Genesis appears to be the epic of Gilgamesh in mangled form. We don't know how the stories were transmitted to the early Hebrews because we don't really know who the earliest Hebrews were. They were probably a mixture of people who settled the area after the Bronze Age collapse. We know their neighbors, the Philistines, were among the Sea Peoples who helped bring about the collapse.

Before the time frame of the Exodus, the "Promised Land" was dominated by the Egyptians and Hittites. The Hittites had a version of the Gigamesh epic, so it may have come from them.

So with some stray roots in a number of peoples who preceded them, the Hebrews were an early Iron Age culture, with the Exodus being a distant memory of the fall of the Bronze Age (which was kind of like the fall of the Roman Empire in some ways.)

For that reason, there wasn't any time for an evolution in conceptions of divinity between Genesis and Exodus. The God of Abraham and the God of Moses are identical.

It's true that the OT shows signs of the evolution of the concept of an unreal divinity out of a struggle to avoid assimilation. That is pretty cool, but I don't think it has anything to do with Moses.

This is a henotheistic god, the one god of the people. The first statement of monotheism occurs in Isaiah: — Fooloso4

This is a common claim, but I think incorrect. The Hebrew is clear that it's referring to God as one, not that Yawheh alone is Israel's God. Echad means one in 546 other biblical verses, and can't be read you mean "alone" here.

At any rate, the general point we agree to, which is that monotheism is a later development.

Before the time frame of the Exodus, the "Promised Land" was dominated by the Egyptians and Hittites. The Hittites had a version of the Gigamesh epic, so it may have come from them. — frank

I thought the archeological record showed little evidence of Egyptian presence in Israel after the Exodus, which is why many doubt 1,000,000 Israeli/Egyptian refugees were freed from Egypt.

For that reason, there wasn't any time for an evolution in conceptions of divinity between Genesis and Exodus. The God of Abraham and the God of Moses are identical. — frank

This is contrary to a lot of scholarship in the field, but regardless, I don't follow your argument that there was insufficient time.

It's true that the OT shows signs of the evolution of the concept of an unreal divinity out of a struggle to avoid assimilation. That is pretty cool, but I don't think it has anything to do with Moses — frank

Read The Exodus by Richard Friedman for an exhaustive counter to your statement here.

I thought the archeological record showed little evidence of Egyptian presence in Israel after the Exodus, which is why many doubt 1,000,000 Israeli/Egyptian refugees were freed from Egypt. — Hanover

The area of the Promised Land was dominated by the Egyptians and the Hittites prior to the Bronze Age collapse. That places the story of the Exodus after the collapse.

This is contrary to a lot of scholarship in the field, but regardless, I don't follow your argument that there was insufficient time. — Hanover

Where do you think the story of Noah came from?

Read The Exodus by Richard Friedman for an exhaustive counter to your statement here. — Hanover

A read a bunch about it when I was in my Bronze Age phase, but thanks for the reference. BTW, I was just objecting to the failure of the OP to capitalize the M in Mosaic. A mosaic God would be one that's made of a lot of little rocks cemented together on a floor or wall.

For that reason, there wasn't any time for an evolution in conceptions of divinity between Genesis and Exodus. — frank

We simply do not know the dates of origin of the stories. We also do not know how long it takes for conceptions of divinity to change. It is not as if there was at the time the stories were written that there was a single concept of God.

The God of Abraham and the God of Moses are identical. — frank

Abraham's god spoke to him face to face. We have contradictory stories in Exodus:

Exodus 33:11
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.
Exodus 33:20
But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.”

Where do you think the story of Noah came from? — frank

There are two stories of the Flood woven together.

We simply do not know the dates of origin of the stories. We also do not know how long it takes for conceptions of divinity to change. It is not as if there was at the time the stories were written that there was a single concept of God. — Fooloso4

I don't think you grasped the significance of the story of the origin of the Hebrews. They were an early Iron Age culture. Both Genesis and Exodus show signs of drawing from either Bronze Age myths or events around the time of the Bronze Age collapse. That's why it makes no sense to draw out a long timeline between the formation of Genesis and Exodus.

There are two stories of the Flood woven together. — Fooloso4

What are you talking about?

