Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

Why?It certainly doesn't seem so. Throughout the Bible the God of the Jews seems to acknowledge the existance of all other Gods.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As far as I can tell, the deity is always referred to as: "The God of Israel," Or, "The God of the Hebrews," Or, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." I do not recall anywhere it is referred to as: "The God of Everyone."This seems rather significant to me.Any thoughts?

Welcome back DocB. We've missed you.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Thank you dear. Love your new avatar. She's one of my favorite images. Did you by any chance find her on my website?

There are many other direct statements that also seem to imply the existence of many Gods. For example consider , "I am the lord thy God" that reoccurs in numerous places. Why would the extra word "thy" be included? There is also the phrase, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". Why add those last two word? Why not stop at "Other Gods" Why not just say "There are no other Gods"?The people that wrote the Bible, both the old and new testaments, lived in a world where Polytheism was the norm. It is shown throughout both that polytheism is recognized, but from their point of view, the God of Israel, or Abraham or the Jews was the mightiest of the GODs. In Egypt, Moses competes in a tournament of the Gods to show how powerful the God of the Jews was. Paul explains that the shrine to the Unknown God is actually a shrine to the Christian God.It is very difficult when reading the Bible not to realize that for the writers, those living the Bible, polytheism was very real and accepted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have seen her at your wonderful site, but I had her in my files for quite some time. She is also one of my favs (though there are infidels here that give me a hard time for her)OK...back to your regularly scheduled topic.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Hey Doc, really good to see you again!I think maybe what Jar was getting at is that Jews acknowledged that people worshipped other gods, I am not convinced they acknowledged the existence of other gods, only that some people worshipped them.Anyway, it is good to see you again, things were so bad around here that I had to resort to arguing with Buz!Brian.Edit: Apology to Jar, I posted this before I saw your reply, sorry.This message has been edited by Brian, 05-13-2004 10:57 AM

Thank you for your kind words.Now that you mention it: My 'wonderful site' has experienced a technical difficulty and is no longer accessible. I shall have to re-open it under a different name. Hope to accomplish that soon, and will let you all know when it is ready.db

Hi Brian,It is really great seeing you guys are still here on the front lines, so to speak but I don't know which is the more challenging opponent: Buz or Billy (wmscott).I watched Life of Brian recently, with someone who had never seen it (can you imagine that?) and she was duly impressed, and entertained. It is perhaps the most precious video tape in my collection.

It is good to see fresh recruits in the war on ignorance; especially one so prolific (176 posts since April)!One key to understanding why 'polytheism' is evidenced throughout the Bible may be found in looking at how the word 'elohim' is used. To wit: elohim is applied to men, especially kings, princes, and great military commanders such as Moses! You are probably already aware of biblical texts in support of this assertion. Yes?Even today we sometimes speak of the 'greats' among us in this way.I suppose you have already commented upon the fact that the appellation of the deity changes from chapter one to chapter two of Genesis; from the simple 'elohim' (gods) to the 'yahweh elohim' (Mr. Gods) who also speak in the first person plural ("See, the man has become like one of us"). In this case 'man' is given for the Hebrew 'adam' which may suggest a person of the lower class. Adam is at least once translated: Low; Psalm 49:2 KJV; ie. a poor man or lower class man. It is also translated 'man of low degree' and 'mean man' [Young's Analytical Concordance] where mean is understood to be "low in social position or rank" [Thorndike Barnhart].Lower class persons are not likely to be called 'gods' but the upper class: Kings, Princes, and Commanders were called gods.Something to think about, eh?db

Cromwell, your chronology is exactly as presented in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have studied the chronology very carefully and think it's correct. You mention two pivotal dates. I don't think your evolutionary audience understands that concept. An pivotal date is when the date presented biblically matches known history. Your chronology worked off these two dates.One such date, harmonizing with both Biblical and secular history, is the year 29 C.E., the early months of which were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar). It was in the year 29 C.E. that John the Baptizer began his preaching and also when, perhaps about six months later, he baptized Jesus.-Lu 3:1-3, 21, 23; 1:36.The following is a quote from INSIGHT INTO THE SCRIPTURES, VOLUME 1 PUBLISHED BY THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETYAnother date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus' reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.) During Cyrus' first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.-Ezr 1:1-11; 2:64-70; 3:1.In fact, your source seems to be the same because every other chronology I've investigated seems slightly different, divergent by about 20 years.

No I have not commented on it but there are numerous such instances.There is also the different meanings of words such as ADAM where it can mean a people, not an individual but Mankind in general.These are just part of the issues that crop up when people try to interpret the Bible literally. It is, in whichever form you choose to take it, simply a collection of oral histories that were later transcribed into written histories, by different voices, compiled at different times and in differing geographic areas, and revised to strengthen or weaken points.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

AdminSylus, post 66 (I believe) by rocket has gone beyond call and is very offensive. I appeal to your Admin capacity for correction.rickrose

Yet Jesus verified the Gen accoutn:Mathew ch 193 And Pharisees came up to him, intent on tempting him and saying: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?" 4 In reply he said: "Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female I took the liberty of making the main point bold.rickrose

What point?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion