[
Replying to theophile in post #47]
I don't think it would be right to read tehom as a god, but rather as an echo of the goddess Tiamat.
Not sure what you are referring to here.
Is a "goddess" not a "god"?
Are you saying that - for example - a princess is not a prince, "therefore" (?).
It's a subtle but clear reference to the audience that tehom is an important part of the story, to setup a contrast with the Enuma Elish, and perhaps to personify her alongside the spirit of God. I would say that together, as One, these form Elohim, God, or the 'Us' in question. (Unlike the Enuma Elish where she is destroyed…)
This idea that two supposed fundamentally different entities together make up "God" appears backwards.
I think the problem is in the idea that "Spirit" is some "supernatural" thing unrelated to nature and imposes itself into nature and in doing so creates form from the substance of nature (matter) and thus "God" is made.
A more plausible explanation can be offered to account for existence of the universe - in the sense of applying Occam's Razor - (if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.)
This entails removing the "super" from the natural and being able to explain/account for the same thing (the existence of the universe).
She is for sure put in a hidden role throughout the narrative though, and it's an interesting question why that's the case. I think you're on the right track in terms of the image of God, and the text trying to push us to discern what this is - i.e., is it just the male aspect we should see here, since that aspect is most evident and confirms our bias? That is the common move, but it's clearly not what Genesis intends, as we soon learn that the image of God is man and woman, not man alone.
Indeed. The woman (re Eve) is often seen as the perpetrator - the "original sinner" as it were and the religion(s) traditionally cast the feminine role as the one the male role imposes upon.
This can be explained by observing the nature of biological life forms and their interactions where the role of the male is often seen to appear dominant, but that is not always the case and if we stand back and observe the the process holistically we might even discover that - on the whole - the process is slightly bias toward the feminine - which would go some way in explaining why the process has continued for so very long.
It is the union of the two (as One) that is God, and that humankind is made to follow.
That is an interesting statement. Often the Christian claim is "free will" et al - rather than "being made to follow" but aside from that observation, the claim that in the human instruments of "female and male" there can be observed "God" - while interesting, may be somewhat or even completely off track...."missing the mark" as it were.
Now, is this imposing a false image? An unnecessary or uncalled for duality in the Source Creator? Maybe. But I honestly think it's just biblical theology. It's how ancient Israel saw God...
Indeed. And so what is modern humanity to do with such ancient ways of "seeing things"? Redefine the theology to better suit the facts?
I also think we have to recognize that God as such is not the ground and condition for all that is.
Redefine "God" as well?
I'm not sure what the 'Source Creator' of that is and I don't think Genesis 1 opines on it either. Again, the spirit of God and the deep are both already there at the beginning. Pre-existent. So I would suggest that God as such is the ground and condition for life. And that's it.
How are you defining "life" that the reader might understand your defining of "God"?
We might be able to agree that "Spirit of God" and "The Deep" are eternal (have no beginning) but can we also agree that there is no "both" involved? That these are aspects of One eternal thing?
