Pentateuch Wisdom

[Francis king]

last night I was speaking to Master Chohan in a vision and he said that he will curse all theosophists and make them emit an odour of cabbage, so we lesser beings may know them...

result!

 

[Quahom1]

last night I was speaking to Master Chohan in a vision and he said that he will curse all theosophists and make them emit an odour of cabbage, so we lesser beings may know them...

result!

Can't tell. 30 years of welding dust and gun powder have burned out my olfactory nerves...

 

[taijasi]

Yes, I think the "royal we" is just wishful thinking. It's the best we can come up with, to try and deal with this inconsistency ... isn't it, Thomas?

Care to quote for us from the KJV perhaps, Genesis 1:25 ... then Genesis 1:27?

Be sure to go ahead and paste Genesis 1:26 there in between.

So, it's the "royal we" is it? And why, might we presume, does this "royal we" not appeare in the preceding, or even the following, verse???

 

[bgruagach]

***Moderator Warning***

Let's keep the posts on topic and avoid insults and ad hominem attacks everyone.

I'd also like to remind everyone that disagreement is permitted -- we won't get much interfaith discussion if dissention from orthodox interpretation of whatever religion we're discussing is not allowed. It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I'd hate to have to resort to more drastic moderation measures. It all depends on the behaviour of everyone involved.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Andrew,

You have make a valid point. I count 24 references to a singular God in Genesis 1, which is then suddenly followed by the "us" word. It does beg the question -- why does repeated singularity suddenly give way to plurality?

I believe the people who changed the plural gods-words into singular God-words ran into a roadblock when they hit Genesis 1:26. It just didn't flow right to have God tell Himself of a need to make man.

Another theory is that they just made a boo-boo, and left Genesis 1:26 in the plural, like it was in the original.

Which theory is correct? Only time will tell.

(This also begs the question of who God was talking to all through Genesis 1. Theosophy, of course, has an answer.)

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Qualhom1

I would request you not quote blasphemy in your posts. I do not think I have blasphemed your belief system, and you seem like the kind of person who wouldn't do such a thing.

You and I have had some great discussions in the past, but a minimum amount of civility will be necessary for me to continue reading your posts.

 

[Quahom1]

Qualhom1

I would request you not quote blasphemy in your posts. I do not think I have blasphemed your belief system, and you seem like the kind of person who wouldn't do such a thing.

You and I have had some great discussions in the past, but a minimum amount of civility will be necessary for me to continue reading your posts.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Absolutely none.

edit: Oh, now I get it, I make a subtle remark to some one else to "knock it off", and you take offense? Brother, I'm not the one with the sensitivity problem...
No, I will not refrain from "blashphemy", since I'd never know when I did or did not utter it. You'll just have to plug your ears, eyes and mouth.

I'm sorrry.

 

[Thomas]

(1) I believe the origins of Genesis were written before people started wearing crowns.

Well the Pentateuch belongs to the people of Israel, and as they were in some degree subject to the Egyptians before the Exodus, they would have been well aware of the concept. Unless you're suggesting the Pentauteuch was written by someone else, at some other time ...?

(2) I say humanity WAS created by a group of gods.

What you or I say is immaterial. What the evidence says is the point. What I say is from the wisdom of scholarship. What you say ... at this stage ... is a simple refusal to accept the evidence.

(3) Your logic is faulty. The concidence of the Genesis "us" and the royal "us" is just that -- a concidence. I can see how people can make a deductive leap that the royal "us" is the Genesis "us", but Theosophy teaches such a deductive leap is a mistake.

Actually your logic is at fault – you introduce coincidence, and then refute it, and then imply the argument and error of coincidence is mine, which it is not. I never said, nor does scholarship believe, that coincidence has anything to do with it.

--> The word "us" means plural, and that is what the writer of the Bible wanted in there.

At this point you're beginning to sound like a fundamentalist of the first water – no evidence nor argument other than your own entrenched opinion.

For people interested in the idea of a plural Elohim, here are some Theosophical quotes that support such an idea.

And a shedload of quotes to cover the fact that you have no real argument in the face of the real issue.

... and you accuse me of long inserts!

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

I have lost the ability to control invisible HTML tags. Why? If somebody changed them on me , too bad, I know HTML.


Thomas,

You said,

"...you're suggesting the Pentauteuch was written by someone else, at some other time ...?"

--> I am. Theosophy teaches us Judiasm got Genesis, etc., from the Chaldeans, who got it from an even older culture. Theosphy teaches there have been entire civilizations that have completely disappeared, and there knowledge of the Ancient Wisdom was far greater than most people today suspect.

"What you or I say is immaterial. What the evidence says is the point."


--> I agree. This is why I recommend people study ancient Theosophical scripture. It gives a better flow of ideas, and has suffered less editing over the centuries.
"I never said, nor does scholarship believe, that coincidence has anything to do with it."

--> Theosophy teaches that it does. However, Theosophy's showing that humanity was created by a group of gods (just like Genesis 1:26 says) solves the problem.

"no evidence nor argument other than your own entrenched opinion."

--> Ancient Theosophical scripture gives more evidence and arguments than the Bible does.

"quot;And a shedload of quotes to cover the fact that you have no real argument in the face of the real issue."

--> At least you have not characterized Theosophy as a crock of ****, like you did before.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Whoever removed my ability to edit invisible HTML tags, please give it back. I will leave the above HTML-challenged post as is.

 

[Thomas]

I believe the people who changed the plural gods-words into singular God-words ran into a roadblock when they hit Genesis 1:26. It just didn't flow right to have God tell Himself of a need to make man.

Another theory is that they just made a boo-boo, and left Genesis 1:26 in the plural, like it was in the original.

So the Bible is either a fabrication, or a cock-up, of a pre-existing testimony?

So what/where is the text that the Hebrews fabricated, or cocked-up?

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

-oOo-

Thomas,

You asked,

"So the Bible is either a fabrication, or a cock-up, of a pre-existing testimony?"

--> I believe the pre-Chaldean version is no longer available. The Bible is not a fabrication, it is a version of an initially correct text that has been altered over the centuries. The true meaning of the original form is still there, but difficult to find. Fortunately, Theosophy provides that service.

"So what/where is the text that the Hebrews fabricated, or cocked-up?"

--> If you mean the original source of the text of the Creation Story, Theosophy has the best (unaltered) copy, a copy that is millions of years old.

~~~

Hey, Thomas, you didn't insult me or my belief system this time. Thanks.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Somebody turned my HTML-editing function back on. Thanks.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas said,
"...you're suggesting the Pentauteuch was written by someone else, at some other time ...?"

--> I am. Theosophy teaches us Judiasm got Genesis, etc., from the Chaldeans, who got it from an even older culture. Theosphy teaches there have been entire civilizations that have completely disappeared, and there knowledge of the Ancient Wisdom was far greater than most people today suspect.

But the point of the Pentateuch is the wisdom of monotheism far supercedes the wisdom of polytheism. The Pentateuch covers the coming to know the One True God, as revealed to the people in the Exodus and Moses on Hebron and Sinai. The signifier of this is a verse that I believe is fundamental to Hebrew liturgical practice, and personally, for reasons I cannot quite fathom, strikingly beautiful...

"my father was a wandering Aramean..." (Deut. 26:5)

Originating from Chaldea is called into a deeper and more profound understanding of his ancestral (Chaldean and polythesitic) deities, by which he comes to realise there is but One God.

Hebrew (I think) and certainly Christian scholarship traces the movement from a polytheism to monotheism as a refinement of prior thought as well as Revelation, this 'refinement' evident in what we know of Chaldean and other spiritual traditions.

The story of the Flood, for example, is in the Bible and in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the idea of 'god' in Gilgamesh and the human drama, is naive and untenable today (too many anthropological paradoxes – one being as a result of the decimation of humanity, the gods are starving to death, as they cannot feed themselves!), whereas the Scriptural account reveals a a far more profound understanding of God, and of God's relationship with humanity.

--> I agree. This is why I recommend people study ancient Theosophical scripture. It gives a better flow of ideas, and has suffered less editing over the centuries.

Which texts?

Theosophy teaches that it does. However, Theosophy's showing that humanity was created by a group of gods (just like Genesis 1:26 says) solves the problem.

But you haven't shown that. All you've shown is a questionable interpretation of Scripture. You're 'solving a problem' which is how to make the world's sacred texts conform to your idea ...

--> Ancient Theosophical scripture gives more evidence and arguments than the Bible does.

Then let us see it ... so far the evidence has not been very promising ...

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You said,

"But the point of the Pentateuch is the wisdom of monotheism far supercedes the wisdom of polytheism."

--> Theosophy tells of the "wisdom" of the pantheistic creation of humanity, as Genesis 1:26 tells us.

"The Pentateuch covers the coming to know the One True God...."

--> The Theosophical story covers much more.

"...this 'refinement' evident in what we know of Chaldean and other spiritual traditions."

--> Theosophy refers to this 'refinement' as unauthorized changing of the original texts. Fortunately, Theosophy provides the original text, without these changes.

"You're 'solving a problem' which is how to make the world's sacred texts conform to your idea ..."

--> I do not need to make the world's sacred texts conform to my ideas. The world's sacred texts all come from a single text. The conformity is already there.

"Which texts?"

--> The Theosophical story is a poem called the Stanzas of Dzyan. I have put them in a separate thread.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-stanzas-of-dzyan-7045.html#post102576

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Here is an online source for the Stanzas of Dzyan. It is the centerpiece of a book called The Secret Doctrine.

The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky

The actual Stanzas appear in Book 1 on page 27 and Book 2 on page 15.

 

[bananabrain]

Theosophy teaches us Judiasm got Genesis, etc., from the Chaldeans, who got it from an even older culture.

and your evidence from this is of course - oh yes, there isn't any!

I believe the pre-Chaldean version is no longer available.

how convenient!

The true meaning of the original form is still there, but difficult to find. Fortunately, Theosophy provides that service.

how very lucky for us all!

Theosophy has the best (unaltered) copy, a copy that is millions of years old.

what, fossilised into the geological record, is it? oh, no, that's right, it was read in the ether or on the astral plane or something, wasn't it? that *must* be the best, it *must* be unaltered and it *must* be genuine. what's that you say? who says so? oh yes, the theosophists again.

"my father was a wandering Aramean..." (Deut. 26:5)

Originating from Chaldea is called into a deeper and more profound understanding of his ancestral (Chaldean and polytheistic) deities, by which he comes to realise there is but One G!D.

yes, that's a famous mistranslation. the hebrew actually says "an aramean (i.e. laban, father of rachel and leah) sought to destroy my father (i.e. jacob)" - ironic, really, when you think about what you're trying to do. for the context and commentary, see here:

Chumash with Rashi - Ki Tavo - Parshah

Hebrew (I think) ...scholarship traces the movement from a polytheism to monotheism as a refinement of prior thought as well as Revelation, this 'refinement' evident in what we know of Chaldean and other spiritual traditions.

it would all be so neat, wouldn't it, if that were true, wouldn't it? unfortunately, that ignores what actually happened - monotheism was, for a long time, far from established. read the story of elijah and the prophets of baal and then you'll see how cut-and-dried it wasn't.

"The Pentateuch covers the coming to know the One True G!D...."

--> The Theosophical story covers much more.

so does the pentateuch, if you study it properly. but you'd clearly prefer to believe it fits neatly into your little categories, wouldn't you?

The world's sacred texts all come from a single text.

sorry, nick, you keep going on about this, but it's still based on theosophy's say-so and a lot of anecdotal, mono-source evidence. if the Torah is based on "chaldean" texts, then produce them. if it is not, what you say is pure conjecture.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Prober]

what, fossilised into the geological record, is it?

ROFL

 

[Thomas]

Sorry bananabrain, I think I've crossed your wires by including my own erroneous following of a mis-interpretation of the text (Deut 26:5):

yes, that's a famous mistranslation. the hebrew actually says "an aramean (i.e. laban, father of rachel and leah) sought to destroy my father (i.e. jacob)" - ironic, really, when you think about what you're trying to do. for the context and commentary, see here:

... although I can find some solace in v8: "And the Lord brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, with great awe, and with signs and wonders."

The polytheism to monotheism was my input too, and I think we're agruing to the same end:

monotheism was, for a long time, far from established. read the story of elijah and the prophets of baal and then you'll see how cut-and-dried it wasn't.

You know better than I! My own 'good grief' came from reading Jeremiah, and what a naughty lot of goings-on there was!

Anyway, from Nick's posts I see its pointless to continue this line of discussion ... you can take a horse to water, as they say ...

Pax,

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

Andrew,

You have make a valid point. I count 24 references to a singular God in Genesis 1, which is then suddenly followed by the "us" word. It does beg the question -- why does repeated singularity suddenly give way to plurality?

I believe the people who changed the plural gods-words into singular God-words ran into a roadblock when they hit Genesis 1:26. It just didn't flow right to have God tell Himself of a need to make man.

Another theory is that they just made a boo-boo, and left Genesis 1:26 in the plural, like it was in the original.

Which theory is correct? Only time will tell.

(This also begs the question of who God was talking to all through Genesis 1. Theosophy, of course, has an answer.)

You may want to read Redaction Theory as another possibility:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/torah_torah_torah/
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/tilting-at-windmills-a-response-369.html