Video: David Attenborough Documentary on the Cambrian

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 19, 2013

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Timaeus: I would suggest that, in its current Biblical context, *’elohim* means, not “gods” as a normal plural, but “the group of gods” or “the body consisting of gods” or “the council of gods” or “the divine collective”. I do not deny that centuries earlier, it might have meant “gods” as a normal plural; but that does not seem to be its meaning in the Biblical context — outside of the three exceptional verses discussed above — and even there, I have offered a plausible explanation of “plurality in unity.” I think I agree with this.Mapou_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

Timaeus: I do not know what this means: “I see Genesis as a terse but very precise historical and scientific text whose true meaning can be obtained by properly identifying and decoding the metaphors in the light of other scriptures.” Why would “a very precise historical and scientific text” employ “metaphors” that need “decoding” in the light of “other scriptures”? (And by “other scriptures” do you mean other parts of the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, etc.?) That is not how scientists and historians write. They try to write in plain, direct prose, and their articles and books do not require “other books” to interpret them. It is conceivable that the meaning was hidden because the information is relevant to a future age (our age) where it would have the most impact when revealed. Some of the metaphors of Genesis are reused and expanded upon elsewhere in other metaphorical books of the Bible, such as the book of Revelation, the books of Zechariah and Ezekiel, and others. It may also be the case that, if you or I don't understand the message, it's probably because it was not meant for us. I happen to have powerful reasons to believe that the Bible contains answers to major scientific secrets such as the nature of intelligence (will be needed for true AI) and the secret to immortality and the genomic hierarchy (the tree of life). There is even powerful knowledge about fundamental physics. But that's another story for another day and another forum. You end with: “Finally, a quick look at the different lifeforms on earth clearly shows different design styles.” This is mere assertion. Have you any evidence for the assertion? It is not an assertion. It is an observation. I see it especially in insects and sea creatures. It seems that some of the Elohim were having an orgy of creativity with wildly different insect and aquatic taxa.Mapou_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Mapou (29): "The Christian fundamentalist doctrine according to which the God of Genesis is perfect and omniscient is clearly refuted in various places." I do want to remind you that I'm not defending "fundamentalism" as that term is usually understood. However, just as a point of historical fact, the idea that God is "perfect" and "omniscient" is not limited to fundamentalism. Such adjectives are used to qualify God all through the mainstream Christian tradition. Chance Ratcliff has handled the Biblical passages, so I needn't give the response I was going to give on that point. On your point about "Let us make man" -- in the discussion above, I said that the singular verb was used in all but a handful of instances. The passage you have picked is one of that handful where a plural verb is used or implied; the others occur in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7. These three passages are indeed interesting. I interpret them as preserving a belief in a heavenly council of some sort -- perhaps of ministering angels, or perhaps (reflecting the pagan antecedents of the Israelites) former pagan gods demoted to feudal vassals, or former pagan gods actually incorporated into the being of one God (the idea being that the God of Israel comprises the power and wisdom of all gods, and that their wills are subsumed in his will). Regarding singular and plural usage, I take your point about the difference between US and UK usage. Here is how I interpret that: in US usage -- "Apple is putting out a new computer" -- the fact that Apple has many employees responsible for the new computer is not denied, but their concerted action -- as the unity called "Apple" -- is what is emphasized; whereas in the British usage, "Apple are putting out a new computer" -- the legal existence of the unity known as "Apple" is not denied, but fact that it is made up of numerous individuals is emphasized. Note that the Hebrew usage, with very few exceptions, follows the US pattern -- regarding the verb, I mean. The word *'elohim* is treated as a unity, which requires the singular verb. I would suggest that, in its current Biblical context, *'elohim* means, not "gods" as a normal plural, but "the group of gods" or "the body consisting of gods" or "the council of gods" or "the divine collective". I do not deny that centuries earlier, it might have meant "gods" as a normal plural; but that