An Egyptian analogy

[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?

[TRANSPONDER]

EARLY EARTH : EMPTY OR CHAOTIC?

The bible describes the condition of early earth using the Hebrew expression "Tohu wa-bohu". The Septuagint rendered this expression into the greek (ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος) "unseen and unformed". It is generally translated as "formless and empty /waste" in ENGLISH bibles. (See various translations https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm )



While the Hebrew can at least superficially imply "chaos" (or vanity) the biblical usage, obvious metaphor aside, when refering to geological locations overwhelmingly indicates that which is desolate, deserted or ruined or "empty". Isaiah 34:11b is interesting as we have an example of the parallelism so common in Hebrew poetry,

He will stretch out over her the measuring line of emptiness
And the plumb line of desolation.

Notice that the emptyness is put in parallelism with desolation. Other occurances refering to physical locations ...

DEUTERONMY 32:10a

He found him in a wilderness land ... In an empty, howling desert.

PSALM 107: 40

He pours out contempt upon nobles and makes them wander in trackless wastelands.

CONCLUSION: Whether a planet incapable of sustaining life could rightly be described as "chaotic" is debatable. Either way , the vast majority of Bible translators and Hebrew scholars have not translated "Tohu wa-bohu" at Genesis 1: 2 as "ruined and chaotic" or some such equivalent, no doubt to properly reflect biblical usage .

RELATED POSTS

Does the bible say the earth BECAME formless, dark or void?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 39#p836739

Should we conclude a formless, dark earth was thus rendered by Satan the Devil?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p992549

If a formless, empty, dark earth is good, why did God begin changing those conditions [...]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p836673

How can the statements at Genesis 1 verse 1 and that in Genesis 1:2 be explained?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 59#p992659

How does the bible description of early earth fit with scientific facts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p836741

To learn more please go to other posts related to

PLANET EARTH, EARLY EARTH and ... THE LAST DAYS

Perhaps the issue is you missed the other biblical term in Difflugia's post, one that I think is way more important than 'tohu wa-bohu'. That is, tehom, the deep.

Tehom is the most direct reference to chaos, and she's right there at the beginning in Genesis 1:2.
So you basically have an uncreated cosmic ocean with strong etymological links to Tiamat, the Mesopotamian sea goddess / chaos monster (which the original audience would have known), within which God creates the heavens and the earth. Like it or not.

Per past discussions, I know this flies in the face of your 'heaven of heaven' concept, or second heaven. But that's the narrative. Anything outside the heavens and the earth God made is nothing but salty sea (held back by the firmament).

I agree. The waters above and below (leaving a firmament) relates very evidently to Tiamat, the dragon (I believe symbolising water) split in two by Marduk, and I'd say, deriving from it. But we do have to argue from the Religious (Christian) take on Genesis rather than say it's all derivative mythology.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Ya know, I can certainly do without a debate on the concept of the Trinity right now.

So please, lets not.

Another implication of your statement is that God does not know everything.

Yeah and God also doesn't know what it is like to sin, either.

God knows all true propositions, which covers just about everything within logical reasoning (relative to his nature).

So, gotcha moment; failed.

Not really all that surprising given that he was invented by people who did not know everything.

Opinions.

[JehovahsWitness]

So you basically have an uncreated cosmic ocean ...

• Why do you say "uncreated" ocean ?

• Why in your opinion is "deep" synonymous with chaos?

• And 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?

• Are you suggesting that the "watery deep" is presented in scripture as an intelligent being (such as a god or goddess) rather than an inanimate object? If so, upon what basis?

... I know this flies in the face of your 'heaven of heaven' concept, or second heaven.

I have no idea what that is ...

... But that's the narrative.

That's your interpretation of the narrative. I can take it or leave it; in this forum it is not a given one person or groups scriptural point of view is true. The jury is out on your take on this part of the creation account as your own interpretation has yet to be fleshed out and supported (thus my questions). It sounds bizarre but perhaps if you explain where you're coming from and present some supporting evidence it might not sound so strange.

