An Egyptian analogy

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

An Egyptian analogy

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Has it occurred to anyone else, that the chronology of the Egyptian religion is identical to the Christian religion?

In the beginning there was chaos, then the gods in the pantheon, then came the one god, Aten, then he was replaced by the resurrection cult of Osiris.

Where in the Christian religion:

In the beginning there was chaos, then the gods in the pantheon, then came the one god, Yahweh, then he was replaced by the resurrection cult of Jesus.

Isn’t it almost as if the Roman’s put modern lipstick on the Egyptian pig, then spread it through their trade lanes?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #51

Post by JehovahsWitness »

theophile wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:28 pm .... As for the watery deep being an intelligent being, no, I wouldn't go that far... The bible just has a habit (interesting question why) of anthropomorphizing things (e.g., snakes talk, the earth vomits, etc.), and there is arguably a bit of that going on here too.
Emphasis MINE

WHAT WAS THE "WATERY DEEP" / THE WATERS REFERED TO IN THE BEGINNING OF THE GENESIS ACCOUNT?


Okay so basically we are talking about plain old water or on the outside some liquidy chemical elements. Since fish and marine life would eventually swim around in it (or in "it" in its later condition) textualy , we are obviously talking about early earth's OCEANS. No more no less.

Image
https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html

GENESIS 1: 9

Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”

RELATED POSTS

Does Genesis 1 refer to the creation of the literal seas/oceans on this our planet earth?
viewtopic.php?p=1066494#p1066494

What is the "firmament" spoken of in the Genesis creation account?
viewtopic.php?p=1066900#p1066900
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu May 05, 2022 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #52

Post by Willum »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #51]

That is certainly true, if you’re as ignorant as the people who wrote the Bible. But in reality, and people who know, know that they kind of water described in the Bible flood would kill Fishies.

Oh well.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #53

Post by theophile »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:09 pm
theophile wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:28 pm.... it's nothing but sea beyond the firmament.
What is the biblical backing for this conclusion? And how do you know it is salty?
Well, oceans are salt water for one thing. But the 'salt' reference was more flourish than substance. So you're right, I should be more careful with words. More importantly, with the word 'sea' here. Since the seas, more precisely, are the waters below the heavens that were eventually gathered together at a later stage in creation to form dry land. So I amend my statement above to be "it's nothing but deep waters beyond the firmament."

To your first question though, Genesis 1 is the biblical backing. The heavens and the earth are explicitly created there by (1) separating the waters, and then (2) gathering the waters below the heavens together to form dry land. See Genesis 1:6 and 1:9 respectively. There is nothing else there -- nothing else spoken of outside the boundaries of the firmament except the waters that they were made to hold back...

Again, not interpretation, just what the narrative says. (Or doesn't say.)
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:09 pm Okay so basically we are talking about plain old water or on the outside some liquidy chemical elements. Since fish and marine life would eventually swim around in it (or in "it" in its later condition) textualy , we are obviously talking about the earth OCEANS. No more no less.
Per above, we have to distinguish the deep and its waters (as primordial elements) from the seas (or what you call here the oceans on the earth). The latter represent the subset of the waters below the heavens that were gathered together to form dry land. They do not represent the full extent of the deep, which is also above the firmament. (See the flood, for example, where the windows of the firmament were opened to allow the waters to pour in...)

Edit: but yes, we are basically talking about plain old water here. If I was allowed to interpret for a second, I would say more like a chemically element as you say. Energy even. Matter. Whatever base, common element you want to think of, so long as it has fluidity to it. A bit of chaos...
Last edited by theophile on Thu May 05, 2022 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #54

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmAnd what, circular reasoning aside,
Back to the non-claim claims, I see.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmis the basis for claiming that the "had been" of the earth's stated condition in the narrative reached back {quote} "prior to creation"?
That's the grammatical difference between the perfect past, imperfect past, and present tenses.

Even if the claim is wrong, it's still not circular reasoning, your attempt at poisoning the well notwithstanding. Friedman, by the way, is a Hebrew scholar.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmIf a woman was/ "had been" single, all that tells you is prior to her present condition she existed.
I'm not sure how you think that supports your argument. The past perfect means that she was single prior to the setting of the statement.

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the Earth, the woman had been single." The woman existed and was single at a time before God began creating the heavens and the Earth.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmThe grammatical construction does not explain if she was previously eternal, birthed, or cultivated from bacteria in a petri dish. The first description of the earth in a dark, water state (verse two) only tells us that it previously existed. This is a given (if we conclude the narrative is chronological) since its creation is explicitly mentioned in the opening verse.
So, the narrative, as is, states

STEP #1 That God created the universe (the heavens and the earth ) We do not know when, we do not know if the earth was created after the stars and planets, and we do not know what the condition of the earth was, to the next verse. We only know that it was created.