does not seem to be its meaning in the Biblical context -- outside of the three exceptional verses discussed above -- and even there, I have offered a plausible explanation of "plurality in unity." I do not know what this means: "I see Genesis as a terse but very precise historical and scientific text whose true meaning can be obtained by properly identifying and decoding the metaphors in the light of other scriptures." Why would "a very precise historical and scientific text" employ "metaphors" that need "decoding" in the light of "other scriptures"? (And by "other scriptures" do you mean other parts of the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, etc.?) That is not how scientists and historians write. They try to write in plain, direct prose, and their articles and books do not require "other books" to interpret them. You end with: "Finally, a quick look at the different lifeforms on earth clearly shows different design styles." This is mere assertion. Have you any evidence for the assertion?Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

One more thing. Here's a quote from Wikipedia that could shed some light on the different meanings of Elohim (emphasis added): Elohim occupy the seventh rank of ten in the famous medieval Rabbinic scholar Maimonides' Jewish angelic hierarchy. Maimonides said: "I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, ...Mapou_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Chance Ratcliff, Don't you find it strange that a literate person (a very big deal in those days because there weren't a lot of books in circulation), such as Isaiah, would be claiming that there are no other gods? It is certain that Isaiah was intimately familiar with the books of Genesis and Exodus. It is certain that he read about the accounts of the gods of the Egyptians who could turn water into blood and sticks into snakes. Here is an example: Exodus 12:12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am Jehovah. The word translated gods above is Elohim. Unless Isaiah was an idiot (I seriously doubt that), we are left to conclude that the word 'Elohim' (gods) did not have the same meaning in the days of Isaiah that it does today. If Elohim is understood to mean lords or masters (or even saviors, as some verses indicate), then the verses you mentioned are simply saying that Yahweh is the master and that there is no greater master than Yahweh or even a master equal to Yahweh. By the way, even Yahweh called himself Elohim as in "I am Yahweh, your Elohim." In my opinion, this is evidence that Yahweh is a tightly united community of powerful individuals who think it is extremely important that they be seen as one entity, even though they are many. Yahweh is/are the Elohim of creation, the big kahuna who created the universe and life on earth. There are other Elohim who are not nearly as powerful: the Elohim of Egypt, Babylon, etc. In sum, it's no different than a CEO of a corporation saying, "I am the boss and there is no other boss besides me." But we all know there are vice presidents and other managers who are also bosses.Mapou_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

On this point I'll make some references:
"I have never seen a single verse in the entire Bible that claims that there is only one god."
There are several, some clustered in Isaiah 43-46: "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior." - Isaiah 43:10b-11 NIV "I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." - Isaiah 44:6b "You are my witnesses. Is there there any god besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one" - Isaiah 44:8b "I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself," - Isaiah 44:24b "My own hands stretched out the heavens;" - Isaiah 45:12b "And there is no god apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me." - Isaiah 45:21b "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." Isaiah 46:9b There are many other verses across old and new testaments.Chance Ratcliff_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Timaeus, I disagree that the Genesis text does not support the concept of "many designers". The observation that 'Elohim' is used with singular verbs is a grammatical one. US English uses singular verbs with words like Apple or Microsoft. UK English uses plural verbs. Note that the textual evidence in Genesis for a plurality of gods is not limited to the word Elohim. In one verse in Genesis, the Elohim are reported to have said to themselves "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness". Even Yahweh acknowledged the existence of other gods. The very first commandment to the Israelites is "Thou shall have no other god before me." The Egyptians clearly had their gods that could perform amazing feats. There is no evidence for the Jewish-Christian-Muslim doctrine of there being only one God. I have never seen a single verse in the entire Bible that claims that there is only one god. Sure, we see things like "The Lord your God is ONE" but this cannot be interpreted as there being one god, especially since other verses clearly