Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary

John Wilkins wrote:
Ocean of Nuance <lizzardwomanRMOVE@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Wilkins wrote:
Rodjk #613 <rjkardo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 15, 4:08 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:17:02 -0800, Rodjk #613 wrote:
On Dec 15, 1:34 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for combining this into a single thread (which I'm promptly
going to split apart again -- sorry). Thank you for your close reading
of the Dodd paper and for your other comments. I'm working on a full
reply, but wanted to address the comments specific to Genesis
immediately. Also putting them at the top of their own thread makes it
easier for John and whomever else might be interested to chime in.
[Zoe said]
What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?
[Garamond said]
Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration.
However, I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading.
If the original translators into English had rendered Tehom as
Neptune (and that's an awful translation for several reasons, but
bear with me), then I think you'd have no trouble in concluding the
passage was not to be taken literally. However, I think the
translators tried to capture what was closer to the poetry of the
text -- and I think "deep" is a wonderful choice -- with the
understanding that it would *not* be taken literally.
<snip>
Your thoughts?
[Zoe said]
I think there are at least two ways to approach the many accounts
found worldwide with regard to creation and/or the flood, not to
mention the pervasive use of the word "Sabbath" in cultures
worldwide. One way is to suggest that they all (Hebrews included)
copied each other's legends. Another way would be to suggest that
there was an original true event which got corrupted as time passed.
And the fact that certain accounts are so widespread would lend
credence to the idea that something worldwide had indeed occurred.
If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
original true account, of which the many variations are but a
reflection of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of
authenticity that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo,
these indicators of authenticity.
Back to you....
I was trying (and failed) to ask a much narrower question: Should this
one particular word (Tehom/Tiamat) be given a literal interpretation?
As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was
a real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good
word in Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that
was the literal state of the world at creation.
If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
word.
So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
translation to the historical study needed to determine the original
word (as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how
that word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and
thus we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the
text. This is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one
translation and state certain parts are not open to anything other than
a literal interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think
it is here.
If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
reading, I'd be happy to hear it.
Garamond
You cannot possibly think Zoe will learn anything, do you? Rodjk #613
So far she's read ~100 pages of some very dry textual criticism and
Dodd's original (and very dense) work on reproductive isolation. Her
reading of the former is very close to what mine would have been as a
freshman honors student, and frankly she gave a closer reading to the
latter than I would have as an MS student. So I think she's doing fine.

Has she learned anything? You'd have to ask her -- the important
question to me is whether I'm learning anything, and I am. That's the
fun of hanging out here.
I am just saying: Look up Zoe's history here on T.O before you waste
too much time.
Rodjk #613
Zoe is not dumb, but she's ill-equipped to deal with certain things (as
are we all). I think she's engaging here very well indeed, and I
wouldn't suggest that she's incapable of learning.
Do you think she is intellectually honest?

Not really, when it comes to her religion. But that doesn't make her
dumb.

No she is not dumb. I feel sorry for her. She is trapped in a web of lies. I think she knows something is wrong. Her questions here indicate that to me. She is afraid of where it is going and is trying to salvage her life. It's a tough pill to realize you wasted your life on a lie.

sharon

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... "Tehom" is a cognate of the Babylonian Tiamat, ... Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral interpretation ... But my point is the translation you're reading is not faithful to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... Rodjk #613 wrote: ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... authenticity that surround a particular account. ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... John Wilkins wrote: ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... Thanks for combining this into a single thread (which I'm promptly going ... do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word ...
    (talk.origins)