Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3814 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 83 of 301 (107534)
05-11-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by matt_dabbs
05-11-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
matt_dabbs, "Elohim" is the Hebrew plural for God: thus anywhere in the Bible where that word is used, the correct translation is Gods, although some interpret this as being similar to Kings refering to themselves in the plural.
There is increasing archaeological evidence for a female consort for Yahweh in Palestine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM matt_dabbs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brian, posted 05-11-2004 4:04 PM MarkAustin has not replied
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 08-15-2004 10:08 PM MarkAustin has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3814 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 88 of 301 (107685)
05-12-2004 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Loudmouth
05-11-2004 7:11 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
The generally accepted scholarly opinion on Bible (in particular Pentuach (sp?) authrship is that Genisis and some other books are a combination of two authors: E who refers to God as Elohim, and J, who refers to him as Yahweh (it's J rather than Y because the original scholars were German, who tend to use a J for the English Y sound), and that these two different traditions were responsible for the duplicated stories.
Later textual analysis identified P, for Priest, responsible for Leviticus, the laws and the geneologies, and D, author of Deiteronomy, which is considered stylisticly distinct.
These distinct books were threaded together by R, for Redactor, who put the various stories together, and also added linking passages such as "Now it came to pass, after these things . . ."
There's a good summary here on Straight Dope. though I stress I'm not a Bible scholar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024