say otherwise. "God is one" is a way of showing the unity of the Godhead. The Christian fundamentalist doctrine according to which the God of Genesis is perfect and omniscient is clearly refuted in various places. The fact that the Elohim regretted creating man is sufficient to refute the omniscient God hypothesis, in my opinion. There are other similar passages but this is good enough. Your willingness to see Genesis as a mere religious text with no scientific significance is your own a personal choice. It is a private interpretation. It think it is just as misguided as the fundamentalist interpretation, which is, by the way, identical to the "scientific" interpretation. They all see a literal day and literal trees of life and knowledge and even a literal talking snake. I don't. I see Genesis as a terse but very precise historical and scientific text whose true meaning can be obtained by properly identifying and decoding the metaphors in the light of other scriptures. Finally, a quick look at the different lifeforms on earth clearly shows different design styles.Mapou_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Mapou: I'm not concerned whether or not your ideas are blasphemous, but I am concerned that they be based on a sound understanding of philology and ancient religious literature, in particular Biblical literature. Be careful you don't slip into word-for-word literalism when you read the Bible. While "very good" might not mean "perfect" in modern English, the expression translated "very good" is one of the ways that Hebrew uses to express superlative goodness. The Hebraic idiom does not always come across in English translation. So I would drop that point from your argument. Now about "many designers" -- if you repeat that to someone who has not read the above discussion, it is going to be materially misleading. Genesis does not speak of "many" designers. It employs *'elohim* with a *singular* verb ['elohim *makes* (3rd singular), not 'elohim *make* (3rd plural)], and further, the context seems to make clear that even if there is some sort of plurality within God -- e.g., if God is a council of heavenly immortals -- that plurality acts with a single will and a unified plan. There isn't the slightest hint that "too many cooks spoil the broth," which the English phrase "many designers" will almost certainly convey. So your comment takes the idea of the plurality within God (which for all we know might have long since been a dead idea for the writer and first readers of Genesis, surviving only in a linguistic fossil, but leave that aside) and employs it in a way that is out of context and against the apparent intention of the writer of Genesis. That leaves only one of your points, i.e., "Why does God have to look to see that what he has made is good? Shouldn't he know it will be good?" I think this point could be pressed somewhat, so I don't reject it. However, I think that you may be taking the narrative too literally. The author has chosen to explain creation in terms of a *story*. Storytellers take liberties. They aren't always concerned to make sure every detail in their story corresponds with a rigorous scientific, metaphysical, or historical statement of truth. In this case, the idea may be merely that God, in admiring out loud his own good job, is guaranteeing for the reader -- against certain conceptions of the world in the pagan environment of ancient Israel -- that the world is good; who would know better than its maker? Just to make it clear -- though it should be obvious -- I'm not interpreting Genesis from a fundamentalist viewpoint, or defending any such approach. I'm reading it as a piece of religious literature written in a certain context for a certain audience. And within that setting, I think it is sufficiently clear for its purpose. I thus think that both fundamentalist "defenses" of Genesis, and "scientific" attacks on Genesis, are equally misguided. It's *a story that expresses a religious teaching*. If it's read as anything else -- mechanically correct history, mechanically correct science -- it will mislead everyone who reads it.Timaeus_{February 25, 2013
February
02
Feb
25
25
2013
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Thank you all for this very interesting exchange of ideas and expertise. Assuming that Elohim is the plural of El (I have no objections), it remains to be decided what the word 'god' means. It may mean different things in different cultures. It's also fair to assume that its meaning has changed somewhat since Genesis was written. That being said, none of this takes away from my original point that Genesis teaches us that many designers/creators were involved in the design of life on earth and even in the creation of the entire universe. Furthermore, those powerful beings were obviously not omniscient. Genesis reports that they showed regret, for example, and they had to take a look back at their creation before concluding that it was very good. If one knows everything, there is no need to even mention that one's creation is very good. And, besides, why just