RE: What is man?

Hi Beth,

This seems to be a reply to all the things I have said lately. At least you read them.

On Mon Jun 5 15:31 , "Beth Zimmerman" sent:

>We have just as much answer as to God's existence in the Bible as the
>answers you just mentioned for man's existence. Why are the answers for
>man's existence satisfactory, but the answers for God's lacking? If it's
>just because you are a man, then you need to realize how much you're filling
>in the blanks for the Bible. There are more blanks for man's nature than
>there are answers, but we assume a certain understanding from our
>experiences. I don't even follow the bible, but I can easily recognize the
>truth of how the bible describes God. You're just trying to make it too
>difficult. "I am that I am"--what if that really is the best possible
>description of God's existence?

Well, your question (not to mention the claim that I am making it too hard) reminded me of a fascinating passage in a book I read about 5 years ago. David Rohl wrote a great book
on Genesis. I have never figured out whether I believe all the stuff he has, but the book was one of the best reads I have had. It made me think and it challenged some of my
views. Here is what he says about the phrase, "I am that I am"

“As we have learnt, Enki (‘Lord of the Earth’) was called Ea in Akkadian (East Semitic)—that is to say the Babylonian tradition. Scholars have determined that Ea was vocalized
as ‘Eya’. So, when Moses stood before the burning bush and asked the name of the god of the mountain, did he really reply ‘I am who I am’ (Heb. Eyah asher eyah)? This puzzling
phrase has long perplexed theologians but now there is a simple explanation. The voice of God simply replied ‘Eyah asher Eyah’—‘I am (the one who is called Eyah’—the name of Ea in
its West Semitic (I.e. Hebrew) form. Scholars have simply failed to recognise that this is another of those characteristic puns in which the Old Testament abounds. ‘I am (Eyah) he
who is called (asher) Ea (Eyah)’ is a classic biblical play on words. It also explains God’s apparently nonsensical instruction: ‘This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I
am has sent me to you’. God’s words should really be translated as ‘Eyah has sent me to you.’
        “’Eyah’ or simply ‘Ya’ is the hypocoristic form of the name Yahweh found as an element of so many Old Testament names.’” David Rohl, Legend: The Genesis of Civilization,
(London: Arrow Books, 1998), p. 196-197

Things are not always Ken-Ham-easy. Sometimes, things are difficult. Dick Fischer will love this because I have chided him for believing Babylonian texts above the Bible, but this
could provide my friendly nemesis with ammo to use against me. :-)

 Why not try to totally understand that one
>sentence rather than writing pages and books complaining about what
>information isn't there? Just because it doesn't easily make sense to
>you--just because you have more blanks for this than you can fill in with
>experience--doesn't make it any less comprehensive, logical, and true than
>the quotes you answered with.

Beth, this is a total non-sequiter. If I have more blanks than can be filled in, it can't possibly be 'comprehensive'. The two words do not belong in the same sentence referring
to the same item.

> God is, and God is in everything.

You will accuse me of making things hard, but if I believe this statement of yours literally, the tree outside and my cat who likes to bite me contain God. Can you tell me why
God, through means of my cat, wants to bite me?

 If you
>want to understand what that means I'd recommend looking at what parts of
>everything you are exposed to, and not trying to force words out of a book
>that aren't written there.

My dear, I am not trying to force words out of books that aren't written there, I am trying to figure out why the Almighty doesn't seem to know what happened on the day of creation!
My worry is that He wasn't there that day. Did you see Him there?
Received on Mon Jun 5 21:42:43 2006