Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[OldSchool2]

I was under the impression that God inspired men to write the Bible, and concerning the opening chapters of Genesis, those men just might have been Sumerian, or Akkadian.

Ah, the term "inspired," inspiration."  It is a misnomer used for so long that we are stuck with it.  "Inspired" is a faulty translation of theopneustos in 1 Tim 3:16:

 

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος = all scripture (is) inspired by God, better:  all scripture is God-breathed. 

 

θε = God (stem, theos)

ό = connecting vowel

πνευ- = breath

(σ)τος = having been X-ed, verbal adjective

 

There is no "in" in the term translated "inspired."

The idea is expired, breathed out.

The picture is of God breathing out the material written.

 

Thus, "inspiration" as a theological term, does not refer to men, but the written product, scripture.

 

So, to speak of men being inspired is a misleading term.

 

Of course men were used to pen the scripture; it is probable that in many cases a prophet dictated to a scribe who wrote it down (Tertius in Romans 16:22).

 

Moses wrote Genesis.  And much of what is in Genesis, only God could know.

We can speculate about how God revealed it to Moses, about human sources of info that Moses had.  But it is largely just speculation.    2 Pet 1:21 "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."

Moved, as in motivated, or inspired?

2 Tim 3:16

Greek: pasa graphe theopneustos kai opheliomos pros didaskalian, pros elegmon, pros epanorthosin, pros paideian ten en dikaiosune,

Analyzed Literal: All Scripture [is] God-breathed and [is] beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification [or, reproof], for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness [or, the behavior that God requires],

Amplified: Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action), (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

KJV: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Phillips: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the faith and correcting error, for re-setting the direction of a man's life and training him in good living. (Phillips: Touchstone)

Wuest: Every scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for teaching, for conviction, for improvement, for training with respect to righteousness (Eerdmans)

Young's Literal: every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness ...

 

Other translations - God-breathed (YLT) breathed out by God (ESV) divinely inspired (Darby) For the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Geneva) ...

http://www.preceptaustin.org/2_timothy_316-17.htm

And given a choice between inspiration and "psychography," I'm "stuck" with the former.

The point is that it is scripture which is expired, not men.  (We don't picture men coming out of a mouth, but scripture coming out.)  I never heard of the term psychography before. Did you coin it?

 

If I coined it, would I quote myself? However, have you ever heard of "automatic handwriting"?

"For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" and "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32). Our God is not a god of confusion. But the scribes who were inspired to write the Bible were not automatons, either.

Well, thanks for introducing to me a term I never heard before, psychography.

"the scribes who were inspired"

 

Did you miss the point?  The scribes were not inspired in the theological sense of "inspired." The Scripture was "inspired," misnomer for "expired."  This inspiration concept (as in "all scripture is inspired by God) simply ignores the human process & does not address the question of the revelatory process, to what extent on a scale of 0-10 the human prophet was an automoton or used free will in prophesying.  The automaton scale IMHO varied, but it is not of supreme importance.  What is important is that the product is God's Word.

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written, and Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum.

[EnochBethany]

 

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

 

But I should say no more; there are eyes and ears out there 

 

clb

 

Probably the wisest part of your post .....   certainly something I personally could agree with

 

 

 

What were you hoping to accomplish with that other than making yourself look like a jerk?  Was it the spirit of Christ at work when you said that?  Do you think Christ nodded from heaven towards you and said, "well done, good and faithful servant?"

 

clb

 

 

 

to remind you that  admins had asked you not to touch on those things....   and yes it was done as a faithful servant protecting some of the 200 or so guests that come by here every hour.   When you tell me that your posts have been removed and you decide to just to a summery anyway......    I have the right to agree with you when you say that you should be quiet....   what's so wrong with agreeing with you....

 

 

So you don't think your tone could have been different?

 

How about, "Yeah, you probably shouldn't get into it all if the adm asked you not to."  Instead you give me, "probably the wisest thing you've said on this post..."  implying "telling yourself to be quiet is the first sensible thing you've said".

 

Why do so many people on this site feel that they are honoring Christ by being caustic or sarcastic?

 

It's sickening.

 

clb

 

I would just say that was the way you took it...   it seemed agreeing with you was the best rout to take.....   made my point well and hopefully made you think about it.