very good? Why not 100% perfect? The implication from the choice of words is clear: it could have been bad and previous tries may have been bad and may have had to be corrected or restarted. I know what I am saying is blasphemy to many Christians but I don't care. I am just tired of the mentality that one should park one's brain in a closet when reading the Bible. I am also tired of the idea that we should tolerate obvious nonsense from some factions just to show unity. This is not unity. This is stupidity. Disagreements over fundamental concepts is far from being a show of strength. It is no wonder the atheists and evolutionists found a way to control the education sector and can now fearlessly teach their voodoo religion in our schools even though our Western constitutions forbid it. But there is a time for everything.Mapou_{February 24, 2013
February
02
Feb
24
24
2013
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

And, for a completely different approach, Rabbi Arthur Waskow suggests that YHWH is not meant to be pronounced, but vocalized, just as it is, as the sound of what it is to breathe: Why YAH/YHWH.Kantian Naturalist_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

KN @ 22 Thank you for your response. Yes I am quite aware about the aforementioned difficulties with vowel pointing. I thought I alluded to such, albeit briefly, but the lapse in clarity is my own fault. Timaeus @ 23,24 Thank you for your response as well. I appreciate your grasp on the subject. As I indicated to KN, I am aware of the difficulties in ascertaining the specific pronunciation of the divine name. However, the point that I intended to make, though perhaps not as plainly as would be desired, is not that our pronunciation is certain - we cannot at present be dogmatic about the matter. Rather, my point is that the varied renderings of the divine name reflect, in my view, at least an earnest attempt to capture more of the flavor of the original Hebrew (not to mention the intent of its Author). I think this must be preferable to hiding the name of the author of sacred Scripture behind a formal title. As a Christian person I feel that if God placed the Tetragrammaton so plentifully into Scripture, He must have some compelling reason for placing it there! As for concern about constant change, I sympathize in some measure, but I cannot consider inertia to be a legitimate impediment to needed refinement. This is not to say that every view published must necessitate starting from the ground up, but merely that if we have reasonable warrant, we should at least try to be flexible and not doggedly insist on tradition. To me this is not merely a matter of scholarly debate. I firmly believe, as did a great number of Bible translators, that the Bible is for the everyman.Optimus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Optimus: On your other points: 1. I was offering one common explanation for the plural form of *'elohim*. I don't say that your alternate explanation is impossible, and I don't have a favored explanation of my own. 2. I understand your desire to place accuracy ahead of mere tradition. On the other hand, where accuracy may be forever out of our reach -- we may never know how YHWH was originally pronounced -- the choice is then between a merely probable scholarly reconstruction of the actual name of God and a long-hallowed tradition of saying "Lord" instead of the name of God. To me, it is not obvious that the former option is better than the latter. Suppose we render God as "Yahweh" or "Jahve," as many translations now do. While, we have a problem right away, because some are saying the word with a J and a v, and others saying it with a Y and a w. So there will not be uniformity across Christian churches, not even within the same denomination, since sometimes within the same denomination different congregations use different Bible translations. But suppose everyone agrees on one spelling/pronunciation, and suppose congregations start getting used to that rendering, and then an archaeological dig finds evidence that it was pronounced "Yuhaweh" instead. So do we re-translate all the Bibles with that new pronunciation? And change all the printed liturgical material? And, given the vagaries of philological science, it might happen that 20 years later, some ancient papyri are dug up with evidence that it was pronounced "Johiyvay"; do we change all the Bibles and liturgy again? How does one maintain a religious tradition if the name of God is changing all the time? The element of tradition is stability, not constant change. The maintenance of the traditional rendering, "Lord," serves that need for stability. And if there is a concern about misleading people, there is nothing to stop a clergyman from explaining how YHWH came to be rendered "Lord" in either a sermon or a Bible study. And Christians and Jews can buy commentaries which explain such things.Timaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Optimus: I never denied that the Hebrew text contains the original *consonants* of the Tetragrammaton; my point was that