Journal On Lawn's Journal: Discussions in Genesis: Chapter 1, Take 1 36
I've been wanting to start this ever since I saw the Bill Moyer special called "Genesis a Living Conversation".
As Worf would say "Its a good day to die", but here its a good day to begin to die. You may be excited about a discussion in Genesis as a text that you as a Muslim, Jew or Christian were told stories from since as long as you can remember. You may be excited about material so familiar that almost no one in western or mid-eastern society is innocent of it.
Yet, in the discussion presented I have found that there is probably no book so challenging for all three religions as Genesis. Here we have family disputes resulting in death or slavery, a world created as a paradise and then cursed for the sake of humanity.
The Ten Commandments are still years away, and God is perfectly capable of destroying the whole world and start over.
The following I offer some of my insights into Genesis chapter 1. Probably the most contraversial of chapters is how we begin...
___________________________
"In the beginning..." it starts. Most would be tempted to overstate the context of this with cosmic importance, claiming it to be the beginning of the universe. I would caution resisting this temptation, as it is not borne out scripturally.
In fact, Job 38 says (and I love using this when I get into creation debates with atheists)...
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So where were you? Do you know? Does Genesis answer this? As far as I can tell verse 7 denotes an event that happened either at the creation of the Earth, or before it. An even that was attended to by all the sons of God (meaning that we also pre-date the creation of the earth).
So then the context of "the beginning" would be
the beginning of God's work for our salvation. That would be fitting of the beginning of a work that we refer to for salvation.
Continuing we see that God creates a light (unnamed) and calls it day, and its absense night. Again in a earth-centric view of the universe we would be tempted to say that this was the sun we see every day, and therefore the "day" was our 24 hour period.
I thought this myself until late in my teenage years when someone pointed out that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. As its written,
16 God made two great lights; the agreater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the bstars also.
17 And God set them in the afirmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the aday and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:
And the greater and lesser were part of the lights that were... "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" as denoted in verse 14.
So how long were the days mentioned in Genesis? I think we have no idea, but I think that its greater then "seasons" and "years" in this context.
I've been asked that if the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day, how were plants able to survive or why was there previous reference to "morning and evening" of the days.
First, to God all things are possible, but even more understandable is that the light mentioned in earier makes all this possible. Whatever orbit and occulting that light had for the earth was days, and it provided the light for the plants.
After that its interesting that as far as evolution is concerned, God starts with the most basic elements, and only when they are established does he move on to other elements that require the preceding elements.
For instance, land and water before plants. Plants before animals, and animals before humans. That is probably about as far into "God used evolution" that I get into.
In fact right at the end of this chapter we see that we were created in the image of God, in God's likeness. We are given a dominion (as God's dominion is the universe) where we have resources and choices.
As a litterary work we see the setting up of the story, a brief introduction that is supposed to help us understand what the play is about. How we use these resources, and this dominion and what we learn about the universe from it seems to be the central theme. This becomes even more important when we read about the fall, and how the earth is cursed for the sake of humanity.
_____________________________________
So what are your ideas about Genesis? What has intrigued you about the book in general or the elements of the first chapter?
I've talked with enough of you to know that if you contribute, no matter how small you think the contribution is, this could be a very interesting forum for everyone; Muslims, Jews, Christians and even Athiests with a passion for good litterature.
I've seen some great discussion on this so far, and I anticipate some really fun ideas to be brought forth.
In "the" beginning (Score:1)
There is no "the".
The first verse can be translated:
The first verse basically introduces the second verse.
I put "the" and "of" in panrenthesis, since I added them only to make sense in English. To leave the words out and still get at the verse, two words (creation, G-d) would have to be interposed:
Though the word "of" is still required to make sense in English.
Most people seem to translate the second word as "created". That is also incorrect. The cantellation shows the stress of the word to be on the ultimate syllable. Generally, in verbs (at least those of two syllables), when the stress is on the penultimate syllable, the word is past-tense. But, when the stress is on the ultimate syllable, the word is in the present tense. Since the stress of the word is on the ultimate syllable, the word is present tense, and thus cannot mean "created".
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
Interesting. I'm not sure that I see the significance of it, unless your trying to say that God and everything else was created at the same time (which the verses of Job contradicts).
