It was dark.

That much was clear when he found himself stirring, his head aching, and his eyes searching for something to fix on in the formless, muddy shades of black and grey. Except for the soft sound of water dripping somewhere in the distance, a cold silence filled each breath he took and the gradually the sound of his heartbeat faded into his consciousness.

His hands were fastened securely behind his back with two rough pieces of rope wound tightly across his wrists. As he found himself becoming more alert, he became increasingly aware of the painful scrapes where the rope bit into his skin. Whereas before he had possessed no sense of up or down, he now realized that his chin rested on some hard surface and that he lay uncomfortably face down with his belly pressed against a cold, wet stone floor. He tasted iron and smelled a heady mix of cinnamon and burning leaves mixed with the subtle trace of damp, earthy mold. His legs felt heavy and clumsy, but he could sense no restraints and felt as though he might be able to stand if he could manage to position his shoulders properly so as to gain leverage over his torso’s weight.

With a short, sharp grunt he braced himself against the floor and sprung up to his feet, instinctively straining against the rope that bound his hands together trying without success to find a center of balance. While his momentum carried him upwards, his legs failed him giving way to weakness and before he could gasp or cry out in surprise, he found himself sinking down painfully onto his knees with a dull thud. Mercifully, he had managed to lean back to avoid falling forward with the impact and in doing so had spared himself the experience of falling face forward onto the hard floor. He sucked in a few short breaths and tried to stand again, this time successfully gaining his feet. Once there, he stood still for several seconds listening and striving to penetrate the silence to find some familiar sound other than the ceaseless slow drip, drip, drip.

That was when he felt the sticky, warm breath slick upon the skin of his neck. He was only half surprised to find that the high, shrill sound piercing his ears was being ripped from somewhere deep inside his own throat.

It was unbarely wet and warm.

Here’s the top 25 artists that I’ve spent the most time listening to this year (as taken from my Last.FM page:

I’ve been seeing desperate Democrats working to “get the vote out” lately on Facebook and on a handful of liberal online magazines that I occasionally read. Here’s a “cute” example of a graphic used to promote the idea of voting for Democrats on November 2.

So we should “Vote Democratic” to save our asses?

Why?

Obama has continued and in some cases made worse the policies of Bush. The Democrats controlled Congress and never truly fought for anything worth a damn. They have been all sound and fury with generous capitulation to special interests on Wall Street and in the Health Insurance industry. Then, once they have sold out any progressive legislation, they either try to make it sound like it’s more than it really is or blame Republicans for obstructing it instead of taking responsibility for their own lack of meaningful action.

Voting is a form of control. When you vote for a Democrat or a Republican you are simply legitimizing the control of the ruling class. You are not changing anything. Your voice is not being heard.

A small elite group of the population actually has a voice in government – those wealthy and powerful people who fund campaigns, sit on boards of powerful corporations and prestigious universities, and run giant corporations. These people and their sycophants get to rub elbows with politicians and sometimes even get to write the legislation.

Voting allows these elites to control the state while appeasing the rest of us through offering the illusion of power. But it is just an illusion. You are just a number. A voting statistic.

Put your X here next to Coke or Pepsi. Having a say in the recipe of the beverage that you are forced to consume be damned!

Don’t play their silly game. Don’t vote this November. Organize! That’s the only way your voice will ever be heard.

Today’s reading is Gen 2:4b-25.

As was noted in my previous commentary, today’s passage is contained in what is arguably Adam’s own family record of his origins. So this section is not really a “second creation account” – as is sometimes suggested. Rather, Gen 1:1-2:4a is the account of the creation of everything and is thus the creation account proper, while the present story is instead the beginning of Adam’s history, focusing on the creation of the first man and woman – Adam and Eve.

The opening verses are sometimes accused of contradicting the account of creation in Gen 1:

“In the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.”

The contention is that here we have God creating man before plants while in Gen 1, plants are created before people. However, no such thing is actually suggested. These verses do not say that no plants had been created, rather they indicate that there were not yet any herbs “of the field” or plants “of the field”. The word translated as “field” here is sadeh which refers to a limited area of land suitable for agriculture. In other words, this passage is suggesting that agriculture has yet to be developed and indeed, the account goes on to show God setting a special place aside called Eden (meaning ‘pleasure’) where He plants a garden and then creates a man to tend it. So this section is not only about the creation of Adam and Eve, but also about the beginning of agriculture.