STEP #2 But at some point in time, verse two indicates God turned his attention to an already existing planet but not an uncreated one. (See verse 1). In other words the earth of verse 2 could perhaps have existed in some form for billions of years. At the time of our first description of the planet however it was /"had become" (. ...whatever) ... a dark mass of liquid-like material completely void (of life). From then on the writer concentrates not on creation from "nothing" (Hebrew. BARA) but the fabrication from pre-exiting elements.
The Hebrew grammar doesn't support your interpretation. The entirety of Genesis 1 is a common biblical Hebrew construction that is chronological and consecutive marked by an initial verb in the qal form, followed by a series of wayyiqtol verbs in a narrative sequence, similar to the way Greek aorist is used in narrative storytelling. Verbs that have different tenses, but are within the sequence reach outside that narrative. The construction "the Earth had been" is describing the state of the Earth prior to the beginning of the narrative, itself "in the beginning."
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmThis much I a agree with (see above) as the bible indicates that God created out of his own pre-existing forces (and "nothing", in the absolute sense cannot exist anyway). The bible indicates the Genesis narrative starts, not from the BEGINNING of "time" or even from the BEGINNING of Gods creative works, but from the beginning of Gods steps to prepare the earth for human habitation.
This is a theological position that isn't supported by the text and it's not the Bible that "indicates" your particular reading of "beginning." All the Bible "indicates" is that formless Deep already existed prior to the creative events beginning in Genesis 1:1. If you want to infer another creation that happened before "the beginning," that's your business, but it's not something you found in the text of the Bible itself.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:35 pm
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:44 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:57 amAnd if we conclude "the waters" refered to were H2O or some other liquid element, would that not be classifiable by atomic number , which by definition is ordered on an anatomic level?
The scientific narrative is different than the religious one? Strange, that.
You didn't answer the question. Can the "watery" of the text , be refering to H2O (or some other physical chemical) ? If not, what contextually makes this impossible?
The "water" of the text refers to water, which the Bible also equates with the personification of chaos, regardless of anachronistic word games. If it "really" happened as the text describes, then presumably the water was H2O, but the Bible calls it chaos. If you think that means that the primeval waters weren't chaotic, then I guess the Bible's wrong. It neither surprises me that the Bible is wrong relative to scientific reality nor that your exegetical method involves redefining what you profess to be the Word of God, but neither of those is something you can derive from the text alone.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #55

Post by theophile »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:40 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmis the basis for claiming that the "had been" of the earth's stated condition in the narrative reached back {quote} "prior to creation"?
That's the grammatical difference between the perfect past, imperfect past, and present tenses.

Even if the claim is wrong, it's still not circular reasoning, your attempt at poisoning the well notwithstanding. Friedman, by the way, is a Hebrew scholar.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmIf a woman was/ "had been" single, all that tells you is prior to her present condition she existed.
I'm not sure how you think that supports your argument. The past perfect means that she was single prior to the setting of the statement.

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the Earth, the woman had been single." The woman existed and was single at a time before God began creating the heavens and the Earth.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmThe grammatical construction does not explain if she was previously eternal, birthed, or cultivated from bacteria in a petri dish. The first description of the earth in a dark, water state (verse two) only tells us that it previously existed. This is a given (if we conclude the narrative is chronological) since its creation is explicitly mentioned in the opening verse.
So, the narrative, as is, states

STEP #1 That God created the universe (the heavens and the earth ) We do not know when, we do not know if the earth was created after the stars and planets, and we do not know what the condition of the earth was, to the next verse. We only know that it was created.

STEP #2 But at some point in time, verse two indicates God turned his attention to an already existing planet but not an uncreated one. (See verse 1). In other words the earth of verse 2 could perhaps have existed in some form for billions of years. At the time of our first description of the planet however it was /"had become" (. ...whatever) ... a dark mass of liquid-like material completely void (of life). From then on the writer concentrates not on creation from "nothing" (Hebrew. BARA) but the fabrication from pre-exiting elements.
The Hebrew grammar doesn't support your interpretation. The entirety of Genesis 1 is a common biblical Hebrew construction that is chronological and consecutive marked by an initial verb in the qal form, followed by a series of wayyiqtol verbs in a narrative sequence, similar to the way Greek aorist is used in narrative storytelling. Verbs that have different tenses, but are within the sequence reach outside that narrative. The construction "the Earth had been" is describing the state of the Earth prior to the beginning of the narrative, itself "in the beginning."
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:10 pmThis much I a agree with (see above) as the bible indicates that God created out of his own pre-existing forces (and "nothing", in the absolute sense cannot exist anyway). The bible indicates the Genesis narrative starts, not from the BEGINNING of "time" or even from the BEGINNING of Gods creative works, but from the beginning of Gods steps to prepare the earth for human habitation.
This is a theological position that isn't supported by the text and it's not the Bible that "indicates" your particular reading of "beginning." All the Bible "indicates" is that formless Deep already existed prior to the creative events beginning in Genesis 1:1. If you want to infer another creation that happened before "the beginning," that's your business, but it's not something you found in the text of the Bible itself.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:35 pm
Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:44 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:57 amAnd if we conclude "the waters" refered to were H2O or some other liquid element, would that not be classifiable by atomic number , which by definition is ordered on an anatomic level?
The scientific narrative is different than the religious one? Strange, that.
You didn't answer the question. Can the "watery" of the text , be refering to H2O (or some other physical chemical) ? If not, what contextually makes this impossible?
The "water" of the text refers to water, which the Bible also equates with the personification of chaos, regardless of anachronistic word games. If it "really" happened as the text describes, then presumably the water was H2O, but the Bible calls it chaos. If you think that means that the primeval waters weren't chaotic, then I guess the Bible's wrong. It neither surprises me that the Bible is wrong relative to scientific reality nor that your exegetical method involves redefining what you profess to be the Word of God, but neither of those is something you can derive from the text alone.
100%. And it's really nice having someone appreciate these details of the text. The original grammar and distinguishing fact from interpretation. The textual facts go a long way in deriding commonly assumed truth, like creation ex nihilo, or even God as omnipotent being, if only we stick to them.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #56