While we're throwing around Genesis 1:1 interpretations, get a load of this one...
"In the beginning creation council of heaven and earth, the earth was void..."
But this doesn't really change the chapter that much even though the plurality of the word Elohim is painfully evident to the lay-hebrew scholar. It has been a real struggle for Jews and Christians, and I've never heard an adequate explanation of it.
But it does make it more in accord with John's creation account (also translated a bit differently)
But lets render that even more accurately...
So linking that with Job, and Isaiah we get a picture of the Sons of God all existing in a council where the gospel was preached (being the purpose of creation), but some rebelled and were cast out.
This council began while the earth was without form (its been said that an old Rabbi who had no authority added the "void" in there) to plan out the existance of earth. Hence the belief that the Bible was written before the earth was created.
I believe that the creation as it was discussed in this beginning council called first first for the creation of earth, and next the fall (hence the reason God placed the fruit in the garden but that will be covered later.)
But don't get scared by my use of the word gospel, I just know of no Jewish counterpart of the idea of the great work of the earth was to raise us all up through the opportunity to fall and be saved again.
Anyway, just some more of my wierd wild thoughts on the creation account. Thanks for sharing.
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
Not sure where. Any account I've seen of it simply explains it.
In Hebrew, the word "elohim" means strengths. The word itself contains the word "ayl" (aleph-lamed) which means "strength". Adding the "Hay" on the end seems to mean someone holding this power. Thus, "elohim", (the natural plural) means either "one with many strengths" or "many with one strength".
Check Exodus 22:7 (22:8 in the KJV) for a use of that word where it means "many with one strength". That one strength being the power of "law". Courts usually require three judges. Thus "many" with the power of "law". Over here, however, it is a reference to G-d. Thus it references "one with many strengths".
I just know of no Jewish counterpart of the idea of the great work
There is no need for one. With the Written Law, we have everything we need, though difficult. With The Oral Law it is only better. We have no need for anything outside of those.
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
I've heard that account, and I'm unconvinced.
where it means "many with one strength"
Hence a word that is used to describe a government council, like it describes the council of judgement in exodus. In fact the KJV renders that as "judges".
There is no need for one. With the Written Law, we have everything we need, though difficult.
Actually the provision of the Law is only part of a required work of salvation. Luckily though the Law includes atonement and redemption of people that are lost by the law so I could agree with you on those grounds.
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
True. But using that to reference G-d would be an insult. As if to say that He only has *one* strength, So, the other translation should be used "one with many strengths".
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
As would "one with many streangths" if you want to look at it that way since God has all strength. On the mount God was "I am" not "I am many things". In fact, God is synonymous with strength and power period, hence "El" is sufficient to denote God, and did for Ba-al worshipers as well as Jews, as well as mean streangth.
Lets go back to Genesis 14:18 (back to Melchisidek) to see an occurance of it, although the Stongs concordance pulls up many occurances that mean "God".
So the use of Elohim in Gen 1:1 (as I've said before) is to set precious context. The context obviously of creation, hence the creation council was many meeting in regard to the excersizing of God's power of creation. Its not that God doesn't have other capabilities, it was just that it was the relevant capability and the planned use of it that brought them all to that council.
Oh and by the way, God was counciling us, not the other way around (hence the reason I pointed to a more accurate interpretation of John). We were going to be the reason and result of creation, and we had decisions to be made. Lucifer the son of the mourning (like the mourning stars that shouted together mentioned in Job) is an example of one that made a different choice then us.
Re:In "the" beginning (Score:1)
The use of the word "many" is arbitrary. I just used it as the opposite of "one". It can easily mean "all".
On the mount God was "I am" not "I am many things".
Actually, "I am Lord, your G-d". The second reference is the same root word here in discussion.
In fact, God is synonymous with strength and power period,
G-d is, but the name used to reference Him isn't always.
Hey now. (Score:2)
I thought this myself until late in my teenage years when someone pointed out that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. As its written,
16 God made two great lights; the agreater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the bstars also.
17 And God set them in the afirmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the aday and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:
Why would god call the first three sections of time "days", which you suggest could be longer than the standard 24 hour day, but then also call the periods of light and darkness after the sun was created "days"? Perhaps the Earth rotated slower during that time or whatever. If you're going to hypothesize that God's initial "days" were longer than the days we have now, at least accept that the first seven were the same length.