the original *vowels* are not preserved. But still, my account above contains an error, because I implied that in Hebrew Bibles, the word YHWH is found without any vowel pointing. In fact, in Hebrew Bibles as we know them (from late antiquity up to the present day) the vowel points do occur under the consonants of the word YHWH, and it is from that pointing that English translators derived "Jehovah," a rendering that occurs 4 times in the King James Bible. What I should have said is that in the original manuscripts, before the Masoretes (textual scholars of the Jewish tradition) got to work, there were only consonants, and no vowel points, in written Hebrew. We see this in, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls. All we see for the personal name of God there is YHWH (in Hebrew letters, of course), not "Yahweh" or "Yehowah." And quite possibly, up to some point in the past, "YHWH" was read aloud with its original vowels, so that the name of God could be heard; but later, when it was felt that the name was too holy to pronounce, the euphemism *'adonay* was substituted, and once the scholars had adopted the habit of adding the vowel points to all the Biblical words, the vowels of *'adonay* (or a close approximation thereof) were placed under the consonants of YHWH. So what I should have said was: prior to the adoption of vowel-pointing, the text of the Hebrew Bible was consonantal only, and the name of God read "YHWH," with the reader being expected to supply the appropriate vowel sounds: in the earlier period, they might well have read the name of God aloud, i.e., "Yahweh" or "Jahveh" or however it was pronounced; in the later period, they did not say "Yahweh" or "Jahveh" (etc.), but *'adonay*. Thus, the form "Jehovah" or "Yehowah," which takes its consonants from the original name of God, but its vowels from *'adonay*, does not correspond to any pronunciation that the Jews have ever used. So when someone says that "Jehovah is the personal name of God," he is mistaken; the name "Jehovah" is a compromise between the euphemism of later Judaism and the original pronunciation of the name of God. (So a certain modern denomination, to be accurate, should change its name to "Yahweh's Witnesses.") I wrote this up out of my own knowledge, but my account is confirmed by this passage: "Some Christian scholars render the four-letter Name as "Jehovah," but this pronunciation is particularly unlikely. The word "Jehovah" comes from the fact that ancient Jewish texts used to put the vowels of the Name "Adonai" (the usual substitute for YHVH) under the consonants of YHVH to remind people not to pronounce YHVH as written. A sixteenth century German Christian scribe, while transliterating the Bible into Latin for the Pope, wrote the Name out as it appeared in his texts, with the consonants of YHVH and the vowels of Adonai, and came up with the word JeHoVaH, and the name stuck." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/name.htmlTimaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

What you seem to missing, Optimus -- at any rate, what it strikes me you're missing, though I might be misinterpreting you -- is this: we today do not know how the ancient Israelite name "YHWH" was pronounced. To pronounce it as "Yahweh" (or however) is a convention adopted by scholars. It is an ancient Jewish tradition to say the word "Adonai" whenever the text says "YHWH". For this reason the name is sometimes written with the vowels for "Adonai", as a reminder to the reader to substitute the word "Adonai" when reading aloud. This is not a matter of translation -- this is the convention practiced by millions of Jews who read the Torah aloud on a daily basis. But I leave it to you to make of that tradition what you will. Scholars unfamiliar with this convention mistakenly thought that "Jehovah" is the correct pronunciation, since that's what you get when you use the consonants YHWH with the vowels for "Adonai". But no Jew would say that "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" is the name of God. Instead, we would say that we have forgotten how to pronounce the name of God. Presumably, Orthodox Jews believe that that knowledge will be restored to us when the Messiah comes, though I don't know for that a fact that that's part of Orthodox Jewish belief.Kantian Naturalist_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Timaeus @ 17
Now one might ask, are the Hebrew verbs that go with *’elohim* therefore in the plural? And the answer is, no, they aren’t — except in a very tiny handful of cases. The verbs are *singular* — meaning that *’elohim*, despite its plural grammatical form, was thought of as singular in meaning. Scholars debate over this oddity. Some suggest that originally the Israelite people had conceived of a group of Gods, or a council of Gods, acting together, rather than a single God. If this explanation is accepted, then the linguistic form “gods” is to be regarded as a living fossil from an earlier, pre-monotheistic religious belief, with the singular verb testifying to the victory of the newer monotheism.
