the king and his translators ... but ...

The problem here is that the same word is used in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 — God made man. Are we to assume God made man twice?

The second is that Genesis 2:8-9 puts the creation of man before the creation of trees, so that would place the making of man from the slime of the ground as work of the third day, along with all flora...

I'm sorry, but this is an instance of inventing a mystery where the text is quite clear.

I rather think you're creating more problems than you're solving.

I would suggest whomever was behind those comments has an agenda of their own.

Ha! Speak to Wil! according to him, everyone has an agenda!

A great deal revolves around how much effort one wishes to read into the Bible in order to make it fit one's preferred view of the world. We both already know my preferred view of the word "truth."

Even returning to the Hebrew...the "Adam" of the sixth day is not the same "ha-Adam" of the eighth day...very clearly.

Quite. Genesis 1 covers the creation in principle (Hb: beresit, Lt: In principio Gk: en arche) It's a metaphysical commentary.

Genesis 2 follows a different track and puts meat on the bones of Genesis 1. It describes geography, names rivers, etc. So whereas G1 deals with the creation of man as such, G2 speaks specifically. Not man, but Adam. I would say G1 is metaphysics, G2 gender, G3 morality.

By the way, since we're on the subject, I seem to recall a quaint little story about a piece of the "apple" getting stuck in Adam's throat, and that is why men now have an Adam's Apple. I was taught that was Biblical by a very well meaning and no doubt devout person when I was very young. After reading the Bible through, I never found that part of the story. Can you point me to it? It is certainly possible I missed it...

Nope. Bible says 'fruit'.

 

[wil]

These are just some of my ideas/opinions only.

We assume that, unless you provide citations or quotes...or at least we should.

As an aside, I've never understood why some hold the KJV as if it were a Revealed Translation, as it were ... it's just a translation

lol, when folks tell me it is the ONLY version...I say no, in reality that is King JAME'S version.

Ha! Speak to Wil! according to him, everyone has an agenda!

Why would they be writing if they didn't?

 

[Craz]

i think not. the only thing religions have in common is rejection of death. but perception and relationship with the "unknown" - the most important features - change very much among cultures.

for example, the abrahamic god will never be comparable to the tao

How about
And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'

compared with

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things


My early education was in an orthodox Jewish school and when I first heard the I will be what I will be/I am what I am I took it that God was so beyond understanding that it cannot be named.
Some 20 years later when I first came across the Tao Te Ching, I immediately thought of Moses's conversation with God.
So, for me they were talking about the same God.

 

[juantoo3]

As an aside, I've never understood why some hold the KJV as if it were a Revealed Translation, as it were ... it's just a translation, that happens to be the best that could be achieved at the time, according to the king and his translators ... but ...

KJV was a very thoughtful version, put together by the best English linguistic scholars of the day. But you are quite right, it is a translation. Besides my "teddy bear" that has been back and forth across the country with me for over 35 years, a dog eared and well worn copy of the Gideons with all my study notes, I also have a reproduction of the 1611 KJV which also contains the Intertestamental Apocrypha such as Bel and the Dragon and 1st and 2nd Maccabees. The 1611 also contains two open letters from the scholars, one to the king and one to the people, in which they explain that they did the best they could but that it was a translation.

Certain key words jump out to a linguist, even an amateur such as myself. "Bishopric," for example, is not to be found in the original "Textus Receptus."

The problem here is that the same word is used in Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 — God made man. Are we to assume God made man twice?

To the first part, yes and no...and I already explained. A-dam...man...is used for the 6th day creation. ha-A-dam is used for the 8th day creation, the specific man "Adam." So to the second part, unequivocally...YES!

Let's see if I can illustrate. G-d made cats on the 6th day, but G-d made the cat on the 8th day. Same word "cat" ("man" can be used both singular and plural). Perhaps a better illustration, since "fish" is both singular and plural: G-d made fish on the 6th day, on the 8th day G-d made the fish.

The second is that Genesis 2:8-9 puts the creation of man before the creation of trees, so that would place the making of man from the slime of the ground as work of the third day, along with all flora...

And if you follow the timeline exclusively, the earth is formed before the sun and moon and stars.

No one with a lick of sense believes it to be a precise timeline, and most certainly not 6-7-8 consecutive 24 hour days. I don't know it well enough to speak in depth, but my understanding is that the Jewish teaching (it *is* their book afterall) is that the word translated in English as "day" means "time."

Nope. Bible says 'fruit'.

Of KNOWLEDGE, in that the mind was opened to thought. Hmmm, I see a theme developing...

 

[juantoo3]

Then one can argue that if they not following the Jewish God's commandments which "he" told them to do then this means they are either disobeying him or not worshipping him at all.

OK...which Jewish commandments?

The Christians tend to stop at the ten...the Jews have well over 600 Commandments, all of which G-d told them! So I guess by your reckoning Christians are disobeying G-d or not worshipping Him at all.

Sorry to seem challenging, but this is a point of contention for me. Christians seem to struggle to keep only ten commandments, if they try at all, then lord themselves over the Jews as if they are really something. The Jews not only provided the original ten commandments, but more than 600 other commandments besides...which Christians casually dismiss...even though G-d gave them as well.

I could dig into the reasons why, but the skinny is that by the time of Bar Kochba the rift between the Christians and Jews was beginning to widen, and by the time of the Council of Nicea anti-Semitism was made public policy in the Christian faith. It was at Nicea that Sunday Sabbath was institutionalized as opposed to the Jewish Shabbat, the pagan holiday of Easter was adopted in lieu of the Passover, and baptismal washing (dunking) was dismissed in favor of "sprinkling." Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, sometimes considered the 13th Apostle, was a known and recorded anti-Semite...which seems paradoxical because he was sympathetic to the Christians, and on his deathbed was baptized into the Arian branch of Christianity. Prior to Nicea Christians maintained the Jewish Holy Days and ritual practices with the exception of animal sacrifice, although the farther they got away from the Temple period and under stress of a number of persecutions (they weren't the only, by the way), and as they commingled more and more with the surrounding pagans and foreign practices infiltrated their practice and philosophies, by the time of Nicea there was sufficient sympathy to warrant wholesale change, and Emperor Constantine was willing to provide political backing if the Council would finalize a single plan everyone could get behind. A noble experiment, but getting Christians to agree on praxis is a lot like herding cats. In theory the Council closed with one voice, yet in very short time there were four significant *different* factions: the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Egyptian Coptic, and the Arians.

 

[juantoo3]

Then one can argue that if they not following the Jewish God's commandments which "he" told them to do then this means they are either disobeying him or not worshipping him at all.

Continued...

Thomas will be quick to say Arius was excommunicated (but most Catholics typically leave out that Constantine, their prime benefactor, was baptized as an Arian Christian, that Eusebius - Constantine's biographer - was an Arian priest, and that Arius was on his way to have his excommunication rescinded when he died). The Arian branch continued for over another hundred years before it was finally put down by political force of arms, right about the time Rome fell and what was left of the Empire fled to Constantinople...what we today call the Byzantine Empire...which in point of fact was the continuation of the Roman Empire for another thousand years before finally falling to the Turkish onslaught...in no small part because of the treachery of the Roman church (4th Crusade and sack of Constantinople).

This is historical, warts and all. The Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches are still with us, still as old as the Catholic church, and while the primary talking points are the same, the details of practice between each are significantly different enough to pit each against the others for almost 1700 years now.

In that regard, Christianity is no different than the other old religions. There is no pure religion, they all have baggage at this point.

 

[RJM]

Perhaps God created the world and Adam and Eve to enjoy a spiritual Eden, and through the Fall (down into the material dimension) they received 'coats of skin' and became material/animal beings of flesh with the original sin of having to take life in order to sustain their own. Perhaps it's a parable, not meant to be interpreted literally and physically?

 

[RJM]

Christ said Love God first, and Love your neighbour as yourself. He didn't command circumcision, etc. He ate with tax collectors etc, and he condemned the religious 'professionals' of the day, as whitened sepulchres and hypocrites ...

 

[juantoo3]

He didn't command circumcision, etc. ...

Interesting, yet all the evidence would suggest He was circumcised, setting an example... You do realize He was an observant Jew, meaning all 617 commandments, right? "I have not come to do away with one jot or one tittle..."

Perhaps it's a parable, not meant to be interpreted literally and physically?

Yet I watch people interpret literally on a routine basis. For clarification, I am not one of them.

 

[Thomas]

Hi —

I suppose my principle objection is the assumption that G2 follows chronologically from G1. It doesn't. The two are concurrent, two stories, indeed two source traditions, treating different questions.

The thesis that Ha-adam — the man — is a distinct creation from man as such is ill-supported, especially when the text later speaks of man (and women) using ish (ishah). The same argument has been used to infer that the God of G2 — JHWH — is other than and lesser than the God of G1 — Elohim.

Lastly, tying this to an explanation of agriculture seems to me like an overtly scientific reading of the text. I would say it ranks alongside the 'gap' theory, or creationism, where a chronology is read onto the text to make it fit contemporary data?

+++

Biblical text-critical studies have long highlighted the disparities between G1 and G2. Without rehearsing the history of the Document Thesis, there are some comments worth considering:

G1:1 through to G2:3 is a poetic text. It is metered, and was probably a hymnic chant. The G1 text is Hebrew 'high style' and employs devices common to Hebrew poetry. NIV translations use hanging indentation to mark the text's poetic structure. Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said... " and ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning... day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in G1:31.

G2:4-3:23 marks a complete shift of genre/style, so much so that critics propose a different source. It's prose, not poetry. G1 is grandiose, a transcendent overview, whereas G2 becomes immanent and familiar. There are no days. but there are geographical locations. We have moved away from the disembodied Spirit of God hovers over the waters to a garden in a more accessible fable tradition.

In the creation of man, the first account an abstract and transcendental deity speaks humanity into existence, in the second we have a God who works in the dirt and sculpts a single male human from the earth. In the first the focus is on God, in the second on man.

And the deity has long been highlighted, in G1 it is the impersonal and transcendent Elohim, in G2 it is personal and immanent JHWH.

G1 is metaphysics. G2 is anthropology ... even the Divine shows anthropomorphic tendencies.

What follows is a list of differences between G1 and G2:
Days v no temporal measure.
Cosmic v local.
Animals before man v man before animals.
Animals are part of a cosmic design v animals created for a limited purpose
Man is to rule the world v man is to tend the garden
Woman is a simultaneous creation v woman is subsequent according to the needs of man
No names v all creatures are given names.
Only the deity speaks v everyone speaks, including the serpent.

And scholarship believes G2 is the much older material. G1 is subsequent to it.

+++

The Jews shared a common Mesopotamian mythology, there are traces of Mesopotamian myths throughout G1 and G2 and on. What marks the accounts is the approach to the problem. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods visit a flood on man because he annoys them. When the hero survives the cataclysm and erects and altar and offers sacrifice, the starving gods fall on and devour his offering. When Noah erects his altar, God forms a covenant with man.
The Hebrew retelling is later and more sophisticated in its theology ... but it is still a Mesopotamian myth. G1 moreover has much in common with earlier and contemporary mythologies.

What the scribe seeks more than anything else is to affirm a unique Israelite monotheism.

G2 is necessary to introduce the Fall in G3. Without it, a cosmic calamity makes no sense, and without Eve/Adam's disobedience, the idea of the appearance of evil as a force contrary to the Divine good would inescapably point towards some order of dualism, if not polytheism.

 

[juantoo3]

I suppose my principle objection is the assumption that G2 follows chronologically from G1. It doesn't. The two are concurrent, two stories, indeed two source traditions, treating different questions.

6th day, 8th day...seems chronological to me. Unless you have a differing definition of "chronological?"

Lastly, tying this to an explanation of agriculture seems to me like an overtly scientific reading of the text.

I don't think so, certainly not by me. The Bible isn't a science text, it is a morality play. There are historic elements, or at least hints and allegations, that are reasonable to associate with known history. You make the valid connection to the Epic of Gilgamesh, so what was going on among that community at that time? They were recently city dwellers, in some of the earliest walled cities ("recent" being a relative term, but probably not much more than a thousand years, and arguably less), and having only recently become agricultural and animal husbandmen (again relative, but likely not much over a few thousand years prior still). The archeology is vague precisely because the written record is so scanty, with the Epic of Gilgamesh being some of if not the first written language artifacts...which itself should tell us something about agriculture and the technological explosion that followed. It isn't difficult to connect the dots from there: war as an art, astronomy/astrology, numbers and mathematics (sexigesimal), the wheel, and we already know walled cities (for protection from warlords) and writing. All of this, beginning with agriculture, over the span of a few thousand years. This is quite remarkable in itself, considering the previous hundred thousand years, and having just come out of the depths of an ice age perhaps 5 thousand years before.

So I fail to fully grasp the "overtly scientific reading of the text" comment, the germ of the Genesis story was written or at least formulated out of one of the earliest agronomic communities, so my comment is an historic association...not a scientific one in the sense I feel is implied. The Genesis story beginning with the 8th day creation is an allegory of the beginning of agriculture because that's where people were at when it was written, both physically and mentally.

I don't challenge your textual critique, it is likely valid, or certainly seems so to me. My contention the Genesis story is allegory about the agricultural revolution is predicated on the time and place the source material was written and by whom.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Interpretations of scripture do vary greatly. So getting back to the OP; perhaps, instead of questioning the teachings of religions other than their own and asking whether or not those religions are praying to the same God, Christians and Jews should wonder whether or not indeed they are all praying to the same God.

Put another way, given the difference of interpretation within a given faith, surely the same God would be perceived differently outside of that faith. To me, that's not an indication of praying to a different God.

 

[RJM]

Interesting, yet all the evidence would suggest He was circumcised, setting an example... You do realize He was an observant Jew, meaning all 617 commandments, right? "I have not come to do away with one jot or one tittle...

I'm sorry, but I believe it's completely wrong to insist that Christ demands a continuation of Judaic observance to the outward appearance of religion. His whole message was that such observance is meaningless and useless without the Holy Spirit. 'My yoke is easy and my burden light' etc.

He constantly spoke against slavish adherence to ritual observance. He made clear it's not what enters but the words that leave the mouth that matter, etc.

Do we really believe God supports one or other religious 'club'?

Surely God knows the heart of man?

 

[juantoo3]

I'm sorry, but I believe it's completely wrong to insist that Christ demands a continuation of Judaic observance to the outward appearance of holiness. His whole message was that such observance is meaningless and useless without the Holy Spirit. 'My yoke is easy and my burden light's etc ...

That is one interpretation, I would say a popular one. But it is not a given. Even the Apostles argued over just how Jewish converts were supposed to be, as evidenced by the fracas between Peter and Paul. Now, to be sure, I am not "anti-Paul," but it was the efforts of Paul that opened Christianity to non-Jews (the uncircumcised). Prior to Paul's evangelizing, by which I mean during the strictest observance in the earliest days following the death and ascension of Jesus, one would have of necessity first been Jewish in all aspects (such as strict observance of the 617 commandments) before becoming and as part of being Christian. It is easy to gloss over now, but this was a serious point of contention early on. After the sack of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple, it became a moot point anyway.

 

[RJM]

Free will means angelic powers are forbidden to interfere physically with human beings, without invitation. That's what prayer is? God definitely hears?

 

[RJM]

...before becoming and as part of being Christian...

I don't go with the concept of Christianity being a club subject to ritual observances. I just can't ...

 

[juantoo3]

I don't go with the concept of Christianity being a club subject to ritual observances. I just can't ...

All religions have their ritual observances...including Christianity. Most of the rituals in Christianity today are holdovers from pagan Rome and Greece, with a few (communion) that are genuinely unique. So if you belong to a religion, you are already in the club subject to ritual observances. It just goes with the program.

 

[RJM]

All religions have their ritual observances...including Christianity. Most of the rituals in Christianity today are holdovers from pagan Rome and Greece, with a few (communion) that are genuinely unique. So if you belong to a religion, you are already in the club subject to ritual observances. It just goes with the program.

I think perhaps what most religions have is the concept of sacrifice: you give a bit of what you have -- or everything you value most -- to God, in a gesture?