In verse 2:9, God forms a man from the dust of the ground. The Hebrew expression for “the ground” is ha’adamah and the related expression ha’adam means “the man”. Thus, we see that the name of the first man Adam comes from the Hebrew word for man or mankind which in turn comes from the Hebrew word for ground.

After the creation of Adam, we come to a second alleged contradiction in verses Gen 2:18-20:

“Yahweh God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper suitable for him.”

In Gen 1, we have the animals being created before humans. However, it is suggested that here the passage says that man came first, that he needed a suitable “helper” (more on that in a bit), and that God then created animals for the first time as potential candidates. Some translators consider it possible that a pluperfect should be rendered here giving “Out of the ground Yahweh God had formed every animal of the field“. Indeed, this is how the NIV renders this passage. In addition, even if it is not the case that the pluperfect can be used here, all that the passage seems to suggest is that God creates sample specimens from the animals of the field and the birds of the sky and then brings them before Adam along with all livestock (for which no sample creatures were formed and thus it is implied that there were already livestock representatives present in Eden – which makes sense given that Eden is a special place set aside for the beginning of agriculture). In short, what we have here is a special creation and summoning of representative animals and not an account of the creation of the animals in general.  To read a more in depth treatment of comparisons between Gen 1 and Gen 2, see: Are there two creation accounts?

After the summoning and naming of the representative animals, God creates a woman by taking a rib from the man and so fashioning a suitable “helper”. The Hebrew word ‘ezer does not suggest a subordinate role as the English “helper” does. In context, the woman is supplying something that the man is lacking and seems to express the idea of an indispensable companion. The account of the woman’s creation is followed by an editorial aside that notes how this bond between the man and the woman explains the origin of men and women coming together as one in the custom of marriage. Finally, it is also noted that both the man and the woman were naked and unashamed indicating that nakedness itself is something pure and good and yet also hinting that the expectation of a reader contemporary with the author would be to see nakedness as something shameful and that this narrative is in part a corrective to that expectation.

Today we move on to the second tablet from which Genesis was compiled: Genesis 2:4b-5:1a. Our tablet begins thus:

“In the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens, no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.”

Notice that I’ve changed the period at the end of 2:4b to a comma as there is no punctuation in the original Hebrew and given the toledoths-as-colophons Wiseman hypothesis, 2:4b is not the rest of the sentence that begins in 2:4a, but rather the start of the sentence in 2:5.

Looking towards the other end of tablet, we find the closing passage reads: “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” Under the Wiseman hypothesis, this suggests that Genesis 2:4b-5:1a originally come from a “book” in tablet form written by Adam (the first man created by God) describing his origins (translated as ‘generations’). The Wiseman hypothesis fits quite well as the account indeed records the origins of Adam, giving details that would have only been readily available to Adam, and stops well before Adam’s death. It also explains the strangeness of having what appear to be two creation stories and the odd repetition when verse 2:4 is seen as a single sentence instead of the end of one document and the beginning of another. Rather than two creation stories, we have one creation story in a document from God’s point of view followed by a separate document that records Adam’s origins from his own view. As we move through Genesis and examine its component documents, we shall see how the Wiseman hypothesis neatly accounts for peculiarities like these that remain as mysteries in competing theories about the history of text of Genesis. Such explanative power is the sign of a superior hypothesis.

Returning to the opening passage of our current document, we find that it introduces what is known as the tetragrammaton (Greek for “four letter word”) – the four Hebrew letters יְהוָ֥ה that spell the divine name. Unlike Elohim, which is akin to a role or title, the tetragrammaton denotes the actual personal name of God. Fittingly enough, it seems related to the Hebrew root for “to be” and is understood to roughly mean “the self-existent one” or “He who brings into being”. In the past, this name has been rendered in English as Jehovah. However, due to pronunciation shifts in the English language as well as advances in our understanding of written ancient Hebrew, the modern consensus is that the divine name is more properly transliterated as YHWH and rendered as Yahweh. The fact that the WEB renders this word as Yahweh is another reason why I chose to use this translation for this study.