The more tenable explanation, in my mind anyway, is that the union of the plural elohim with the singular verb form indicates that the purpose of the plural form is not numerical description, but rather the purpose is to emphasize the majesty and excellence of Almighty God. It should be noted that the plural of majesty is also used in connection with other individual personages in Scripture (e.g. Joseph @ Gen. 42:30 - a plural of adhohn).
The English form “Jehovah” is a conflation of the letters YHWH (= JHVH, when the consonantal sounds later changed) with the approximate vowel sounds of *’adonay*; it thus corresponds to no word that actually appears in the Hebrew Bible!
I disagree. While the point stands concerning the vowel pointing (introduced in the second half of the first millenium C.E.), the name Jehovah preserves the consonants of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH or JHVH latinized) which emphatically are present in the Hebrew text. In fact, in the Biblia Hebraica (R. Kittel) the Tetragrammaton appears over 6800 times.
It is generally best to stick to conventional translations, to avoid confusion. So *’elohim* should be rendered as “God” (unless one is writing a scholarly article about ancient Semitic pantheons, in which case “gods” might be appropriate), and the personal name YHWH should be rendered as “Lord” or “LORD”, and *’adon* should be rendered as “lord” or “master” (to indicate that a human lord or master is meant). Some would argue that the least confusing way of rendering YHWH would be with the supposed original pronunciation — Yahweh or Jahveh — which would make it impossible to confuse with the Hebrew words for “God” or for “lord”. But traditional Jews would not accept the direct rendering of the divine name, and in any case, we aren’t sure of the pronunciation. Also, in terms of the religious life of the West, “Yahweh/Jahveh” is an alien term, used by neither Jews nor Christians, and resurrected by modern scholars for their purposes; and Bible translations which use it sound “academic”; the term “LORD” has a warmth established by long usage, and it’s hard to substitute anything for it without losing something in the process.
I find this reasoning troubling. Even if we are unsure of the exact pronunciation of the memorial name, to substitute it with a formal title is to embrace the very inaccuracy that the translator strives to avoid in the first place. With all due respect, what people (of whatever religious persuasion) may accept is immaterial. Accuracy must take precedence. Furthermore, for the person who holds Scripture to be the genuine word of God, altering its contents to suit the whims of some people is an incredibly presumptuous act. I would add that in other matters of faith, most Christians would never dream of allowing the biases of ancient Judaism to dictate Christian belief. Should we refuse to affirm Jesus' Messiahship out of deference to Judaism? That Almighty God would condescend to allow mortal man to address Him by his own personal name must be recognized as an incredibly meaningful gesture, one that shows God's desire for intimacy even with fallen human creation. Indeed, I posit that on the contrary, to replace the memorial name (Yahweh or Jehovah) with LORD is to sacrifice the intimacy of Scripture upon that altar of stale tradition.Optimus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

To back up the Trinity view of the use of the word Elohim, there is also a 'supernatural' watermark as to how Elohim is used in the first verse of the Bible: This following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – Amazing – video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9LiiSVaes Pi and e are also found in 'the most famous formula' in the world: God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.",,, The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,, Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.,,, The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God." When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3bornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

The Significance of Elohim and the Trinity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwsHC1KSNFYbornagain77_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Mung, I had a good bit of religious instruction when I was younger, including a bar mitzvah in the Reform Jewish tradition. And I've been a teaching assistant for Great Books-style classes that taught the Old and New Testaments from literary, historical, and philosophical perspectives. But I'm glad to see that I was able to surprise you! :) Timaeus, that's an interesting point about the singular verbs -- I hadn't known that. I've heard it claimed that the ancient Israelites might have been henotheistic rather than monotheistic in the contemporary sense, but I don't know how that claim is regarded by scholars today. I'm rather partial towards the idea of a god whose name cannot be pronounced (more precisely, the pronunciation of which has been lost) -- it captures the transcendence and ineffability of the divine in a very immediate fashion.Kantian Naturalist_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist is correct. Scholars generally regard *'elohim* as the plural form of *'el* ("god"). The word *'el* is believed to be cognate with "*Al*-lah" (the word for "God" in Arabic), and with other Semitic words for "god." The standard translation of *'el* in English Bibles is "God." However, *'el* does not occur very often in the Hebrew Bible. In the overwhelming majority of cases where the English reads "God," the Hebrew word is *'elohim*, which by its form ought to mean "gods." Now one might ask, are the Hebrew verbs that go with *'elohim* therefore in the plural? And the answer is, no, they aren't -- except in a very tiny handful of cases. The verbs are *singular* -- meaning that *'elohim*, despite its plural grammatical form, was thought of as singular in meaning. Scholars debate over this oddity. Some suggest that originally the Israelite people had conceived of a group of Gods, or a council of Gods, acting together, rather than a single God. If this explanation is accepted, then the linguistic form "gods" is to be regarded as a living fossil from an earlier, pre-monotheistic religious belief, with the singular verb testifying to the victory of the newer monotheism. As for the other relevant terms: *melek* is usually rendered as "king" or "ruler"; *'adon* is usually rendered as "lord" or "master" (most commonly with a pronominal suffix, usually "my," as in the expression "my lord" or "my master"). It can refer to God, but more often to a human master or lord (who is sometimes a king or ruler as well). An interesting wrinkle concerning *'adon* is that the word *'adonay* ("my Lord" or "my master") was used (and is used today) by Jews in *reading* the Hebrew name of God, the four consonants of which are YHWH (the original pronunciation of YHWH is unknown, but it may have been "Yahweh"). The personal name of God was considered too sacred to say aloud, and so "YHWH" was pronounced *'adonay*, i.e., YHWH was called "my Lord" rather than by his personal name. (As we would call Queen Elizabeth "Your Majesty" instead of "Elizabeth.") The English form "Jehovah" is a conflation of the letters YHWH (= JHVH, when the consonantal sounds later changed) with the approximate vowel sounds of *'adonay*; it thus corresponds to no word that actually appears in the Hebrew Bible! In the Greek translation of the Old Testament -- which was heavily used by the New Testament writers -- *'el* and *'elohim* usually become *theos*; and *adon*, with or without the suffix, usually become *kurios*, which means "lord" or "master" in Greek. But the divine Name, YHWH, because of the euphemism *'adonay*, also becomes *kurios* in Greek, which means that in some contexts the meaning of *kurios* would not be clear from the Greek Old Testament alone. In Latin *'el* / *'elohim* and *'adonay* (for YHWH) become *Deus* and *Dominus* respectively. It is generally best to stick to conventional translations, to avoid confusion. So *'elohim* should be rendered as "God" (unless one is writing a scholarly article about ancient Semitic pantheons, in which case "gods" might be appropriate), and the personal name YHWH should be rendered as "Lord" or "LORD", and *'adon* should be rendered as "lord" or "master" (to indicate that a human lord or master is meant). Some would argue that the least confusing way of rendering YHWH would be with the supposed original pronunciation -- Yahweh or Jahveh -- which would make it impossible to confuse with the Hebrew words for "God" or for "lord". But traditional Jews would not accept the direct rendering of the divine name, and in any case, we aren't sure of the pronunciation. Also, in terms of the religious life of the West, "Yahweh/Jahveh" is an alien term, used by neither Jews nor Christians, and resurrected by modern scholars for their purposes; and Bible translations which use it sound "academic"; the term "LORD" has a warmth established by long usage, and it's hard to substitute anything for it without losing something in the process.Timaeus_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Mung. Changing minds is what organized creationism aims to do and does do if it can reach audiences. Genesis insists upon boundaries to biology, geology, man, etc. It asserts conclusions very aggressively. It is saying something and everything else is coming from it.Robert Byers_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Collins. Thanks for the defence. i helped high ross at my church function as I believe and love all creationist aggresion to overthrow dumb and worthless ideas. It was a good presentation and good crowd. Yet he is wrong about details in genesis. There is no geological evidence for a old earth and the bible undercuts claims behind evidence for a old earth. for example the existence of death or chaos before the fall. As in biology its about proving a case based on evidence. YEC can take them on.Robert Byers_{February 23, 2013
February
02
Feb
23
23
2013
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist: I believe Elohim means “gods”, You may be right but I have read elsewhere that it means "the Lords".Mapou_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Collin: Don’t you think you’re laying it on a little thick? I mean, an idolator for having a certain interpretation? An athiest plant? How about some respect for differing viewpoints? The way I see it, if you believe the Bible is infallible, you are an idolater. The Bible is a research tool, not the infallible word of God. Even if it had been given to us directly by God, human interpretations of it are certainly not infallible. Instead of preaching that you know for certain that God created everything in six days, it would be more civilized and much less presumptuous to say that it's just your personal belief and understanding. There is a time for everything. The time allotted for certain clueless Christians to preach BS in the name of God is coming to an end.Mapou_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

KN, You're full of surprises! :)Mung_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

I am a YEC.
