It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If you look at a modern Bible, you would get the impression that Genesis was pretty important, and that impression would come almost exclusively from Genesis itself. If the was no Book of Genesis, there would be no real reason to miss it because it is practically a separate mythology from the rest of the Old Testament.
The story of Genesis does indeed pre-date Ezekiel.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
If you look at a modern Bible, you would get the impression that Genesis was pretty important, and that impression would come almost exclusively from Genesis itself. If the was no Book of Genesis, there would be no real reason to miss it because it is practically a separate mythology from the rest of the Old Testament.
The story of Genesis does indeed pre-date Ezekiel.
edit on 26-11-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
Genesis is a set of writings.
The whole reason behind Genesis and creation was for God to make man.
Any sort of coherent thought that you can articulate behind that conclusion?
i came to the conclusion that most of the religions of today were loosely based on Genesis.
The Hebrew word eden is simply a generic "pleaure place," or plausibly enough for desert dwellers, a garden. Capitalizing the E in the translation you use for Ezekiel 28: 13 is a translator's choice, not necessarily the prophet's intention.
Hmm. But Ezekiel is mentioning a character in Eden, and then drawing a parallel back to the King of Tyre.
You see, if you had just brought the idea in as a hypothetical, that would have been fine and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Genesis: with a Talmudical Commentary. By P. I. Hershon. With an Introductory Essay by Canon Spence, M.A. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 560 pp., 10s.
"The texts of Genesis scattered throughout the twelve volumes of the Talmud have been carefully searched out and arranged in the order in which we find them in our Bibles. To each individual text is added the immediate context as found in the Talmud. After many of the texts and the direct Talmudical comments upon them, so-called Synoptical Notes are introduced. These refer to the principal subjects suggested in the text just commented upon, and any curious and interesting remark on these subjects contained in the Mishna and Gemara is appended. Careful references to the particular treatise, page and column are in all cases given."—Introductory Essay.
You would have to look into all those quotations and try to figure out when they were added to the Talmud.
So, it does seem that commentary on everything in Genesis is fragmentary and sparse, but that Talmudic commentary on this story does exist. I am unsure that helps us with dating.
Originally posted by eight bits
Your OP quotes an English translation of Ezekiel 28 in which the initial letter of Eden is capitalized. I have already told you where to look.
Originally posted by eight bits
The Hebrew word eden is simply a generic "pleaure place," or plausibly enough for desert dwellers, a garden. Capitalizing the E in the translation you use for Ezekiel 28: 13 is a translator's choice, not necessarily the prophet's intention.
Originally posted by eight bits
You did, however, offer an English translation of Ezekiel, and have discussed its English word Eden as if it translated a proper noun, and not a common noun, from the original text (an example appears in the next quote block below). You have produced no evidence on that point. I questionned that; I don't claim to know the original intention of the author.
Originally posted by eight bits
In the second of your quotes, I said "No" to a statement which you presented as if it were an accomplished fact, when the matter was and is disputed.
Originally posted by eight bits
Supposedly, my objecting to this elevation of your personal opinion to the status of established fact violates some Croftly notion of netiquette, which you describe as follows,
Originally posted by eight bits
This is a discussion board, where people discuss one another's opinions, sometimes tersely. If you're complaining that somebody contradicted what you wrote, take it up with a moderator.
Originally posted by eight bits
You didn't abide by your own rule, so what's your beef with me?
Both of these Gentile movements were peculiarly fascinated with those pre-Patriarchal sections.
Originally posted by eight bits
That's fine…
Originally posted by Joecroft
Hmm. But Ezekiel is mentioning a character in Eden, and then drawing a parallel back to the King of Tyre
Originally posted by eight bits
No, Ezekiel is mentioning a character in an eden, a pleasure garden, the one in Tyre. The translator capitalizes the E. That doesn't mean Ezekiel did.
Originally posted by Joecroft
How do you know that Ezekiel didn’t originally capitalize the E?
Originally posted by eight bits
I didn't say I did know. You haven't shown that Ezekiel capitalized it, all you've offered is translations.
Originally posted by eight bits
I didn't claim Ezekiel didn't "capitalize" the E. If you aren't interetsed in researching whether he did or not, then why should I be?
Originally posted by eight bits
Asking you for evidence cannot be taken as a denial that you might produce some evidence. As it happens, you're not interested in doing that.
Originally posted by eight bits
It's not "my idea" that the E is capitalized in translations of Ezekiel 28. It's there in the 4th line of your OP. So, we don't need to traipse through the whole thread to see how I discussed what you brought up by quoting it.
Originally posted by eight bits
I didn't say you "said Ezekiel didn't 'capitalize' the E." (You meant "did?") You have a nasty habit of putting words in people's mouths.
Originally posted by eight bits
No, Ezekiel is mentioning a character in an eden, a pleasure garden, the one in Tyre. The translator capitalizes the E. That doesn't mean Ezekiel did.
I would take that as an indication that these were Jewish movements which were disowned by the official Jewish majority party.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I ordered a new book (actually, used, but new to me) yesterday from Amazon:
"Forms of Old Testament Literature: Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)"
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I ordered a new book (actually, used, but new to me) yesterday from Amazon:
"Forms of Old Testament Literature: Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature)"
I got one earlier this week in the same book series but on Daniel, so I figured this one would be good also, and maybe I will learn some new insights into where the Eden Story comes from