YHWH occurs 6,828 times in the standard Hebrew texts and is the most commonly used word to refer to God in the Bible. In addition to the commandment in Exodus 20:7 (“You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”), the Bible tells us frequently that God considers His name and its reputation very important and that He desires people to know Him by His name. Unfortunately, an overzealousness in avoiding the accidental violation of the commandment against misusing the divine name eventually led to the practice of restricting the pronouncing of YHWH to the High Priest on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement) in the days when the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem. Since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the divine name has not been pronounced and certainty about its correct pronunciation has been lost to the past. During readings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the word Adonai (which is the majestic plural form of the word Adon, meaning “my lord”) was read aloud in place of YHWH. As a result, the practice of translating YHWH as “Lord” has taken root which seems a shame if not wrong considering the extreme importance that God placed upon His name and people knowing Him by it.

It’s nice that a modern English translation like the WEB has restored YHWH to the Bible. It makes a striking difference I think to see God’s name in use throughout the text instead of the classic rendering “LORD”. It especially makes the numerous verses that invoke the sacredness of God’s name resonate more effectively when one actually sees that name right there in the surrounding text.

We begin our reading of Genesis with the story of creation Gen 1:1-2:4a where the 2:4a portion of the last verse is “This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created”.

One thing today’s passage demonstrates nicely is that the division of the Bible into chapters is fairly arbitrary and has more to do with creating roughly similar sized sections of text to serve as easy reference markers rather than logically contained units. Today’s passage is a logically complete story and yet it consists of the entire first chapter plus the first three and a half verses of chapter two.

Examining the toledoth colophon, we see that the tablet basis of this section would have been entitled “the [toledoth] of the heavens and of the earth” and that the tablet is dated to “when they were created”. Absent is the formula’s typical inclusion of an author or tablet owner. Thus, it would seem that the indicated author is the only possible observer of the events described: God Himself.

Returning to the first verse, straight off the bat, we find something of interest lurking in the original Hebrew. The word that is translated here as ‘God’ is elohim. The first thing to note is that elohim is the plural form of eloah which is the poetic or emphatic form of el roughly meaning “mighty one”. This plural word elohim is the word that we see translated as ‘God’ throughout this entire passage – indeed almost every reference to ‘God’ (as opposed to ‘god’ or ‘God of X’) in the Old Testament is to this word elohim which occurs over 2500 times.

I point out the plural nature of elohim because sometimes people will try to argue that this word really should be translated as ‘gods’ and that this is a suppressed sign of a supposed origin of Hebrew monotheism in polytheism. Such arguments are based upon either ignorance of Hebrew grammar or an overriding desire to find evidence for the a priori assumption that monotheism evolved from polytheism rather than the other way around. While elohim may be plural, it is almost always paired with singular verbs and singular adjectives indicating that the plural is not a plural of number but a plural of majesty or excellence. In the very few cases where elohim is translated as ‘God’ in association with adjectives and verbs that are plural, there are quite reasonable explanations that do not rely upon conjuring up a monotheist conspiracy. Here’s a series of three essays that dig into the details:  Elohim: Plural or Singular Part I, Part II, and Part III.

The second essay referenced above also touches upon another issue that surfaces in today’s passage. In verse 1:26a we have: “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’”. Here, the verb paired with elohim is singular indicating the majestic plural rather than a numerical plural. Also, in verse 1:27, we have “God created man in his own image” and again the verb indicates singular. So to whom then is God referring or  speaking when He says ‘us’ and ‘our’? The consensus is that God is employing the “royal we”, speaking to His heavenly court surrounded by His angels, or doing both. Some writers suggest that this an early hint at the doctrine of the trinity, but I find the other explanation more likely.

