Posts by KalebOutWest

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

And I am not insulted. Not by any means. Just confused.

What?

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

I am a secular humanist, so I don't have any religious investment in the Scriptures whatsoever. I do not believe in the supernatural. I see value in all types of literature, Jewish and non-Jewish, ancient and modern. I am not sure what your comment actually mean or your phrase "you are and your teachers...wholistic approach..."

Who are these "your teachers"? What is this "wholistic approach"? I am a secular academic, even though I study the data of both religious and secular together. I hold no prejudice to data.

According to the best I can understand from a balance of data from secular and religious scholarship together, modern scholars generally hold that the Torah was completed during the era when the Persian Achaemenid Empire held sway over the Jews, around 450–350 BCE.

As for "my teachers," I am not sure who you mean. These are the world's teachers. Who are you talking about? These are the conclusions of members of the SBL, and the JPS, as well as others from various fields of study from academies and colleges and universities around the world. Why would their findings be "audacious" as you put it? Don't you read the latest study Bibles? This is what is in these publications? These are not in obscure papers but in general publications released to the public in major releases. Why are they "audacious" to you? I did not invent them.

I am sorry if you are not familiar with what is standard. And I am a bit confused by your wording. It seems odd to me.

15

Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

by PeterNobody in

dear brothers!

you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

did you consider paul as a false prophet?

KalebOutWest

This is not what I meant when I said we should be discussing things in public, and you know it.

But I notice you did not write everything. Like all the things YOU said...

Like your little rude Bible lesson you offered me that started this all?

I notice you conveniently left that all out. What afraid of something?

But go ahead, write whatever. PeterNobody.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

The religion of Judaism does not have a central theology or creed. It's theology floats within a spectrum which is often described sitting within each Jew and also the culture of Judaism at the same time as being "THEIST-AGNOSTIC-HUMANIST" even though there is no real "theistic" view of God in Judaism (nor has there been since the teachings of Maimonides has become standard during the Middle Ages).

Theology flows in the religion/culture/individual along this spectrum as necessary, and is quite complex being that there is some 4000 years of it. The evolution of God itself is far beyond anything that exists in Western thought. For instance, there are atheist Jews who daily pray and worship, something that cannot even begin to happen within Christian practice.

I see there are already problems with me trying to discuss some of the concept I have with you as you are reading my posts via Western eyes, as if they have a spiritual or supernatural subtext that you are used to, whereas they don't. So we might have to try something else.

First, I don't think you are wrong in what you believe. That is not the way that I view things. So you might want to keep that in mind at all times. No matter what you read, no matter how it sounds, even if it goes against what you believe, I personally never think you are wrong or should change your beliefs. Jews don't think that others are condemned or unloved by God or need to change in order to be approved by God, whatever their beliefs are.

Second, a Jew, even a religious Jew, may not believe in God. That is not a requisite. The only requisite for a Jew is to be born Jewish. Judaism is a civilization, a culture, a way of life. If a person is a religious Jew, then their practice merely restricts them from the worship of any of other God than the God of Abraham. There are no laws that demand belief, faith or prayer to God. Therefore agnostics and atheists among the Jews may be among the most pious. It is what someone does, not what one says, claims, or prays that makes them a good person.

Finally, Judaism is not based on the Bible. The Bible is based on Judaism. Judaism came first and then that religious system created the Bible. Therefore the people know it is made up of a particular type of writings, either in this section or that section--and from childhood onward, they learn it in ancient Hebrew. So for a non-Jew to tell a Jew what the Bible means is sort of like a reader telling an author that their book should actually mean this or that. Jews know their book consists of mythology, folk tales, and oral traditions. Judaism has history, but you are not going to go to the Bible for most of it.

Your questions...

What I am understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Law directly in relation to the promised land took precedent over everything...even (and perhaps wasn't even close) defining and understanding what God is.

Not really. The Mosaic Law is about preserving a culture in the midst of a lost one, the Babylonian Exile. How does one do that? The Levitical priesthood developed holy days and practices around a law system based on cultural practices the Jews already had, giving these days and practices new meanings. The celebrations of Passover and Sukkot, for instance, were Spring and Fall harvest festivals, respectively, that existed before the Levites gave them their religious meaning. With the connection to the Exodus and then the "wandering through the wilderness," these practices were ibued with new life and new meaning for the return to the Promised Land.

