Title: Bible scholars. What is the answer to this question? Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Aug 10, 2014 Author:Various Post Date:2014-08-10 11:07:00 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:444 Comments:55
Poster Comment:
I honestly have no idea if this is true, or even if the question is legitimate. I just find it curious.
The confusion in Genesis evolves from two separate and distinct writings being fused together to support monotheism. There are two sources at play, in Genesis 1:1-2:3 the source is Mesopotamian mythology and in Genesis 2:4-24 this writing is Yahwastic. Jews and Christians like not to accept the reality that the story isn't original and this is is taken from many sources predating Hebrews. This pattern of mixing two stories to fit a particular dogma continues and creates contradictions. Such as the use of Elohim which is plural for God. Also the current mixing isn't as old as people think, by the time it as written Buddha had already lived and died. Remember, in the Yahwaistic mixing that Yawah isn't a God for ALL people, but rather a God for one tribe. So, it is safe to assume that some other God of pantheism which directs half of the tex did a little human making as well. Also fits the notion that the Jewish people are not like the rest, completely separate and different even if Cain had to go find a goy in Nod.
And in the Land of Nod, Cain and his wife bore Enoch....the most fascinating character in OT. Enoch was taken directly to heaven without passing through death, wrote fascinating books revealing the heavenly realms. Then, Enoch's books were omitted from the Canon and he became merely some dude on the line, grandaddy to Noah.
This pattern of mixing two stories to fit a particular dogma continues and creates contradictions.
To unshackle one's mind from these texts as a reflection of flesh and blood events is favorable to a person's mental health. The tales that we find these books were only in part native to the Judahites. They were alloyed with the stories of the people around them, like the Mesopotamians and Egyptians. The books of Moses were hammered together by the post-Exilic Jews in the 6th and 5th centuries BC much less for internal consistency than for their political and social utility. They leave today's reader who is accustomed to finding a causal chain of events in a narrative with a lot of QUESTIONS.
It was precisely in order to check the advance of such an inquisitive line of thinking that the Church banned the reading of Scripture by ordinary folks like you and me for some fifteen centuries.
Whether Moses even lived is in dispute. "They tell you," said the late Rabbi Emil Hirsch,"that Moses never lived. I acquiesce. If they tell me that the story that came from Egypt is mythology, I shall not protest. It is mythology. The tell me that the book of Isaiah, as we have it today is composed of writings of at least three and perhaps four periods: I knew I before they ever told me, before they knew it, it was aleady my conviction." - The Controversy of Zion, David Reed
To unshackle one's mind from these texts as a reflection of flesh and blood events is favorable to a person's mental health.
So true. And often what is molded into religion is better distilled as philosophy. Take the teachings of Christianity prior to the canon selection for example, rich in relevant teaching especially in regards to compassion. Religion cannot exist without the heavy yoke of dogma. Philosophy, on the other hand, is not dependent upon it and actually requires critical thinking, not taking what is doled out and spoon fed as all that is or ever was to any story. People have long been seeking others to do their thinking for them, rather than taking responsibility to seek beyond the omissions and dogmatic minutiae.
Personally, my preference has long been philosophy to the hypocritical dogma of religion that chains the mind and spirit for political gain and power grabs.