Do you think God is fundamentally opposed to people changing their mind when they are wrong?
I insist Genesis is right and all other ideas in contention are wrong.
But to say that Genesis is right is to say that it is right about something. Who told you what Genesis is about?Mung_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Mapou, Don't you think you're laying it on a little thick? I mean, an idolator for having a certain interpretation? An athiest plant? How about some respect for differing viewpoints? Robert Byers, From what I know about geology (which is limited) the evidence for an old earth is pretty strong. Even solid creationists like Hugh Ross argue against a young earth. http://www.reasons.org/articles/special-edition-tnrtb-astronomers-assess-the-age-of-the-universeCollin_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

After all, isn’t it written in the book of Genesis that the Elohim (literally masters but incorrectly translated as God everywhere) created a bunch of living creatures and then looked at their entire creation before deciding that it was very good?
I believe Elohim means "gods", the singular being El meaning "god." The Hebrew word for "master" is Meleck. The Hebrew Adonai means "lord". "Elohim" is the term used in Genesis 1; "Adonai" in Genesis 2. (According to ancient Jewish tradition, only the high priest of the Temple was permitted to actually pronounce the name of God, written as the Tetragrammaton. Some medieval Kabbalists called God "Ha-Shem," "the Name.")Kantian Naturalist_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Byers, Do you understand the ancient languages and the original meaning of the words as they were understood when Genesis was written? Of course not. Otherwise you wouldn't be so confident in your understanding of scriptures. People like you are idolaters, in my opinion, worshiping your own diseased doctrine instead of God. See you around.Mapou_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Mapou and rest. I am a YEC. I insist Genesis is right and all other ideas in contention are wrong. I am not a plant and nothing wrong with my stuff which also is common creationist stuff. As i said there is no biological scientific evidence for claim,s about complexity appearing suddenly or slowly. its all mere connecting biological data points (fossils) in presumed geological sequences . A logical fallacy is amongst the brothers here and the adversaries. Yes Noah existed because the bible and Jesus Christ said he did. I believe there was a great segregation on earth then between clean and unclean creatures. This shown in the ark selections. Therefore people probably never saw dinosaurs etc until they came by paires to the ark. This is why after the flood it newly was important to make the creatures afraid of man. before was not a issue. Possibly someone broke a bronco triceratops but unlikely they saw them. Barriers from mountains etc probably separating everyone. Anyways its about the quality and quantity of evidence. The bible is a witness but the rest must deliver. Evolutionists and ID folks need to deliver their conclusions about biology based on scientific biological evidence. ID do a great job of criticizing evolutionists and God deniers/nature but do fall into faith in the fossil record as a BIOLOGICAL tool for investigation. It ain't. Closer attention boys!!Robert Byers_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

timothya, Fred Flintstone's real name was Noah.Mung_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply