Thomas: Did the sun stop moving?

[Thomas]

Nick, since you offered,

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The Bible says humanity was created, uncreated, and recreated. This idea (not an original teaching, according to Theosophy) was added later. I would label this Double-Creation Story as goofy.

And I have demonstrated as have others here that it is your interpretation that is 'goofy', as there is no 'Double-Creation Story' ... that you appear to fail to take on board your error is, sadly, not my fault, nor that of my co-poster who also responded to what we regard as a 'goofy assertion'.

In the interests of critical thinking, where does it say humanity was 'uncreated'?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"And I have demonstrated as have others here that it is your interpretation that is 'goofy'...."

--> That is the beauty of a free and open discussion of religious ideas. I applaud your having the freedom to make such a statement. I applaud your interest in finding out why it is or is not goofy.

"...where does it say humanity was 'uncreated'?"

--> Genesis 2:5

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Genesis 2:5

It doesn't say 'uncreated'?

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Francis king

yes, the sun stopped moving, for those with faith to see such things...

lol........ Yeah reet.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Could you please remind me, Brian...

AndrewX, I'm simply trying to cool things down where they get too heated. That's my motivation in a single sentence.

By the way, as a pointer, it would be a lot easier to read your posts without all the formatting.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Many non-Christians in this world are attacked because they refuse to accept the Bible. We need to teach them coping skills to survive the onslaught Christians put upon them. Your Forum provides us with that service, and I hope you will allow us non-Christians to continue to learn how to defend ourselves against Christians.

I try to allow for expressions for all faiths here, and that means CR shouldn't really be a bashing ground against any single faith.

Obviously, a lot of pointers of contention are raised between a Christian reading of the Bible, and a non-Christian reading of the Bible. My aim is to ensure that neither the Christians nor the Theosophists are singled out and attacked simply for having their own faith.

As above to AndrewX, though, I'm simply here to keep the peace, and so far things appear to be getting a little out of hand, with all parties feeling hard done by. Hence why I'm looking to calm the thread.

[I, Brian]

On the note of double creation - Bob X wrote an interesting study, published on CR years ago, which looks at "redaction theory" ie, the notion that the original Jewish books in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament were revision periodically over the years:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...h_torah_torah/

[Thomas]

Hi, I Brian —

Redaction theory is part of current Catholic Theology, and my Course Director, fluent in Hebrew (and Latin and Greek and Ugaritic) waxes lyrical about the Divine inspiration of the "Deuteronomist scribe".

According to the above hypothesis, the subsequent "doublets theory" signify repetitions indicate material from different sources, telling substantially the same story, with different orders of emphasis. In this case Chapter 1 from the Elohist source, Chapter 2 from the Jahwist.

Scholarship is obliged to acknowledge that theories are just that ... theories. Some scholars reject the JEPD hypothesis out of hand, others only with significant conditions and reservations ... in fact I don't think you'll find two scholars who agree absolutely on every point.

Interestingly, secular researchers in the fields of archaeology etc, have made finds that actually disprove many of the assumptions of the "it can't be" Biblical critics. At one point it was a tenet of critics that Abraham had to by a myth, as writing did not appear until millenia later ...and then lo! Someone uncovers inscriptions from the era.

Also — significant advances have appeared in showing the commonalities of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contemporary texts ... other cultures had their '10 commandments' or similar legislative codes ... parallels between the Song of Songs and Egyptian lyrical forms, etc.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, let's take a look:

Genesis 1:27 "...God created man in his own image...."

Genesis 2:5 "...there was no man to work the ground...."

--> We have two possibilities here.

(1) A humanity was created on Day Six which had disappeared by Genesis 2:5.

(2) A humanity was created on Day Six which still existed by Genesis 2:5. This humanity, however, was unable to till the soil ("work the ground").

I believe you are going with the first possibility. However, the second possibility fits the Theosophical version of what actually happened.

Theosophy reconciles the two quotes. Do you?

[I, Brian]

As above, Redaction Theory also quite clearly reconciles the issue - as a possibility - and has certainly been written about outside of CR for a long time.