Re:Hey now. (Score:1)
Theres two different "days" going on here. One is the days of creation as referenced to the light mentioned in the second(?) verse, and I think that there is no problem with saying it remained constant for all 7 days.
Then we learn of "days" that are governed by the Sun happening on the fourth day. I have no reason to think those weren't 24 hours. From the language I'd gather that the context doesn't switch to the Sun governed days through out the whole process.
I think this is what your saying too, and perhaps wasn't clear in the post.
Re:Hey now. (Score:2)
Then we learn of "days" that are governed by the Sun happening on the fourth day. I have no reason to think those weren't 24 hours. From the language I'd gather that the context doesn't switch to the Sun governed days through out the whole process.
Okay, let me get this straight here. On the fourth day when the sun showed up, the "days" (I'll call 'em G-days for God-days) kept being longer than 24-hour days, but normal "days" (N-days) began to pass independently of G-days. So you believe there could have been say... 1,000 N-days for every G-day -- meaning (in that case) the total process would have taken what are 7,000 days to us. Do I understand that right?
Re:Hey now. (Score:1)
Yes, that is essentially how I read Genesis ch:1. There are definately two different days here, and one (N-Days) is a subtext of the occurances of day four (G-Days).
The problem with that... (Score:2)
You know, I don't think that makes sense considering that God decided:
Perhaps "day" just means a 24-hour day. Why would an omnipotent being need to take any more time to do so? And if it was not the case, why would he then allow his followers to believe that Earth was created in 6 actual days?
Re:The problem with that... (Score:1)
Well, I'm coming from the perspective that there is no reason it couldn't be a 24 hour day. Just that the 24 hour day model doesn't make sence scripturaly.
You quoted KJV 1:16...
That certainly makes it seem he created the "day" and then just set the up the sun to rule over it. (There is a spiritual significance to this that I think ShoreSpirit seems to be aware of).
However, you'll note that the referenecd day was from verse 14, not 5. Watch how it is put. The G-day he created thusly, "And God said, Let there be light...And God called the light Day". The N-Day was created thusly, and included this time are seasons and years in the creation (to me denoting orbits and rotations).
Thats just two sentances. So its pretty clear to me that
I take it to mean that the "day" unit of time used scientifically is based on but not synonomous with the use of "day" in the Bible, at least how its used in Gen ch:1.
Literarily, this sets up creation as its own unique event. The "light" mentioned in the first few verses is the light used to get the work of creation done, much like I turn on a light in my garage when I work on my car. The next set of "lights" are to power are not for powering the creation process, but to power what was created.
This litterary angle brings out interesting contrasts and parallels to the act of creation, and what was being created. To me it denotes that our world is "modeled" after something, and what its modeled after has importance on what the purpose of creation is.
Why would an omnipotent being need to take any more time [then 24 hours] to do so?
Technically why would it even take 24 hours then? I'm unsure that timeframe mattered in the creation 's G-Days.
And if it was not the case, why would he then allow his followers to believe that Earth was created in 6 actual days?
I see that God allows people to believe a lot of things, as much as they want to believe them. There are many different interpretations of the scriptures, and God patiently sits back and says "Ask and ye shall recieve, knock and it shall be opened unto you".
I believe that Pastors, Bishops and Rabbis are invaluable tools for finding out answers. In many ways they act for God in giving His answers. But when it comes to saying "why would he allow his followers to believe" we should check directly with him to see if that is what he wants us to believe. Pastors, Bishops and Rabbis are fallible, and God is not. Besides it sounds like God is the one your worried about here.
So try asking God first if your belief that the creation day means a 24 hour day is correct, before accusing God of letting us on. I did, and after that when I read Genesis 1, I all of a sudden saw that they were two different days. I haven't read it since without seeing it clearly right there in the words.
just one day (Score:2)
I would argue that there is only one day going on here. In fact, the Sun doesn't create our day, our rotation about our own axis does. The Sun is merely a marker of that rotation for ourselves to see. (In addition to the other heavenly bodies, also created the fourth day.)
