Initial Discussion and Reading

Bio-logical · Post by **Bio-logical** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:41 pm

The purpose of this bible study is to read the bible in a logical way as a narrative and as a religious text that has shaped the practices of those religions that follow it.

This is not a "Christian" bible study, although people of all religious backgrounds are welcome to participate. It is meant to be a study of the bible as a text, to better understand the book in a scholarly manner.

The discussion of origin is outside the scope of the study - we will not be debating whether something is the word of man or god.

Discussions regarding interpretations of the text are entirely allowed and encouraged, this is the main purpose of the discussion.

Discussions regarding implications of different interpretations may arise but should be kept from disintegrating into which is the correct interpretation.

We will be reading according to the Scholar's Plan, a narratively chronological plan to read the bible so that the stories in it take place in order. We will have assigned reading and will move on when the discussion has reached a conclusion or when it involves few participants, at which point we will ask that they continue it in a separate thread.

The readings are based on the King James Version of the Bible, links to the reading will be posted before starting a new section, but participants are welcome to read whichever translation they prefer and are encouraged to discuss differences in translation.

As for our first reading:

I feel it is appropriate to read Genesis 1- 5, which is approximately equal to "5 days" of reading in the plan but I think it holds much to discuss without mixing the flood into it yet. The reading includes creation through the fall of man, including Cain and Abel and everything up to the introduction of Noah and before the causes of the flood. Feel free to past anything that strikes you as you read it, no need to wait for a particular date.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:50 am

FinalEnigma wrote:... what I was citing was commentary on the bible in my study bible, rather than the biblical text itself.

What I often try to do is link to Barnes and Noble or Amazon. See, for example, the reference to The Sabbath in post #12.

The situation is a bit more complicated here where we are dealing, not simply with modern-day commentary, but with commentary offering a passing reference to midrash found in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan. A discussion of midrash would take us far, far afield. Here it seems sufficient to note that such midrash is typically creative, where the author 'fills in the blanks' with possibilities intended to reinforce a teaching or interpretation.

One final point: you introduced the midrash with: "also, just as a note, apparently Eve thought they weren't allowed to touch the tree either, ..." while the commentary begins: "Another rabbinic source presents a more complicated explanation."

Again, when dealing with this sort of midrash, I believe we are dealing with the creative, not with the apparent.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:43 pm

I think the order (though not the tempo) of creation found in Genesis 1 is rather remarkable in that it so closely approximates today's scientific consensus. Perhaps the most glaring anomaly is that of the winged fowl being created before terrestrial insects. So, why might that have been proposed?

I think the key has everything to do with the ancients' conception of their surrounding. The earth was mundane. It was their habitat and they had learned how to manage it. More remote, more inherently wondrous and mythic, were the seas and the heavens (Mayim and HaShamayim), and it must have seemed 'proper' that the denizens of these realms preceded those of the land.

Fowl? Wondrous? One need only wander through the Hula Valley during the annual bird migrations to be impressed by these heaven-sent flocks.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:22 pm

Paying due homage to the documentary hypothesis, I thing the second creation account reflects southern roots - simpler, more earthy, etiological rather than cosmological - the folk history of a heavily nomadic peoples.

FinalEnigma · Post by **FinalEnigma** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:36 pm

Jayhawker Soule wrote:I think the order (though not the tempo) of creation found in Genesis 1 is rather remarkable in that it so closely approximates today's scientific consensus.

I have to disagree here. The order to me appears to be how someone with little knowledge of the way things actually formed would attempt to logically deduce it to be, and in that way, rather unremarkable.
Nor do I find it especially similar to the scientific consensus.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:14 pm

FinalEnigma wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:I think the order (though not the tempo) of creation found in Genesis 1 is rather remarkable in that it so closely approximates today's scientific consensus.
I have to disagree here. The order to me appears to be how someone with little knowledge of the way things actually formed would attempt to logically deduce it to be, and in that way, rather unremarkable. Nor do I find it especially similar to the scientific consensus.