[Nick the Pilot]

Brian, Your link takes us to:

"...the apparent repetitions in the second part of Genesis on information already covered in the first."

--> I propose the Bible is not merely repeating information on this particular point. I would characterize the Bible as a story with events in a chronological order. When I see it in such a chronological order, it makes more sense to me. I see Day Six happening, then Genesis 2:5 happening, just like the Bible says. I believe this chronological order of events is what the original authors meant to write. I see no reason to say Day Six was not followed by the events of Genesis 2:5. The two chronological events compliment each other nicely.

[wil]

Lot to go on here, first of all I believe as this is the comparative section a great place to compare stuff. If one can't look critically at their own texts be they the bible, quran, or whatever without blood boiling at folks who disagree, then maybe you aren't ready for this sandbox and should stay in safer environs.

What does amaze me is what we've discovered before that Atheists and others who have issues with biblical texts always take them literally, despite the fact that so many Christians and Jews do not. Now there is a portion that sticks with the 5 books coming off the mountain and the whole thing being written with the finger of G!d, but that clearly is not all of us, nor a majority of us in the UK or USA.

So did the sun stop moving? Nick have you never a time when you experienced an event whereby in your description you thought it was as if time stood still? And if we are going to ignore the poetic license and stick to scientific phenomena, me thinks it is the earth that moves in this relation ship and in order for the sun to stand still in the sky it is the sun which would have to start moving, rendering the original premise and question void. Oh, am I being to obtuse in this regard or simply answering the OP in kind?

As for Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 since they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means how can one follow the other? This question is void as well as it's premise is.

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil, you said,

"...they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means ...."

--> I see no reason to make that assumption.

"...how can one follow the other?"

--> Because the events of Day Six do not (according to my belief system) refer to the events of the story of Adam and Eve.

[bananabrain]

er... everyone, it is a lot easier to make sense of the ma'aseh bereishit (the creation/eden section of the Torah) when you understand that it is a) complicated b) non-sequential c) intertextual d) multilayered and e) in biblical hebrew. it is notoriously the most difficult bit of the Torah to understand. however, i don't see the problem with genesis 2:5. humanity didn't have to work for a living until after it got chucked out of the garden. chronology is also not an issue here - jewish tradition understands that the Torah is not a linear, sequential narrative, nor is it understandable without the oral tradition that goes with it. what appear to the literalist observer as apparent sophomoric contradictions are all reconciled by the various traditional interpretations.

in terms of the non-literalism of the ma'aseh bereishit, it should be a bit of a giveaway that the sun and moon are Created on the third day - that ought to give you a clue that we're not talking about 24 hours here, because that would require the heavenly bodies to actually be orbiting the earth.

it is interesting that you understand the "men" of the sixth day to be other than those put into eden; i can see where you'd think that. however, due to the Torah not actually working that way, it's not correct. our understanding is that humans are humans are humans. there's no concept of "elder races" or any such thing; this is, from our perspective, a fundamental misreading of the Text.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[wil]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Wil, you said,

"...they are two versions of the same story, not sequential by any means ...."

--> I see no reason to make that assumption.

"...how can one follow the other?"

--> Because the events of Day Six do not (according to my belief system) refer to the events of the story of Adam and Eve.

no reason to make that assumption?

Gen 1
Day 1 Heaven and Earth, light, waters, darkness, separation of same and evening, morning, night, day.

Day 2 firmament on waters below and firmament in the waters above, heaven

Day 3 gathered firmament on earth, called it land, added grasses, trees, fruits

Day 4 added lights in the sky, sun, moon, stars

Day 5 whales, fish, fowl, animals (every creature that moveth)

Day 6 animals again, beasts and cattle and things that creepeth, and man. (male and female created he them.)

Gen 2

Day 7 ended work and rested.

Gen2:4 in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (what day did G!d make earth and heavens (day 1) and what day did G!d make plants? (day 3) therefore in days 1 and 3 there was not a man...hmmm)

So then G!d made man, and then trees, and then animals, then woman.

So if one were to take that literally without the mitzvah, there are either two stories of creation that literally differ in order or ...

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

...or Day Six saw the creation of a man who could not till the ground. This fits with my version of the story.