I’ll briefly touch upon the matter of how I understand this story. There are various conflicting schools of thought among believers ranging from the more literal approach to the more figurative. I’ve seen good and bad arguments from all across the board – often from the same source. Honestly, I’m not exactly sure where my own understanding lies as I’ve changed positions over the years shifting in different directions based upon further exposure to various evidence and lines of reason and haven’t really found myself stabilizing. I currently lean towards the theory that this tablet was written by Moses from a series of seven prophetic visions of God’s creation of the universe and that God’s intent is a theological statement of His supremacy over the creation in contrast to competing contemporary creation accounts that involved complex battles between gods where heaven, the sea, the sun, and the moon were all divine participants rather than mere creations.

Regardless of the interpretation of the passage, it has many interesting literary aspects such as the pattern of each day beginning with God first decreeing what He will do, then doing it, and finally declaring the result good. The first three days describe the creation of forms through separation, and the next three days parallel the first three by filling their corresponding forms. There is definite emphasis on the final result of God’s creation being very good.

We begin our journey with the Old Testament. The exact books that make up the Old Testament vary among Christian denominations with some including only the books found in the canonical Hebrew Bible of Judaism and others also including all or some of the deuterocanonical (second canonical) books which consist of Jewish writings that were included in the Septuagint which is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd Centuries BC in Alexandria. The nature of these books was in dispute in the early Church, and they are not considered canonical in Judaism although they were read by the Jews and some passages from them are cited in the New Testament. When I first read the Bible, I read an NIV copy, which, being a modern Protestant translation, did not include the deuterocanonical books. During this study, I will include these books seeing as they are available with the WEB translation and I think it will be interesting to encounter these works regardless of their canonical status.

The first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are known as the Pentateuch or the Torah which is Hebrew for “law”, “teaching”, or “instruction”. According to Jewish religious tradition, the Torah was authored by the Hebrew prophet Moses. In addition, the Torah itself and later books of the Bible including the Gospels attest to the Torah as being the work of Moses. When it is said that Moses wrote the Torah, the claim is that Moses was the primary author, but that he likely drew upon existing materials when writing the portions that predate his life and that later editors added some expository material such as the recording of the death of Moses and helpful annotations that provide updated names of peoples and places so that later Jewish readers during the time of the Jewish Kingdom and the Babylonian Exile could understand archaic references.

Critical secular scholars since the 18th century have posited differing explanations for the origins of the Torah with the dominant theory being variations on the Wellhausen documentary hypothesis (sometimes known as JEDP theory for Jahwist source, Elohist source, Deuteronomist source, and Priestly source) which alleges that the Torah was edited together at a late date from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives. While this theory frequently pops up in the writings of skeptics who wish to undermine the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired, it has many flaws including loaded and dubious assumptions several of which have crumbled under the evidence of later archeological discoveries. Modern scholarship has trended towards abandoning the classical documentary hypothesis, but unfortunately, it is still sometimes treated by those with only a fleeting familarity with the Bible and Ancient Near East cultures as though it were established fact beyond controversy.

Given my faith in Jesus as God’s definitive messenger and His role as the center of my interpretative understanding of the Bible, the fact that Jesus claims in the New Testament that Moses is the author of the Torah means that I start with this as my assumption and place the burden of proof on those who would claim that Moses did not author the Torah. From my readings on the documentary hypothesis, I do not think that the burden of proof has been met. Instead, I find that a far more compelling approach is based upon the Wiseman hypothesis which notes the distinctive toledoth (‘These are the generations of …’) passages in Genesis and sees them as colophons that mark the ends of tablets.

For an excellent introductory analysis of the Wiseman hypothesis and how it lays bare the structure of Genesis, I recommend reading Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoths Colophons?. For further reading on the authorship of the Torah, I suggest: Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?, JEDP Theory Articles and The Documentary Theory of the Authorship of the Pentateuch.

Now that the matter of authorship has been touched upon, we are in a position to turn our attention directly to the first book of the Torah: the book of Genesis. The title, which comes from the Septuagint, is Greek for “birth” or “origin” and stems from the both the general subject matter of the work and from the frequent usage of the Greek geneseos in the text which corresponds with the Hebrew toledoth for “account” or “family origins” in the original Hebrew manuscripts. The original Hebrew title B’reishit means “in the beginning” and is the first word of the Hebrew text – a method by which all five books of the Torah are named in the Hebrew versions.

Genesis begins with an account of God creating the world and mankind. It then gives an account of early human history leading up to the pivotal figure of Abraham whose special relationship with God leads him to become the father of the Jewish and Arab peoples. Finally, Genesis follows the story of Abraham’s descendants until we find the fledging 12 tribes of Israel moving from their ancestral lands in Canaan (ancient Palestine) to live among the Egyptian people.

That’s plenty to digest for today. Tomorrow we’ll dive into the opening story of Genesis.

I’ve decided to start blogging through the Bible on a semi-daily basis. I see this as a useful exercise in many ways:

1. It will force me to write regularly which is a long languished goal of mine.
2. At the end, I will have completely read the Bible for a second time.
3. I will be able to record and focus my thoughts and understanding of the Bible.
4. Hopefully, I can provide some commentary of interest or value to my right-wing Christian brothers and sisters and to my atheist comrades.

For my translation, I’ve decided to use the World English Bible (WEB) as I like the principles that it is based upon – especially the fact that it is copyright free. You can read more about the WEB here: http://www.ebible.org/web/webfaq.htm.

The Christian Bible consists of two book collections: the Old Testament (or Old Covenant) and the New Testament (or New Covenant). The Old Testament is essentially the books of the Hebrew Bible while the New Testament collects the early Christian writings that recorded the lives and teachings of Jesus and His early followers. As I begin a given section or book, I will provide some introductory comments for it.

It seems appropriate for me to briefly discuss here the logical dependencies of my religious beliefs as this will provide some insight into how I approach the Bible.

Belief Dependency Flowchart

The starting point for my religious beliefs is theism. I’m not trying to justify my beliefs here and so will not go into how I arrived at my theist position, but it is mostly independent of my other more specialized religious beliefs other than some interplay with my second foundational religious belief: the belief in the truth of the Gospels which provide accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. While theism is definitely the logically prior belief and the core belief that provides a foundation for the rest, my belief in the truth of the Gospels does provide supporting evidence for my theism even as it depends upon the possibility of the theistic hypothesis.

From my theism and from my acceptance of the Gospels follows my belief that Jesus is God’s definitive revelation to mankind, and it is this belief that forms the backbone of my belief in the truth of Bible and also represents the key to my interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a large collection of writings that span across centuries and cultures. There are definitely passages that taken together present ambiguities or difficulties – though by no means are they necessarily the contradictions that a naive skeptic would paint them as. In fact, with a proper understanding of the relevant cultures and historical context as well as a proper attitude towards the text (seeking a solution rather decreeing an insurmountable problem), I find no contradictions in the Bible.

That’s probably enough material for today. Tomorrow, I’ll kick things off properly…

What better place to start than “In the Beginning…“?

Recently, Facebook started rolling out a new look for user profiles and along with this change is an update to the various links that get automatically created in the areas for things like favorite books, favorite movies, favorite activities, etc. Instead of links to a page showing results for searching on the linked term, they now point to Facebook Pages matching the linked term.

When Facebook rolls this change out to a given profile, they offer the user a dialog that shows the Page links that Facebook has automatically generated so that the user has a chance to make any corrections.

I’m guessing that the algorithm for matching terms to pages is a little off when it comes to some unidentified book that is popular with lots of Christians.

If you visit the Facebook page for Joseph Stalin, you’ll see that he has over a thousand people on Facebook that like him and if you click on any of these people at random, most likely you’ll find that they like The Bible and have other Christian interests. In addition, you’ll find that they apparently like a book called “Joseph Stalin” which sticks out like a sore thumb.

This amusing example of string matching gone wrong makes me mildly curious what the real title is.

The verdict of the “world” on a public character, as well as on moral worth in general and its opposite, like the public opinion of the “world” on other matters, represents only too often the verdict or the opinion of class prejudice and ignorance. It is, in fact, a fairly safe plan to ascertain for oneself “what most people think” on such questions, and then assume the opposite to be true. The result is a good working hypothesis, which remains, of course, to be possibly modified or even abandoned by subsequent investigation, but which is generally the nearest approach to truth we can make in the absence of the requisite knowledge for forming an unbiased judgment.

-Ernest Belfort Bax