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:40 pm
The Hebrew grammar doesn't support your interpretation.
(1)The the Hebrew grammar cannot establish anything except that previous to the statement in verse two the earth EXISTED. It cannot establish whether or not it was created.

(2)The verse prior to verse two explicitly states that the earth was created
We have two facts, how they are reconciled depends, not on grammar but on interpretation ideally based on the content of other verse. There is a verse in the bible that states that the earth was created. So.. . biblically the earth was created.

Anything else is gravy




JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu May 05, 2022 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #57

Post by Tcg »

theophile wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:09 pm
Tcg wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:50 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:57 am
That's your interpretation of the narrative.
That's all anyone can present. Given that there is no and can be no coconscious on what the narrative means, all interpretations are as equally correct or as equally incorrect as any other. Any claims based on JW doctrine, or any other biased theological approach, cannot be determined to be either right or wrong.

It's all up for grabs. In most cases folks gravitate to the interpretation that gives them comfort. Very few seek the truth as the truth doesn't usually provide the comfort many seek. If we truly sought truth, ancient mythology would be set aside. It hasn't been as truth isn't the actual goal.


Tcg
Interpretation needs to operate within the bounds set by the text itself.
Even if this did happen consistently, and we all know it doesn't, this wouldn't solve the absurdly subjective nature of language itself. To pretend that here is one objective interpretation of any text, much less a religious one, is to overlook the slippery nature of human understanding and how much it is influenced by human emotion.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #58

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:40 pm The construction "the Earth had been" is describing the state of the Earth prior to the beginning of the narrative, itself "in the beginning."
  • Let me get this straight, are you suggesting that according to the text, the earth existed before it was created ? I agree it was created before the events of verse (2) , but upon what basis can one conclude that the earth existed before God created It?
Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.
  • Are you suggesting that the "watery deep" was NOT on the planet earth (that God created)?





REVELATION 10:6

And swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay
COLOSSIANS 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible ....
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu May 05, 2022 8:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #59

Post by theophile »

Tcg wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 5:06 pm
theophile wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:09 pm
Tcg wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:50 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:57 am
That's your interpretation of the narrative.
That's all anyone can present. Given that there is no and can be no coconscious on what the narrative means, all interpretations are as equally correct or as equally incorrect as any other. Any claims based on JW doctrine, or any other biased theological approach, cannot be determined to be either right or wrong.

It's all up for grabs. In most cases folks gravitate to the interpretation that gives them comfort. Very few seek the truth as the truth doesn't usually provide the comfort many seek. If we truly sought truth, ancient mythology would be set aside. It hasn't been as truth isn't the actual goal.


Tcg
Interpretation needs to operate within the bounds set by the text itself.
Even if this did happen consistently, and we all know it doesn't, this wouldn't solve the absurdly subjective nature of language itself. To pretend that here is one objective interpretation of any text, much less a religious one, is to overlook the slippery nature of human understanding and how much it is influenced by human emotion.


Tcg
So we should all just forget about it, play Nintendo, and eat cheese-puffs all day?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: An Egyptian analogy

Post #60

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am
brunumb wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:53 am Thus they are three separate individuals and not one God.
Water: Solid, liquid, gas.

God: The Father, The Son, Holy Spirit

One substance (essence, quality). Three beings.
The same water can not be in each of those different states at the same time. Each molecule is made up of the same elements, but each molecules is a separate and individual entity. The Father, The Son and Holy Spirit are separate individuals with their own identities. Some ancient schmuck ket the genie out of the bottle when they invented the trinity and it is now impossible to shove it back in as hard as apologists try.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am Ya know, I can certainly do without a debate on the concept of the Trinity right now.
And the reason is patently obvious.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am So please, lets not.
:approve:
Another implication of your statement is that God does not know everything.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am Yeah and God also doesn't know what it is like to sin, either.
In which case he is hardly in a position to judge sinners.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am God knows all true propositions, which covers just about everything within logical reasoning (relative to his nature).

So, gotcha moment; failed.
It's very convenient being able to pick and choose what God allegedly knows to fit their argument, and then sweep the inconvenient errors under the carpet.
Not really all that surprising given that he was invented by people who did not know everything.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:35 am Opinions.
And you are not merely expressing opinions? Spare us.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply