The Adamic Myth

[moralorel]

I'm simply saying that if one wants to accept the Bible at face value, as we're taught to accept it, then that's fine.

From a broader viewpoint, the histories of the Hebrews are largely based on accounts, the reliability of which is increasingly questioned as archaeology and scholarship advances. Archaeological evidence often challenges these narratives.

Does that mean the Bible is false? No. It means that the Bible, and the narratives therein, are not a forensic historical record, they are a narrative of self-understanding of a people called to a particular relationship with the Divine – one of a monotheism which was, I think, unique.

That is the over-arching importance of the Hebrew Scriptures for me.

The questions of the actuality of persons like Abraham or Moses is less important to me. What matters is the stories they tell, or what their stories tell us.

I'm not even claiming the Bible is true. I'm just claiming the Hebrews seem to have a better grasp of the original stories.

We can either believe that the people who wrote snuff pieces about the flood and the gods wrote about it and the Hebrews edited to make it more realistic. Or we can believe that the Hebrews, the only ones who actually cited books for their research and who told a story that at least had some believability to it, actually knew more about the original story.

 

[moralorel]

I suppose the big distinction I would make is that:
1: I hold the narrative as more important that physical history;
2: I think myth is a genre of narrative that conveys transcendent truths in a more concise and direct manner.

You and I see many matters from opposite views. I think that's a good thing. So I hope you know not to take anything personal. We will never learn anything if we just sit on our own viewpoints.

 

[Thomas]

Exactly .. but why were they "chosen" ?

Earlier than that, even – the Call of Abram, Genesis 12?

If you mean that throughout history, mankind strays away from monotheism,
OF COURSE they do .. which is one of the main reasons that G-d sent prophets/messengers
to remind them.

Agreed – but this does not rule out henotheism or monolatry, which was the point I was making.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not even claiming the Bible is true. I'm just claiming the Hebrews seem to have a better grasp of the original stories.

If we had the original stories, I might be able to discuss that point, but as we don't, I'm not sure on what basis you make the claim?

We can either believe that the people who wrote snuff pieces about the flood and the gods wrote about it and the Hebrews edited to make it more realistic.

More realistic from who's point of view?

Or we can believe that the Hebrews, the only ones who actually cited books for their research and who told a story that at least had some believability to it, actually knew more about the original story.

I find that the hardest to believe, as it assumes too much, and make no account of the contemporary outlook ... remember Abram took Agar, the bondswoman of his wife Sarai "to wife" (Genesis 16:3), with Divine approval, despite the Adamic code of marriage (Genesis 2:24).

And this is much later than the time of the creation or the flood – but the morality at play here is hardly laudable.

Genesis 20: Abraham concocts some bizarre idea to cast Sarah as his sisterm rather than his wife, on the basis that he will be killed for his wife, whereas if she is his sister, she will be taken by someone of higher social status – in this case Abimelech – whether he agrees or not – and this is regarded as customary and not treated as out of the ordinary.

God warns Abimelech in a dream that Sarah is Abraham's wife, and therefore he'll die if he touches her. Abimelech then claims righteous innocence, believing she was his sister, and God agrees that he is both righteous and innocent – so God sees no problem with the taking of women in the social context – whereas a lower-born person taking the wife of a higher-born is, of course, an outrage and unacceptable.

Either way, the woman has no say in the matter.

Genesis 21: Sarai, who was immediately jealous of Agar the moment she bore Abram a son, even though the whole thing was her idea, then sees her stepson Ismael playing with her natural son Isaac, for which she complained that the poeple were laughing at her, an old woman having a baby, then tells Abraham to throw Agar and his first-born out, because she wants her son to inherit ... in all this, Sarah hardly comes across as a nice person.

So you will excuse me if I treat your 'snuff' comment with a pinch of salt. Pots and kettles, and all that!

 

[Thomas]

So I hope you know not to take anything personal. We will never learn anything if we just sit on our own viewpoints.

Not at all! I'm learning a lot. I'm looking at my 'reliable sources' with more question and discernment in light of our conversations.

 

[Thomas]

At least we three – @muhammad_isa included – believe in God, and, I think, believes the other believes in God, which is enough in itself.

Or, as He might put it – I've got enough to contend with, without you guys bickering over the details!

 

[Thomas]

What's in a name?

@moralorel:
10. The explanation for Elohim and Yahweh is very simple. Elohim is what God is and Yahweh is who He is.

@Thomas:
That's certainly elegant, but it doesn't explain origins.

@TheLightWithin:
What does that mean?

+++

Elohim as a generic name for God is not disputed – but as ever, there's more to it than that.

In the Talmud: "The name Elohim denotes God’s attribute of justice, as it is written: 'God of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He' Deuteronomy 32:4, Talmud, Berakhot 7a

In Rabbinic Judaism, "Elohim is the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, when He exercises retribution, as it is written: 'Then the earth shook and quaked, the foundations of heaven trembled; they shook when He was angry' Psalms 18:8" Midrash Tanhuma, Naso 16

"Elohim represents God’s attribute of justice and power, whereas the name YHVH (pronounced Adonai) represents His attribute of mercy and compassion." Rambam (Maimonides), Guide for the Perplexed

Interestingly, on the Cross, Jesus cries out: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34) which echoes Psalm 22:1, In which the Hebrew reads "El, El", a name for God used in Hebrew poetry and song.

"As for God (El), his way is perfect: the word of the Lord (JHWH) is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him
For who is God (Eloha) save the Lord (JHWH)? or who is a rock save our God (Elohim)?" (Psalm 18:30-31).

I only bring this up as, in His direst moment, Jesus might cry out "God", but He knows the Father intimately.

+++

Whilst on this topic, and the history of the Divine Name, another name also has an interesting background:

The Temple at Jerusalem was, most likely, already a shrine to Shemesh, the Canaanite Sun-God, in his aspect as Shalim, the God of Dusk, hence the name Yerushalem / Yerushalayim.

Excavations in Jerusalem have uncovered walls built by the Canaanites (c. 17th century BCE). These fortifications signify a well-organised and advanced Canaanite settlement. A rock-cut tunnel demonstrates sophisticated engineering.

In Egyptian Execration Texts (c. 19th–18th century BCE) the city is named Urušalim, which scholars interpret as "Foundation of Shalem," a Canaanite deity.

The Amarna Letters (c. 1350 BCE) are from a Canaanite ruler, Abdi-Heba, governor of Urusalim. He pleads with Pharaoh for military aide against invaders, confirming Jerusalem's status as a significant Canaanite city-state and vassal of Egypt.

The biblical narrative identifies the pre-Israelite inhabitants as Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, referring to the city as Jebus before its conquest by King David.

Later Jewish tradition reinterpreted the name by associating it with Hebrew words for peace and divine provision – Yireh (יראה), 'He will see' or 'the Lord provides' and Shalem (שלם), 'peace', 'completeness' or 'wholeness'.

 

[Thomas]

What's in a Name? 2

Exodus 6:3:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name (JHWH) was I not known to them."

So the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, was not known, from Abraham to Moses, yet it is by this name that the Lord God is spoken of more than 150 times in Genesis. A literal reading then, would set up a contradiction.

The common solutions are:
The name Yahweh was in use, but the meaning was unknown.
The name was in use before Exodus 6, but was 'known' in a relational sense.
That Moses retrospectively wrote the name 'Yahweh'.
That Exodus 6 is a question, not a statement, ie "By my name Yahweh, did I not make myself known to them?"

 

[moralorel]

If we had the original stories, I might be able to discuss that point, but as we don't, I'm not sure on what basis you make the claim?


More realistic from who's point of view?


I find that the hardest to believe, as it assumes too much, and make no account of the contemporary outlook ... remember Abram took Agar, the bondswoman of his wife Sarai "to wife" (Genesis 16:3), with Divine approval, despite the Adamic code of marriage (Genesis 2:24).

And this is much later than the time of the creation or the flood – but the morality at play here is hardly laudable.

Genesis 20: Abraham concocts some bizarre idea to cast Sarah as his sisterm rather than his wife, on the basis that he will be killed for his wife, whereas if she is his sister, she will be taken by someone of higher social status – in this case Abimelech – whether he agrees or not – and this is regarded as customary and not treated as out of the ordinary.

God warns Abimelech in a dream that Sarah is Abraham's wife, and therefore he'll die if he touches her. Abimelech then claims righteous innocence, believing she was his sister, and God agrees that he is both righteous and innocent – so God sees no problem with the taking of women in the social context – whereas a lower-born person taking the wife of a higher-born is, of course, an outrage and unacceptable.

Either way, the woman has no say in the matter.

Genesis 21: Sarai, who was immediately jealous of Agar the moment she bore Abram a son, even though the whole thing was her idea, then sees her stepson Ismael playing with her natural son Isaac, for which she complained that the poeple were laughing at her, an old woman having a baby, then tells Abraham to throw Agar and his first-born out, because she wants her son to inherit ... in all this, Sarah hardly comes across as a nice person.

So you will excuse me if I treat your 'snuff' comment with a pinch of salt. Pots and kettles, and all that!

1. I'm repeating myself again, but the Hebrew stories at least had some plausibility. It took years to make the ark, instead of just a few days. The design of the ark in Genesis would have actually floated. In the other stories, probably not. The serpent losing its legs is a true event. The waters came from underground and from the air, not from the tears of a god or whichever explanation was given in each ANE story. The Genesis lifespans were much closer to reality.

The stories from Genesis go into detail. For example, the Tower of Babel. The Bible tells us that it was made from fire brick, something that would have been only used for Ziggurats during that time period. The ANE stories don't go into these details. They tell us that a large building was being built. The other stories are quite vague and unrealistic.

One thing to add is that the Genesis story is the only one with the two trees. The Tree of Life is not part of any of these stories. But the Halaf people had metal impressions of a tree surrounded by a man and woman along with the serpent. The story existed but didn't survive except with the Hebrews.

And of course the Hebrews used an old Sumerian style of writing. They even referenced old customs that didn't exist anymore, such as returning to a home to fetch your gods. These writings styles and customs were normal around 2000 BCE. But the other ANE stories don't reference ancient customs nor resort to using older styles of writing.

At least the Hebrews cited sources. If they were telling the truth they were citing old sources. The ANE writings did no such thing.

2. Realistic for any person using common sense? Read above.

3. You obviously haven't read the uncensored ANE stories. The universe begins because a god ejaculated. But hey, Adam lied about his wife being his wife. Same thing. Or Gilgamesh raping every woman in his kingdom. Same thing. The Bible often shows how ridiculous the customs were of the neighboring cultures. The ANE stories defended these ridiculous customs.