Breaking it down the first day to the verse, my take is:
Creation of mass, existence, dimensionality. I would vote gravity comes into being here, too. Perhaps also time, although we could find an alternate suggestion below for this as well.
Over the mass were waters, God was near. Remember that it isn't until the second day when the waters are separated into the sky and ocean.
The creation of light. There is no implication of sun, or any light source in particular. Remember that the universe is just coming into being, its complete scientific properties have not been established yet. Imagine as an artist, God invents the concept of light. Wow.
Obviously, to contrast light, one must have darkness. (Which is technically the absence of light, much the same way that cold is the absence of heat.) It may be here that time gets created instead of above. With the beginning of space/time, relationships between things have possibility, so perhaps rotation of the earth begins as part of this, and explanation of the "separation". But in either case, we seem to have a strong argument at this point for a definite period with which to keep time...
...which He names "day."
I've made quite a few assumptions and am no Hebrew scholar either. But for an original ancient language of very few words, I am always astounded at the clear scientific description these five verses are still able to explain.
I think the very notion of Evolution/cosmology/whatever began from a literary understanding of the Genesis 1 explanation of creation through establishment of higher and higher orders, although I'd bet there has been very little research on this in the secular realm. You apparently agree, having said in your initial statement, "After that its interesting that as far as evolution is concerned, God starts with the most basic elements, and only when they are established does he move on to other elements that require the preceding elements."
How could the original authors of Genesis get this so right outside of divine inspiration? Just imagine all the preposterous notions that could have been (and were) cooked up by primitive to medieval man. And yet basic tenants of the Biblical account still hold against the center of the so-called scientific arguments today. (Granted any singular secular argument is likely to be at some pole about it. But it is common to find an opposing secular view, equally out of balance from the first at the opposite end, such that the Biblical view acts as the gravity well between the two. ;) Those unwilling to acknowledge an open system universe obviously have difficulties with God and his acts of creating, but the progression. How did the early authors get this so right?
I believe the most powerful evidence that the Bible is truly divine and supernatural is its predictive and prophetic qualities. Only God can predict the future. It is always a pleasure to read Biblical passages that perfectly describe something their authors at the time could have never known about. Creation is just the very first of so many.
Re:just one day (Score:1)
Excellent point. If your Christian, then you can refer to John where Christ says "I am the Light". Then one could imagion that the occurance of a "day" in reference to that Light is not defined at all by the earth's rotation but by the light that is God's glory and power penetrating the darkness. It is what brings life (again referencing John "I am the Light and the Life").
So when I say that I read two different days there, I read different days governed by the properties of different light sources. One is brought about by actual presence, the other modeled after it by rotation.
After all, the Second Coming (the next time His presence is with us) was described in Mathew by Christ to be like the Sun rise. If you look out your window, you can see why they are both called mourning, day, evening and night.
From our perspective, when we see the sun rise, we see the sun coming from the far east, rising directly over us and then leaving to the west. I suppose to those first plants and animals that the visitation of the "Light" was much like that.
But although that forms an accord between the John and Genesis accounts, I'm not saying it has to happen that way, thats just the way I've come to understand it.
All I really know about it is that there were "days" mentioned in creation, and then "days" mentioned as a subtext of just one day of creation. I don't think we really know enough about God and the Universe to draw big black lines around Him and say "this is what the light must have been" or "this is what the day must have been".
Moving on to some more really good points, I really liked your commentary on the evolution of the creation. I think you put it well.
I also agree whole heartedly that often if we re-read the Bible we find that the Bible actually fits well within what we learn from science.
I great many thanks for your contribution! I enjoyed reading it!
I find it all very flawed (Score:1)
Re:I find it all very flawed (Score:1)
A very good point and one that tells me you are way ahead of me and into chapter 2. The discussion on that will be put in my journal on Jan 27th.
Environments that need not be explained out described as they are temporary, prior to the creation of the "Earth".
There is one Mesopatamian reference that holds that all sorts of vile creatures came out of the creation. And part of the creation process was God doing battle and subduing these giants, beasts and monsters. I wonder if that would fit what you call "temporary environments".
Nowhere is it said that Genesis describes all that occured during creation, only that which we were to know.
I'm curious as to your thoughts, what are we to learn from the creation account in Genesis. If I could moderate my own journal I'd moderate that comment as very insightful.
