Posts by Mebaqqer2

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

Well, I am still waiting for substantive comments on my proposal. None of the scholars I have reached out to have returned my messages. In the meantime I have added a paper to academia.edu. This one concerns the implications the narrative structure has to understanding Genesis 1:1–3. In the course of its discussion it engages with the analysis of Genesis 1:1–3 given by Robert Holmstedt of the University of Toronto most recently laid out in his 2022 paper entitled The Syntax of Genesis 1:1-3. Holmstedt's paper may be found here. My own paper shows how Holmstedt's analysis can be refined through an understanding of the narrative structure. As such, it shows concretely how understanding the narrative structure leads to an improved understanding of the text and thus why it is so important. The paper is entitled Understanding ‫בראשית‬ in Light of The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron and may be viewed here. As always, comments are welcome.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

aqwsed12345,

My proposal for the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron is done solely in the interest of recovering what the author intended. Therefore it is not concerned with how the Hexaemeron conforms to other sections of scripture or to religious/scientific views on the origins of the universe. I submit that one part of the problem in understanding the six day account of creation comes from interpreters bringing their own needs into the text. For example, today debate continues to rage on whether the days of creation are literal 24-days days or long periods of time. This comes from a desire of some to find concordance between the findings of science and the words of scripture. My proposal is not made with this question in mind. Just as some interpreters today seek to find harmony between science and scripture, interpreters 2,000 years ago sought to harmonize scripture with the cosmogony found in the Plato’s Timaeus which was the science of its day. My proposal is also not concerned with that long forgotten endeavor. My proposal simply concerns the narrative structure as a feature of the text. Yet it is true that this disinterested investigation reveals a narrative structure that has some implications for how the text is to be interpreted. Some of these I noted in an earlier post.

Your post detailing a Catholic position on Creation is interesting, but I’m afraid that I do not see how it engages with my proposal. Do you have particular points of criticism or praise to offer? I will gladly hear them if you have them.

Just to be clear, I cite Augustine because his observation is true and contributes to a correct understanding of the narrative structure. It is not true because it is Augustine who makes the observation. I cite Basil because the principle inherent in his statement is also true. Texts should be understood according to the words in which they were written. Thus my proposal is not based on the authority of patristic writers. Nowhere have I said that my proposal has been declared nihil obstat. I am not concerned with such declarations. I am only concerned with understanding the text as the author intended.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

I have uploaded the video from my .onion site to the Internet Archive here. This video provides a more succinct visual presentation of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron proposed in the paper The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron located on my .onion site, yet goes beyond the summary diagram of my proposal uploaded to academia.edu. Its viewing is recommended before reading the paper's more detailed discussion.

I am still eager to hear critiques of my proposal. I have yet to hear any feedback other that given by
Acluetofindtheuser above. Positive or negative, let me know what you think.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

I like how you divided the creation framework as if it is set up in a tabernacle arrangement with the most holy being meant to represent the entire cosmos itself.

It is my view that it is the author of Genesis 1 who arranges the narrative this way, i.e., a primordial united cosmos (day 1) and a habitable earth (days 2-6). All I have done is formally explicated the fact. A number of scholars have previously drawn a connection between creation and the tabernacle. Yet those studies are now found to have been imprecise and/or inaccurate in light of my findings. But the connection itself is grounded in ancient Jewish tradition. Thus Midrash Tadshe 2.1 explicitly states “The dwelling (tabernacle) was made to correspond to the creation of the world.” Josephus states “It happened that [the tripartite] arrangement of the Tent was also an imitation of the nature of the universe” (Judean Antiquities 3.122–23). Philo, referring to the temple, states, “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe” (De specialibus legibus 1.66). Philo of course applies this to the dwelling as well as his work Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum shows. Yet when one considers the varied expositions of this connection found even in these earlier sources, it is clear that this tradition had already become obscured by the time of Josephus and Philo. This appears to be one reason why scholars have not previously been able to explicate the structure concretely in Genesis 1. My findings therefore represent the recovery of a lost exegetical tradition, “rekindled light” if you will, which explicates the six days of creation as the author intended.

I still need to look over your actual work when I get the chance. Thanks for sharing.

No, thank you for taking the time to review my work.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

So my account has been unflagged and academia.edu has sent me the following message:

We're sorry for the trouble! Unfortunately, we get a significant number of spammers who try to abuse Academia.edu to reach their victims, and our spam-fighting systems sometimes make mistakes.

Let's hope that the follow up messages that I sent to the scholars to explain the situation does not cause the system to automatically flag my account again without a proper manual review first.

At any rate, the summary diagram of my proposal may once again be viewed on academia.edu here . I am still awaiting substantive criticisms of this proposal. Feel free to give them if you have them.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

Well it has been a day now and no response from academia.edu. There was not even a message sent to me that that my profile had been flagged as suspicious. I am worried that the status of my profile will cause the scholars I asked to review my work to dismiss it outright. "We're sorry for any inconvenience," says the auto-generated response. I am sure the contrition is overwhelming.