This is a common claim, but I think incorrect. The Hebrew is clear that it's referring to God as one, not that Yawheh alone is Israel's God. — Hanover

The 'Shema' says:

Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

It is clear that this is addressed to Israel the people. "our God" is the god of the people of Israel. To say that our God is one is not to say that our God is the only God, but that our God is not a plurality. The various names by which the people refer to God are all names of the same God.

Echad means one in 546 other biblical verses, and can't be read you mean "alone" here. — Hanover

Hen also means one. Alone can mean only, no other.

All of this is, however, a matter of interpretation and by no means settled one way or the other.

Richard Friedman — Hanover

I read his "Who Wrote the Bible". I thought it was very good. One strong point is identifying passages that show there are two stories woven together with the differences in specifics allowed to stand. Differences the casual reader will miss. One clear example is the stories of the Flood.

I don't think you grasped the significance of the story of the origin of the Hebrews. — frank

See the section Problems with Dates and Places in the article "Ancient Jewish History: Who Were the Hebrews" from the Jewish Virtual Library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-were-the-hebrews

See also the Wiki article "Hebrews" which makes clear that none of this is clear.

There are two stories of the Flood woven together.
— Fooloso4

What are you talking about? — frank

See the Wiki article "Genesis flood narrative". As mentioned above, it is discussed by Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible".

See the Wiki article "Genesis flood narrative". As mentioned above, it is discussed by Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible". — Fooloso4

The story of Noah is from the epic of Gilgamesh.

The story of Noah is from the epic of Gilgamesh. — frank

This does not explain the two versions woven together in Genesis.

Sigh.

You really need to read 1177: The Year Civilization Collapsed, by Eric Cline.

Get yourself up to date on the debate about the origin of the Hebrews. It's a quick, easy read.

The story of Noah is Sumerian in origin. Read Cline's book and then think about that.

I am the father of mankind.

You really need to read 1177: The Year Civilization Collapsed, by Eric Cline. — frank

I cannot comment on a book I have not read but from what I could find on Amazon the book is not about the history of the Hebrew Bible. But perhaps I am wrong. Does it give a chronology of when Genesis and Exodus were written, or more accurately, compiled? What does it say about the origins of the Hebrews? What does it say about the portrayal of God in those two books? What does it say about the different names of God?

On page 89 he says that there is not a lot of evidence of an exodus from Egypt and what is available is inconclusive.

The story may be largely or completely mythological. Whatever its actual historical facts may be, it should not be assumed that it is an historical account in the modern sense.

In any case, the question of whether the god described in Genesis differs from the god of Exodus can only be decided by reading Genesis and Exodus.

The story of Noah is Sumerian in origin. Read Cline's book and then think about that. — frank

Many of the stories are taken from earlier stories from various cultures. This is widely known and has been for a long time. One does not need to read Cline to know this. If you look at the story as it is told in [correction: Genesis] it should be clear that there are two different versions combined. They may have originated from a single story, but over time and retelling they diverged.

On page 89 he says that there is not a lot of evidence of an exodus from Egypt and what is available is inconclusive. — Fooloso4

Concerning Moses and the Exodus:
There have been many attempts to prove that the ten plagues and the exodus were actual historical events. But indeed none of these could present conclusive archaeological or textual evidence, it appears to be more of a mix of elements taken from different events and eras.

These points that have been discussed:

around 1550 BCE, start of the 18th Dynastie:
The Egyptian rulers of the Theban nome recaptured Lower Egypt from the Hyksos. The Hyksos were a people from the Levantine area and they were driven out of Egypt by military force after having settled there for some generations, which broadly fits the Exodus story.
Additionally, the Thera Eruption falls into this era, and the unusual weather phenomena following a large-scale volcanic eruption may account for the "plagues".

around 1350 BCE, end of the 18th Dynasty
Akhenaten tried to establish a henotheistic cult in Egypt, but failed, and after his death his "heretic" cult was dismantled.
Some people suggested that Moses was actually a fanatic priest of Aten and he fled from Egypt to continue his religion in Israelian exile. (this again fits the Egyptian names of the Levites, as mentioned above, e.g. Moses=Mesw="child", Mirjam=Meri-Amun="Beloved of Amun")
There are textual sources outside the bible (Hecataeus, Manetho) supporting this story, but they're much younger.

around 1250-1200 BCE, 19th Dynasty
The exodus story specifically states that the Israelites were forced to build the city "Ramses", which matches the Egyptian "Piramesse" built in the time of Ramses II. That's why others assume Ramses II or his son Merenptah as the Pharao of the Exodus.

The Wikipedia Entry "sources and parallels of the exodus" offers a good overview, and I recommend Jan Assmann's book "Moses the Egyptian" if you're interested in an in-depth analysis.

If you look at the story as it is told in Exodus it should be clear that there are two different versions combined. — Fooloso4

As an example of this, in Exodus, God instructs the Hebrews to celebrate Passover in the future by eating matzoh for 7 days each year. This instruction appears before the Hebrews flee Egypt in such haste that they don't give their dough time to rise. You have God telling them to eat matzoh to commemorate their freedom before they ever knew the significance of the matzoh. Then after we learn about the Hebrews fleeing in such haste that they couldn't allow their bread to rise, God reiterates the directive about eating matzoh 7 days each year. The best explanation for this is that these are 2 accounts pieced together with mixed up chronology.

As an aside, the whole Passover story is bizarre really and I'm not sure it really says what most who practice think it says. The pharaoh refused to relent despite the plagues not because he didn't believe in the power of God, but because God forced him to be stubborn ("hardened his heart"). What's the moral of that lesson? I'm going to brainwash you to be evil and then punish you for being evil?

The bulk of the first chapter of Genesis, as Stephen Oppenheimer points out, is an account of a sea encroachment (re-creation) as a peg or visual aid or "bullet point" upon which to hang the meaning, creation (the sentence preceding).

(In regard to the floods a few chapters on, their level was above "mountains" bearing in mind ziggurats served as metaphorical mountains. There was an element in the people that had lived in mountainous regions where they had previously "known" their gods to abide.)

In what follows I do not presume to comment on Islam as I believe muslims do not generally study the handed-down meanings (which have been laboriously and multifariously discerned) of the Old and New testaments. I think the Koran tends to substitute its own conclusions and that muslims consider that the last word.

Mytochondrial Eve lived circa 120,000 years ago. Scripture covers say the last 5,000 of those; the first page maybe 2,000 years before that.

The mores and mental muddles of mankind had got, meantime, to where they had got. As I see it what we read is a mixture of a "god" "speaking their language" i.e the way gods were expected to speak, and trying to penetrate the fog with fresh values.

I paraphrase Old and New Testaments in their entirety as: "The worship of God is to not stunt the growth of the fellow adopted widows and orphans in Father's firm".

At a metaphysical level a "power" behind an intelligible system such as we are within, must be at a very huge level in the spectrum of spectrums.

The details of a real god operating, are somewhere near our level.

Janus,

This topic interests me, and I struggle to understand Agnostic arguments. My arguing style is very matter-of-fact which suddenly seems mean or condescending or something that upsets people. I only intend to argue specific points so hopefully I am not too annoying (right off the bat, I am not even sure you are an Agnostic vs just agnostic like me, please pardon any assumptions):

There are three possibilities: you actively believe "X", you actively disbelieve "X" or you withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'. — Janus

I kindly and whole-heartedly disagree? Why do you get to add to the definition? Your third option sounds like someone who does not believe 'x'? Very different from actively disbelieving, I agree. But since when does belief carry the added meaning you have created? And if you think it has always had the connotation you describe, can you point me in the direction of something that would cause me to agree? All I have to go off is the dictionary...

Is this the ENTIRE reason atheists and agnostics can't agree? Agnostics add much more meaning to 'belief' than atheists do? (I guess more accurately, they attach way more meaning to "I do not believe" than most atheists tend to do?).

Why do you feel the need to say "withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'" instead of just "no, currently I do not believe 'x' but there is a lot more information to collect before I am confident"? Your phrasing hints at the idea of "not holding any beliefs" but I thought that whopper had been exposed as nonsense, similar to people who claim to be entirely un-emotional.

There is no possible evidence or reason outside of your own experience that could, or should, make you a believer in anything beyond the empirical. What constitutes evidence or reason within your own experience cannot but be a matter just for you, and in this regard you are beholden to no one else unless you choose to be, or you lack the resources to critique and resist social influences. — Janus

I think I agree. When I said,

"if you expect ME to believe any of this stuff about an 'invisible being' then you'd better have some kind of evidence"
— ZhouBoTong — Janus

, I was responding to,

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" — Wayfarer

.

I am a bit confused as to what exactly I should be learning here. In my mind the "secular view" has authority because it has a fairly proven track record (in many aspect of life...nothing has a proven track record when it comes to moral oughts so religion can still claim some of that domain).

@wayfarer

I just saw I missed a fairly long response from you. I will get to it...soon :smile:

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!"
— Wayfarer
.

I am a bit confused as to what exactly I should be learning here. In my mind the "secular view" has authority because it has a fairly proven track record (in many aspect of life...nothing has a proven track record when it comes to moral oughts so religion can still claim some of that domain). — ZhouBoTong

You see what you’ve done here, right? You’ve assumed the very ‘presumptive authority’ that I was talking about, without even realising. ‘Nothing has a proven track record’ if and only if you already throw out the moral authority of the world’s religions. So you start by presuming that ‘religions have no moral authority’ whereas at least ‘the secular view’ has.

So you start by presuming that ‘religions have no moral authority’ whereas at least ‘the secular view’ has. — Wayfarer

Explain how religion put satellites in orbit? Ignore philosophy, in all other fields, the 'secular view' has a good track record. That was my point? That is why I said when it comes to 'moral oughts' that religion has equal track record to philosophy.

when I

whereas at least ‘the secular view’ has. — Wayfarer

when I hear 'secular view' I hear scientific method. did you mean something else?

scepticism about belief, but openness to 'the spiritual'. — Wayfarer

This is playing word games. Phrases like this automatically exclude people like me from the conversation as I am a stickler for definitions. 'open to the spiritual' sounds you think that there might be some spiritual truths despite a lack of direct evidence - that certainly meets the definition of belief. There seem to be a lot of people trying to avoid belief, I don't get it...only an all knowing being could avoid belief. Isn't avoiding belief like avoiding emotion? We do it all the time whether we like it or not (and redefining words doesn't help us avoid it).

I viewed belief as a kind of cop-out. — Wayfarer

Amazing. I have never read Wittgenstein, but this must be the stuff he is on about. As you can probably tell, I view 'I have no beliefs' as a type of cop out. I am no longer trying to say you are wrong. If we both understand words so differently, clearly we are not going to make much progress.

I have to run, so I will read the rest a bit later. I will respond if I feel there is something important to both of us understanding each other.

Explain how religion put satellites in orbit? — ZhouBoTong

Explain why playing card games has helped with your swimming.

There seem to be a lot of people trying to avoid belief, I don't get it...only an all knowing being could avoid belief. Isn't avoiding belief like avoiding emotion? We do it all the time whether we like it or not (and redefining words doesn't help us avoid it). — ZhouBoTong

When you say, “I don’t know,” you are avoiding belief. Right?

[deleted]

Why do you get to add to the definition? Your third option sounds like someone who does not believe 'x'? Very different from actively disbelieving, I agree. But since when does belief carry the added meaning you have created? — ZhouBoTong

Perhaps the language I used, specifically the word "disbelieve" is the source of misunderstanding . Let's see. I'll change the wording and see if that works for you.

So, putting it another way let's say that when it comes to believing 'x', the alternative is to believe 'not-x'. There is no third alternative when it comes to believing. But there is an alternative to believing either 'x' or 'not-x' and that is to believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'. If this sounds like you are still believing something, it is a false impression brought about by the way it is expressed 'I believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'', but you are not believing anything. It is like saying 'I ate neither cheese nor fruit'; you are not eating anything that is cheese or fruit, nor necessarily anything else either.

The example concerning Trump colluding I gave earlier explains this clearly, I think. I don't have any belief either way as to whether Trump colluded, because I don't have sufficient evidence to hold a belief either way. I hope that clears it up for you.

, I was responding to,

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" — Wayfarer

.

I am a bit confused as to what exactly I should be learning here. In my mind the "secular view" has authority because it has a fairly proven track record (in many aspect of life...nothing has a proven track record when it comes to moral oughts so religion can still claim some of that domain). — ZhouBoTong

@Wayfarer and I have a lot in common but this is the one point (which actually amounts to quite a lot when you unpack it) where I think we disagree, or at least emphasize different points. I don't think in terms of authority, "defending", or right and wrong when it comes to discussing ideas about "invisible beings". This position is shown in this statement:

There is no possible evidence or reason outside of your own experience that could, or should, make you a believer in anything beyond the empirical. What constitutes evidence or reason within your own experience cannot but be a matter just for you, and in this regard you are beholden to no one else unless you choose to be, or you lack the resources to critique and resist social influences. — Janus

So, I don't see the situation in terms of "presumptive authority", and I think the idea of an invisible being is rationally indefensible. You can talk about it and others who share your intuitions may respond positively to your talk. This is what religion and some poetry and literature are about. It is a matter of felling, not of propositional ideas (when it is purported to be the latter it always amounts to some kind of fundamentalism). It is therefore a matter of rhetoric, and not rigorous arguments, when it comes to communicating ideas of the numinous. This is the essence of what I am calling Wayfarer out on much of the time.

I've learned, however, that the generations that have come since seem to have missed all of this - the 'window closed again', so to speak. But that's more about the background, and I'm afraid without some grasp of that, then the distinctions between belief, realisation and experience can never be articulated. — Wayfarer

I was born in 1979 (at the border of Gen X and Millennials). My parents were a part of the counter culture. I grew up with their rock and roll. I had long hair as a toddler, and nudity wasn’t something to be ashamed of.

When I got a little older, my dad told me about his and my mom’s experiences with acid and pot (or “grass” as they said in the 60s and 70s). As a 17 year-old, in the early days of the World Wide Web, a friend of mine showed me Timothy Leary’s website and also a website containing the Tibetan Book of the Dead. My dad, although a Protestant for most of his life, introduced me to Buddhism, the Tao Te Ching, and “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.”

So when I went off to Loyola University Chicago, you could say that I had an open mind and a liberal attitude. I had emotional problems, too, so experimenting with drugs seemed like a good escape. I smoked a lot of weed second semester, and I did acid (what were called “gel tabs,” a specific form of delivery method for LSD) once. I can only describe the experience as “being one with the world” or having no boundaries between me and the outside world. It was a nice trip.

I only did acid that one time. Haven’t done it since. However, I have had experiences since then that were similar when not taking my medication for six months a while back. This with no drugs (although I thought a few times that someone was drugging me).

I do not recommend the use of drugs to anyone.

All I can say is that one can experience things that do not seem natural. Interpretation of these experiences (such as thinking that people were drugging me) do not rise to the requirements of knowledge, but one can feel wonder or awe or Oneness while withholding judgment as to what the cause is.

Thank you for your consideration.

lysergine — Wayfarer

I think you mean lysergide, lysergine is, unless I am mistaken, a different chemical altogether.

Exodus is traditionally ascribed to Moses, but modern scholars see its initial composition as a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE — Wikipedia on Exodus

Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC — Wikipedia on Genesis

Per Wikipedia they were written around the same time. Pfft.

Frank, once again, the stories in these books come from various periods of time. The date of compilation does not resolve the question of the dates of the stories, which means the estimated date of compilation does not resolve the question of whether the concepts of God are the same.

Your assumption is that not enough time elapsed for the concept of God to have undergone much of a change. This assumption is questionable. It assumed any change would have been the result of a gradual linear development. There is no evidence of this. Stories are the product of the imagination. The imagination is not tethered to gradual development. There was at that time various stories and beliefs. Unlike the later development in Christianity of official doctrines and beliefs, there were no such constraints on which of the plurality of stories much be accepted or rejected. As has been stated before, the stories come from different cultures some much older than others.

The text of the book as we now have it is the result of a long literary development. In part it goes back to old traditions which were transmitted orally at first and then committed to writing. That being the case, are there elements in Exodus which may be assigned to Moses and his time? Most likely some traditions went back to him and others may be even older. As the centuries wore on, new materials were added and old ones altered so that even within one segment we may now find diverse reflections. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-book-of-exodus/

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

"It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research," said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text. https://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html