A microcosm or internal/mini nature-preserve of sorts (trying to be non-specific to accurately convey a concept) is what it sounds like, rather than describing the planet/universe in differing stages. In the beginning, there was an evironment - then the earth is created and the READER's perception is moved there as all further relevant developments take place there.
The quotes "The earth was void and without form...God moved across the waters" and "A garden was planted eastward in Eden" is enough for me to think that we are operating on micro-cosms rather then the entire scene. And I agree that scene narrows in scope as the chapter progresses. I appreciate the insite.
Genesis (Score:1)
Why do you take bney elohim/ children of God to be "us"? See the beginning of Job (1.6):
a certain day: the bney elohim came to stand over Y-hwh, and the Prosecutor too was among them...
paralleling Kings I 22.19:
I saw Y-hwh seated on his throne, and the entire formation of heaven stood over him, to his right and left...
just as in Job 38 bney elohim parallels the morning stars. This suggests we're to think of these singers as divine or angelic beings that attend to God and are identified with the formations of stars, and not the Hollywood kind.
Re:Genesis (Score:1)
Literal translation is sons of the powerful. (See comments above.)
So, the simple translation is the sons of kings and the like. Although, before people existed, as in Job, it is a reference to angels.
translation (Score:1)
in certain cases it is clear that the word does *not* refer to people. e.g. do not have other elohim before me must refer to supernatural beings, not powerful people.
Re:translation (Score:2)
I would say Genesis 6:2 "probably" refers to people. I can't say "must" though, but it sure makes sense. Also, Exodus 22:7-8 (KJV 22:8-9) seems to mean judges. You could say that it is allegorical (G-d sits with judges) but my opinion is that is pushing it (the translation, not the idea).
Ironically, I think that Genesis is more of a proof, but that is a matter of personal conjecture.
Re:translation (Score:1)
Ahh yes, the great "watchers" vs simple priesthood holders debate. I'm looking forward to that one, its coming up in about two or three months. I hope we get some JW's by then. We need some Jehovah's witnesses for the debate to really take some spark (for some reason its important enough to their doctrine to put in their evangelizing.)
rendering (Score:1)
Re:rendering (Score:1)
You probably wouldn't unless you were versed in Jehovah Witness doctrine. Its not specific to them mind you, but they reference the "byen elohim" in that reference to be the watchers, angels sent down to earth with bodies to observe and direct in subtle ways. I can't remember what ancient work references them as "watchers", I could probably find it again.
The priesthood holders debates comes from the "War of the Children of Light" scroll, where the sons of God were merely those that believed or even the priesthood holders. We'll get to that part later though.
Either way, its superhuman alright. But superhuman in origion whether by power endowed to humans, or if the people were superhuman to begin with is undeterminable to me.
angels (Score:1)
Re:angels (Score:1)
Not as a part of their doctrine. I'm going to get in real trouble here by trying to equate one doctrine that I'm only familiar with, with another but here goes.
I think that Watchers to them are a way to explain the giants (Nephtilum) that you refered to, as well as working into their doctrine that "the whole plan went wrong". Essentially that this earth got so out of hand for God when Adam (in their minds a cursed sinner) took the fruit that even Watchers were falling, and so thats why there was the flood.
I know of no other reason or reference to Watchers after that, but I don't know their doctrine very well. They might (and I mean might) use them for comfort, kind of like (and here is the probably wrong equation) lying asleep at night better knowing that a golem could pretty much take care of the bad stuff out there.
Re:Genesis (Score:1)
Hmm, that could be an interesting one to explain.
I guess the simplest angle would be to point out that children of God we are, and since it says "all" the children of God were present, we must have been there too. The following relates that we are the spirit children of God...
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.
progeny (Score:1)
Re:progeny (Score:1)
Allright, now you've asked me to get out the big guns. While the inference fits with the selections from the Bible, it isn't a direct conclusion.
So where do I pull it from? Its probably not a part of your canon, but I pull it from some writings attributed to Abraham.
To paraphrase, God shows him a revelation, and it starts in the heavens. He sees the stars as they are arranged, and that their are certain stars that are the biggest and brightest that are closest to God. He is told that he is seeing this revelation so he can instruct Pharoah in Egypt.