At any rate, what is hosted at academia.edu is only a summary diagram for the paper. This diagram serves to give potential readers an overview of the narrative structure before visiting my site to see if it is worth their time. And I do think it is worth the time of anyone who interested in reading Genesis 1 as intended by the author. To note just a couple of points:

I explain why the Jewish exegete Rashi is wrong in his exposition of day one. As anyone who has studied Genesis 1:1-3 knows, Rashi is the forerunner of modern commentators who maintain that the text is to be read along the lines of "When God began to create, etc."
I explain why rûaḥ ʾĕlōhîm in Genesis 1:2 cannot be "the Spirit of God," as if the very spiritual being of God is being spoken of, which agrees with the most ancient Jewish and Samaritan translations.
I explain why rāqîaʿ is indeed a solid body which agrees with the most ancient Jewish and Samaritan translations. Here I make no recourse at all to "ancient Near-Eastern mythologies."
I explain why it is that Genesis speaks of the creation of the heavens twice thereby resolving an apparent contradiction in the narrative.
But most important of all I explain why the six days of creation and their works are arranged the way that they are in Genesis 1. This arrangement displaces the one found in the "Literary Framework Interpretation" which is commonly espoused in commentaries.

So I really do think this is an important paper and I am thus eager for its review. Refute what you can. Call whoever you need to aid you. But please confine yourself to substantive criticisms. If you are willing to forego the summary diagram due to the problems with academia.edu, perhaps begin with the video on my site then plunge into the paper itself. My .onion site may be found here ycohlcms5la5sehy7rvjkc5mqj6zujsorvz5amvdgvxh3vydseff7kad.onion .

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

I just now tried to view my page at the URL given here and was greeted with an error message. Logging in, I was told, “Your account was flagged as suspicious by an automated system. If this was an error, please accept our apologies.” I have filled out the “Request Reconsideration” form as follows, “I am not a spammer. I am an independent researcher who is unaffiliated with any university and stated as much when I signed up. It is for this reason I am noted as independent by the URL.” The reason for this particular phrasing is due to the default sentence of the form which read something like “I’m not a spammer. I am a researcher with …” Upon submission I was told “Your account was flagged as suspicious, and your reconsideration request is awaiting manual review. We're sorry for any inconvenience.” This right here is one of the reasons why I have placed my paper on a personal page rather than put it on academia.edu.

Now as for the reason for the flagging, I suspect that this has to do with the messages I sent to several scholars which I mentioned above. Naturally these messages had similar verbiage and so perhaps the system thought the messages I sent to these approximately 6 scholars constituted “spam.” Perhaps two or more specifically denoted my messages as spam without reading them and the summary diagram. So apologies to everyone for the inconvenience.

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

Thank you Earnest for your remembrance. I think that the findings of this paper really advance the scholarly discussion of Genesis 1. Accordingly, I have sent messages to several scholars whose names became known to me through this research to elicit critiques of my work. I have yet to hear back from anyone. Admittedly it has only been a couple of days and scholars are busy people. Since the recovery of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron necessarily invalidates certain interpretations of Genesis 1, I have anticipated a certain amount of criticism. I am therefore surprised that nobody has commented on my paper here.

For those who may not know how to access .onion sites on the TOR network, here is a helpful URL which explains how: https://www.howtogeek.com/272049/how-to-access-.onion-sites-also-known-as-tor-hidden-services/ .

71

Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)

by Mebaqqer2 in

i used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.

these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.

i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.

Mebaqqer2

Greetings,

I used to comment here many years ago when I had an interest in biblical research in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses. These days my biblical research is little concerned with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.

I have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that I have written with original research entitled The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron on academia.edu. As explained in the abstract:

Commentators on the book of Genesis regularly ascribe a particular symmetrical arrangement to the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron in which eight creative acts are equally divided into two triads of days. Yet although a number of scholars have noted incongruities in such an arrangement, a better one has yet to be proposed to replace it. This paper details an alternative narrative structure for the Hexaemeron which differs from that assumed by commentators. The narrative structure presented here not only better accounts for the features of the Hexaemeron than a symmetrical arrangement does, but also proves to be more emic to an ancient Israelite perspective. It is therefore hoped that this paper will advance future discussions of Gen 1:1–31 by providing exegetes with a surer foundation from which to give their expositions.

As the summary diagram explains, the paper itself may be found on my personal page on the TOR network with a supporting video. The summary diagram will no doubt raise questions for some which will likely be addressed by watching the video and reading the paper on my personal page. Additional critiques, questions and comments are welcome.

The summary diagram may be found here .

5

1 Peter 1:11 - Christ's Spirit or Jehovah's Spirit

by Westenddave in

my question is about 1 peter 1:11. the 1984 nwt omits the word "christ", beside spirit, although it occurs in the earliest manuscripts: .

11?they kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of [season] the spirit (the reference says: 2 sam 23:2 ) in them was indicating concerning christ (footnote says the spirit of christ which was in them indicated)... .

beside the word spirit, the reference quotes 2 sam 23:2, which says "the spirit of jehovah".

Mebaqqer2

Westenddave,

The New World Translation does not omit “Christ” as you claimed. Below is a transliteration of the Greek text and the New World Translation with the words for "Christ" in bold:

eraunōntes eis tina ē poion kairon edēlou to en autois pneuma Christou promartyromenon ta eis Christon pathēmata kai tas meta tauta doxas.

They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow. (2013)

They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of [season] the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ when it was bearing witness beforehand about the sufferings for Christ and about the glories to follow these. (1984)

As you can see, the two instances of “Christ” in 1 Peter 1:11 have indeed both been translated. That being said, I think what you really want to know is why they translated pneuma Christou as “the spirit . . . concerning Christ” instead of “Christ’s spirit.” I didn't find anything justifying their translation on grammatical grounds on the WTLIB, but here is a site from one Witness apologist who makes an argument in defense of their translation ( http://onlytruegod.org/defense/1peter1.11.htm ). Enjoy!

Mebaqqer