Feel free to compare it to more or less contemporary cosmologies (including that of Genesis 2).

Paul2 · Post by **Paul2** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:05 pm

goat wrote:For reading Gensis, what the NT says is irrelevent.

I disagree. All Bible references to Adam are relevant in a discussion about Adam, in my view.

goat wrote:However, many times in Genesis, "ADAM" is called 'ha-adam',which is 'the man',so it's a title ,not a name,and references 'man kind',not a person

My opinion:
Ha-adam means the human or humanity.

Genesis 3:21,4:25,5:3;5:4,5:5 speak of a male human person with the personal name Human (Adam).

1st Chronicles Chapter One records the same person named Adam, mentioned in Genesis, as Jacob's (Israel's) ancestor.

Jayhawker Soule · Post by **Jayhawker Soule** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:11 pm

Paul2 wrote:
goat wrote:For reading Gensis, what the NT says is irrelevent.
I disagree. All Bible references to Adam are relevant in a discussion about Adam, in my view.

I agree. Certainly circa 100 CE Christian (gospel) commentary on Genesis is no less relevant than circa 700 CE Jewish (midrash) commentary solely by virtue of the former being found in Christian canon.

Paul2 wrote:
goat wrote:However, many times in Genesis, "ADAM" is called 'ha-adam',which is 'the man',so it's a title ,not a name,and references 'man kind',not a person
My opinion: Ha-adam means the human or humanity.

Yes. Everett Fox employs 'humankind' and 'human' and, in a note on Genesis 2:5, writes:

human/adam ... soil/adama The sound connection, the first folk etymology in the Bible, establishes the intimacy of humankind with the ground. ... Some have suggested "human ... humus" to reflect the wordplay.

I take exception to "first" -- I've already suggested "mayim ... shamayim" as a comparable (and earlier) example.

(BTW: there is also a realy interesting albeit somewhat idiosyncratic translation that renders Adam (the person) as 'groundling'.)

Paul2 · Post by **Paul2** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am

Jayhawker Soule wrote:(BTW: there is also a realy interesting albeit somewhat idiosyncratic translation that renders Adam (the person) as 'groundling'.)

Interesting subject. I've been studying this but have no settled opinion on the etymology of "adam".

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:23 am

Paul2 wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:(BTW: there is also a realy interesting albeit somewhat idiosyncratic translation that renders Adam (the person) as 'groundling'.)
Interesting subject. I've been studying this but have no settled opinion on the etymology of "adam".

Except, of course, for the puns.

Adam, is related to the hebrew word Adamah, which means 'red clay', which is related to the word 'edom' which is blood. When God, in Genesis, fashioned mankind out of Adamah (red clay).. it is a pun meaning mankind is was formed out of flesh and blood. This indicates to me that it is very allegorical, and that it is not a literal person who is 'adam', but rather mankind in general.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:50 am

goat wrote:
Paul2 wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:(BTW: there is also a realy interesting albeit somewhat idiosyncratic translation that renders Adam (the person) as 'groundling'.)
Interesting subject. I've been studying this but have no settled opinion on the etymology of "adam".
Except, of course, for the puns.

Adam, is related to the hebrew word Adamah, which means 'red clay', which is related to the word 'edom' which is blood. When God, in Genesis, fashioned mankind out of Adamah (red clay).. it is a pun meaning mankind is was formed out of flesh and blood. This indicates to me that it is very allegorical, and that it is not a literal person who is 'adam', but rather mankind in general.

It is hard to read he stories for themselves as they have been worked over and evolved. Before the stories were two stories with their own logic and issues and after they were combined sometime after the fall of the North a priest created his own version before they were later combined.

The problem with reading them as allegory is we tend to read into the story elements that were not always there. This happens when we read commentaries by rabbis or the NT.
Even the genealogies were added much later then the stories.