 

Sooner or later you'll run into real tacky here...   for others will question how high your elevator goes.....    

I just agreed with your own assessment.

 

 

 

I have no idea what this means, "real tacky here"....nor your elevator metaphor.

 

clb

[other one]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I should say no more; there are eyes and ears out there 

 

clb

 

Probably the wisest part of your post .....   certainly something I personally could agree with

 

 

 

What were you hoping to accomplish with that other than making yourself look like a jerk?  Was it the spirit of Christ at work when you said that?  Do you think Christ nodded from heaven towards you and said, "well done, good and faithful servant?"

 

clb

 

 

 

to remind you that  admins had asked you not to touch on those things....   and yes it was done as a faithful servant protecting some of the 200 or so guests that come by here every hour.   When you tell me that your posts have been removed and you decide to just to a summery anyway......    I have the right to agree with you when you say that you should be quiet....   what's so wrong with agreeing with you....

 

 

So you don't think your tone could have been different?

 

How about, "Yeah, you probably shouldn't get into it all if the adm asked you not to."  Instead you give me, "probably the wisest thing you've said on this post..."  implying "telling yourself to be quiet is the first sensible thing you've said".

 

Why do so many people on this site feel that they are honoring Christ by being caustic or sarcastic?

 

It's sickening.

 

clb

 

I would just say that was the way you took it...   it seemed agreeing with you was the best rout to take.....   made my point well and hopefully made you think about it.

 

Sooner or later you'll run into real tacky here...   for others will question how high your elevator goes.....    

I just agreed with your own assessment.

 

 

 

I have no idea what this means, "real tacky here"....nor your elevator metaphor.

 

clb

 

aaaahhhhhhhh......    no, I won't go there....    just carry on without me....    we live in two different worlds..

[a-seeker]

aaaahhhhhhhh......    no, I won't go there....    just carry on without me....    we live in two different worlds..

 

 

 

That works for me.  Does that mean you promise not to respond to further of my posts? 

 

clb

[OldSchool2]

 

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

 

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

[Guest]

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include --

 

Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum.

 

It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends,

 

e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God --

 

probably a priest --

 

took and gutted of all its polytheism,

 

much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

 

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions,

 

or the same events viewed by different authors. 

 

In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables,

 

moving its genre closer to a parable

 

than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

~

 

No

 

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21

 

Doubt

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Beloved,

 

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

 

Is It Still Closed?

 

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Isaiah 29:11-12

 

~

 

In Other Words

 

The Bible  contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

 

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

 

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

 

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

 

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

 

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

 

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

 

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

 

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

 

It is a mine of wealth, a Paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

 

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever.

 

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

 

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Enoch2021]

 

 

============================================================

 

 

The Bible  contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

 

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions immutable.

 

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.

 

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

 

It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the soldier's sword, and the Christian's charter.

 

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

 

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

 

It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet.

 

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

 

It is a mine of wealth, a Paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

 

It is given to you in life, will be open in the judgment, and be remembered forever.

 

It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and condemns all who trifle with its holy precepts.

 

 

Very Very well said Joe 

[EnochBethany]

 

 

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I.  And you did not give it.  Will you respond now?

 

"Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends"

 

1) What does written in a vacuum mean?  Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord?  What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering?  You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria?

 

2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends?

3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends?

4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory?

5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends?

6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels?

7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1?

8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing?

9) What ancient documents have you personally studied?

 

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

 

 

 

, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

1) How do u know what the reader has to do?

2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors?  Proof?

3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices?

4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable?

5) Which events could not have been historical?  How do you know?

 

Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof.

 

Best wishes

[OldSchool2]

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I.  And you did not give it.  Will you respond now?

 

"Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends"

 

1) What does written in a vacuum mean?  Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord?  What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering?  You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria?

 

2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends?

3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends?

4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory?

5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends?

6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels?

7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1?

8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing?

9) What ancient documents have you personally studied?

 

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

 

 

 

, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

1) How do u know what the reader has to do?

2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors?  Proof?

3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices?

4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable?

5) Which events could not have been historical?  How do you know?

 

Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof.

 

Best wishes

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.