The idea was based on the belief that people lose their land they live on due to angering the gods and go into exile. All national evils that befall us, whether it be famine, war, or exile, came from the gods due to national sin. This is what some of the prophets that the Jews once ignored, like Isaiah and Ezekiel. So to avoid this, the Levites built up the Mosaic Law which at the time of the exile consisted only of the book of Deuteronomy--and only a smaller portion of the book than what we know today according to scholars.

Narratives in the book, like the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Towel of Babel, and other tales, are combinations of stories from the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah) whose inhabitants had mixed after the Assyrians had invaded the north prior to the Babylonian invasion. When survivors came into Judah, they brought their stories with them, and after the Exile into Babylon, the Levites wove their stories into what we know as not only the Torah but as the books of Joshua through Chronicles.

The idea was to prevent the Jews from being exiled again due to the belief in this theology, namely that national disasters are caused by anger one's national God. This was later proven false by the Holocaust. The theology would thus be abandoned as flawed. National disasters are not brought upon any people due to angering deities but by chance and misfortune.

Does the Mosaic Law define what God is?

No. The Law was written during the Iron Age attempting to use tropes of the Bronze Age to make it look like it was written by the patriarchs of the Jews. So the Levitical priests gave God anthropomorphic features, like the gods of the Gentiles. The only problem is that God is never the same in any of the stories. If God needs to debate with someone, he is more like a man. If he needs to be more impersonal in another tale, he is more aloof. If God needs to be more like a force of nature, than so be it, that is how God is written. God becomes a character of need in any of the stories of the Hebrew Bible, fulfilling what he told Moses: "I Shall Be What I Shall Be."--Exodus 3:14.

Am I understanding that Adam was already the fullest state of being God (in every way as understood in Judaism)? And if he was, how does Judaism differentiate God from Adam?

This is just a mythology, an origin story, an allegory. Adam cannot be literally anything anymore than any of the characters in any of Jesus' parables are anything or the characters in Aesop's fables or literally anything or the characters in the myths of the Greeks are literally anything.

A mythology is a type of genre that explains how some began via visual representations or demonstrations. In the Genesis story, the Levites used the Babylonian King's personal garden as a setting for their story.

In Judaism, Adam and Eve are believed to the be the patriarchs of Abraham and Sarah. Their bodies are even considered to be buried to this day in the Cave of Machpelah which is why Abraham purchased it as a burial site for him and his wife since, according to Jewish tradition, his forbearers were buried there. (Genesis 23) The site still exists as a holy place today, a Muslim shrine, since Abraham is the father of Ishmael, the father of Islamic people.

To tell the story about the loss of the Promised Land to open the Torah, Adam and Eve are used as symbolic of the Jewish people. They are placed as employees--caretakers within an enclosed Babylonian-type garden or paradise, with all types of animals, trees of all types, and even the types of canals or rives that flow with "gold" and "jewels," just like one would imagine a kings treasured garden might be since it was walled and could not be seen by the common people.

The first chapter of Genesis opened with telling us that God obeys the Sabbath, doing "mitzvahs" or "good deeds" every day of the week, but obeying the Law by resting on the Sabbath. He creates "man and woman" in His image, to be "like Him."

These caretakers are given rules on how to care for his land and everything they need. They are just not to steal from him under the penalty of death. Unfortunately the caretakers of God's land do not do obey his Law. They end up stealing from his one special tree (even though they may eat from any of the other trees in the garden). Stealing, by the way, is breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

Even though made in His image, the two people, cover themselves, ashamed. So God, covers them, and sends them out of his garden. Interestingly, like Babylon, there is not merely an angel but a "cheribum," the same type of creature on the walls of the gates of Babylon, and it has a sword, the same that Nebuchadnezzar's guards carried.

Instead of performing a "mitzvah" or a good deed, Adam and Eve do what is wrong. Instead of living up to their potential in the "image of God," they ruin this reflection and end up being cast out in shame.

It isn't literal. Adam and Eve never lived in a Babylon paradise garden. Babylon did not exist at the time they were alive, and that is not likely the names of the ancestors of Abraham and Sarah's forbearers buried in that cave. It is just what we call them. This is a mythical tale that opens the book of the Torah to warn the Jews to obey the Law and to perform the mitzvahs within.

If you don't, the Law is saying, you will lose the Promised Land and be cast out, "east of Eden."

The Torah ends the same way, with Moses not entering the Promised Land for his sin, "east of the Jordan." That also likely did not happen, but that is just a legend for a religious purpose.