God reasons that where there are two stars, one will be brighter just as where there are two spirits one will be brighter and more intelligent. God points out that he is the most intelligent and brightest of all of them.
Then he relays the council in heaven, right before he shows him the creation. In the council are the Noble and Great ones (a parallel to the stars closest to God). God then tells Abraham that he was going to make those spirits the leaders of the earth. He then directly states that Abraham was one of those noble and great ones.
Besides, as I recall "son" is a directly and exclusively human term. I know of no where that son is used in the Bible to refer to something not human. But that is another point that although works, does not conclude.
But if I have to rest conclusively, then I just rest this on what I learned from John and this book I have that is attributed to Abraham. But it parallels your interpretations and provided quotes from Kings and such, does it not?
stars (Score:1)
Nice. Sounds like a midrash on Gen 15.5:
[Y-hwh] took [Avram] outside and said: look skyward and count the stars (if you can)
what he told him was: your progeny will be this [many]
I don't offhand know of any Jewish source that makes the people:stars connection. It's pretty though.
My big irony (Score:2)
BTW, nice journal entry.
Re:My big irony (Score:1)
Thanks for sharing.
Irrational argument from the start (Score:1)
Given there is no evidence for the existence of god and there is no evidence that the bible is the word of god then it is irrational to believe that it is.
Using your logic one might as easily say although we have no evidence for the Loch Ness monster, there have been some kind of blurry photos, a few witnesses claiming to have seen something they believe looked like a monster. But no direct or reliable evidence. The rational approach would be to take it as a given that it exists.
The existence of a theistic all powerful entity must be held to the same logic to support it's existence as everything else in our subjective frame of reference.
A religious belief in a supernatural entity is as irrational as any other unsupportable theory be it mythical monsters, UFOs or psychic powers.
I'd be more than happy to debate this further, but religious doctrine precludes starting at non-theistic point of view and therefore cannot be discussed in an objective and logical way.
Simon...
Re:Irrational argument from the start (Score:1)
I start from reading that from the very first verse the existence of God is a given. So, naturally if you read "Madam Bovary" you'd expect to discuss Madam Bovary. If you want to discuss Genesis, you'll probably wind up discussion God also.
So while I enjoy discussing the existence of God, and it seems like you do too, sometimes I just like discussing books too.
Suggest you check your version... (Score:2)
In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to Bible versions, where you stand usually depends on where you sit, and you're probably not reading the most correct (as originally written) versions, assuming you're not reading in the original Aramaic/Hebrew/Vulgate Greek/Latin.
On the other hand, I don't take all this stuff seriously enough to be bothered about it for days at a time. I'm learning Hebrew as a living language, and if I learn ancient languages, it'll be for anthropological, not religious, purposes.
Re:Suggest you check your version... (Score:1)
you're probably not reading the most correct (as originally written) versions, assuming you're not reading in the original Aramaic/Hebrew/Vulgate Greek/Latin.
Tricky there, there is no origional Aramaic, Hebrew bible (well Chacham would disagree, but the septuagint canon is many centuries after Moses wrote his books), and they certainly pre-date the Vulgate, and the Greek and Latin languages. Nor have those languages been static enough to expect a simular context these days (as you mentioned with English).
Also, there isn't an "Old English" version of the bible that I know of. William Tinsdale's (which I've read and enjoyed also) would be in middle english, pre-dating Shakespeare by a matter of decades. IIRC, Tinsdale's bible and the paper-mill publishing of it are the dawn of "middle english".
I'm an atheist, and I don't start with the initial premise that God exists.
Yeah, I konw where your coming from. There was recently a girl that sued her school so she could do a book report on "Exodus". When I related that story to another news blog, there was a cry "theres no problem as long as she isn't preaching from it".
I guess the difference is that instead of the moral, you call it the theme. And instead of "God" you say "the charachter in the book named `god'".
To me, Genesis and Job are just good litterature. Even today "nature" or the universe are charachterized in books, but not as much as back then. To set up a work of litterature where the universe is set up and charachterized with a creator is a useful device.
I don't take all this stuff seriously enough to be bothered about it for days at a time.
Thats one way to do it. Thanks, I appreciated your opinions.