... Anything outside the heavens and the earth God made is nothing but salty sea (held back by the firmament).

Ditto.




RELATED POSTS

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[Difflugia]

Why do you say "uncreated" ocean ?

There are textual reasons for reading the primeval waters as predating the creation event. From Richard Elliott Friedman's Commentary on the Torah:

Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that this verse does not mean “the earth was shapeless and formless”—referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that “the earth had been shapeless and formless”—that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed. And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.

An ex nihilo creation is a theological position not borne by the text of Genesis 1.

Why in your opinion is "deep" synonymous with chaos?

"Deep" is the name of the Babylonian divinization of chaos. Whatever the theological import of this, Tehom in 1:2 is a name. Despite most translations inserting one, there is no definite article on Tehom, indicating a name in Hebrew:

...and the Spirit of God brooded upon the face of Deep.

Both the parallels and contrasts with the Babylonian creation myth can only be intentional. Tehom is the embodiment of the primeval chaos. God is in divine command and need not battle Tiamat to bring her under his dominion as the raw material for the creation as in the Babylonian myth, but Tiamat/Tehom is still the personification of the primeval, chaotic depths.

And 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.

[Tcg]

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

[JehovahsWitness]

Why do you say "uncreated" ocean ?

There are textual reasons for reading the primeval waters as predating the creation event. From Richard Elliott Friedman's Commentary on the Torah:

Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that this verse does not mean “the earth was shapeless and formless”—referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that “the earth had been shapeless and formless”—that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. ...

And what, circular reasoning aside, is the basis for claiming that the "had been" of the earth's stated condition in the narrative reached back {quote} "prior to creation"? If a woman was/ "had been" single, all that tells you is prior to her present condition she existed. The 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.

Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed. And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.

This 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.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

And 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?



JW

[theophile]

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

No. Most (if not all) of what Difflugia laid out is not open to interpretation. It is textual fact. Interpretation needs to operate within the bounds set by the text itself. i.e., no interpretation can disregard the fact that there is some sort of uncreated (so far as we know) cosmic sea at the beginning of Genesis.

[theophile]

So you basically have an uncreated cosmic ocean ...

• Why do you say "uncreated" ocean ?

• Why in your opinion is "deep" synonymous with chaos?

• And 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?

• Are you suggesting that the "watery deep" is presented in scripture as an intelligent being (such as a god or goddess) rather than an inanimate object? If so, upon what basis?

I think Difflugia covered most of this. As for the watery deep being an intelligent being, no, I wouldn't go that far... But I don't even think God is an intelligent being for the record! 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.

So when we see tehom responding to God's command (and separating, for instance, to form dry land), we shouldn't conclude intelligence but see it as part and parcel to the broader trend.

... I know this flies in the face of your 'heaven of heaven' concept, or second heaven.

I have no idea what that is ...

Really? Pretty sure we had a long discussion about this very topic before. Maybe it was someone else (Eloi?) making the point. But it's essentially the concept of where God lives, God's house: a heaven beyond the heavens of the sky / space above the earth. My point was that such a place doesn't exist: it's nothing but sea beyond the firmament.

... But that's the narrative.

That's your interpretation of the narrative. I can take it or leave it; in this forum it is not a given one person or groups scriptural point of view is true. The jury is out on your take on this part of the creation account as your own interpretation has yet to be fleshed out and supported (thus my questions). It sounds bizarre but perhaps if you explain where you're coming from and present some supporting evidence it might not sound so strange.

No, it's not interpretation. It's what the text says. We're not dealing with interpretation here but simple fact. Tehom is there in Genesis 1:2. Never created by God (or else show me where).

[JehovahsWitness]

.... it's nothing but sea beyond the firmament.

What is the biblical backing for this conclusion? And how do you know it is salty?

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)?

1 KINGS 8:27

“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you..."

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