Genesis through Exodus is a book of Religious Laws. The idea is to teach the Laws within. The stories are secondary to the Laws. It's designed for Jews to apply them to everyday life. The stories just teach them lessons to explain how these laws might apply in everyday situations or what the laws mean or why the Law itself is so important.

Everything else is secondary to obeying the Law. In the eyes of the priesthood, obedience to the Law was tantamount.

This isn't what all Jews believe today, but it is what the original writers were thinking.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

Halcon,

In Judaism there is no supernatural realm, only the natural. God is part of the natural world, the processes of nature while not being nature itself.

Jewish thought does not consist of belief that God is spiritual or supernatural. That is a Hellenistic belief.

The great teachers of Judaism who promoted this include not only Moses himself but Maimonides, Spinoza and the 20th century rabbi Mordecai Kaplan.

In fact today, many modern Jews do not see God as an entity or person or a creator. Instead of belief in God as Creator, for example, they see the processes of creation as godly. Instead of God being just, they see the action of justice as being godly, and so on.

The mythology of "being like God" in Genesis is about something Adam and Eve already were. The narrative is about the Jews losing the Promised Land due to their breaking the Mosaic Law covenant. Paradise represents the land of Israel, Adam and Eve are the forebears of Abraham and Sarah (not necessarily all humans), they are caretakers of Paradise or the Promised Land, assigned as such by God.

They were already created in the "image of God" as Genesis 1 explains, being "like God" in every way. But unlike in Genesis chapter 1 where God rests on the Sabbath, thus obeying the Mosaic Law, the Jews did not do this, thus not reflecting God's image in themselves.

This is represented in the narrative where Adam and Eve feel shame about their images and decided to cover it, even though they were perfect. In the story, God has to give them clothes to cover them because they no longer reflect his image.

They are cast out of the Promised Land, "east of Eden," which is Babylon. This foreshadows Moses at the end of the Torah who also represents Israel "east of the Jordan," in Babylon, cast out of the Promised Land.

You are reading a Hellenized Christian concept into the text. It is what Catholics and Protestants have developed from Greek philosophy, but it doesn't come from Jewish foundations.

Some later Jewish views after the Middle Ages did adopt some more spiritual views, such as found in Chasidic circles, but these views are neither ancient nor universal.

15

Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

by PeterNobody in

dear brothers!

you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

did you consider paul as a false prophet?

KalebOutWest

PeterNobody is sending me PMs smacking of antisemitic nonsense. Beware of this idiot.

15

Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

by PeterNobody in

dear brothers!

you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

did you consider paul as a false prophet?

KalebOutWest

You as a bible researchers, refused the [sic] catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

I'm Jewish. We've been using the Bible long before there was a Catholic Church or Gentiles came into the picture, but...

You may be confusing the Roman Catholic Church with Marcion of Sinope and his followers, the Marcionists. Jehovah's Witnesses have often been compared to Marcionists as have been several other of the NRMs that have come forth from the Second Great Awakening, notably the sister religion of the Watchtower religion, the Worldwide Church of God (now defunct).

Roman Catholicism does not hold that Scripture is "the source of truth." In fact, it teaches (and always has) that Jesus Christ is "the source of truth." (CCC 2466) This was actually the reason for the controversy between Marcion of Sinope, his rejected canon, and the eventual canon of scriptures devised by the Catholic Church which would come to be called "the New Testament."

Marcion was a bishop of the 2nd century C.E. whose father actually purchased his bishopric rights for him. It appears that Marcion though highly educated was far removed from the people he was supposed to serve, and due to his upbringing was focused upon making a name for himself in history. And that he did, altough it would become one of great infamy.

Having a great love for the Hellenists, Marcion was obsessed with Greek mythology and religion. He began to see in the teachings of the Gnostics comparisons of "the select" who were granted special salvific divine status as possibly applicable to Jesus Christ. He devised a way to combine the two by rejecting everything that was not "Greek" about the Gospel, and creating a formula in which people could "learn" their way to salvific divine status, to become a "god" like Jesus.

This entailed rejection of all that was Hebrew about the religion of Christianity, including the rejection of the Septuagint. Since by the 2nd century, Christians were already considering that Jesus was likely divine, Marcion began to teach the Jesus was simply one of the gnostic-like "demi-gods" of the select who reached this status via gnosis or special divine knowledge. This knowledge, however, was in the reach of some others if they applied themselves.

Taking the writings of the apostle Paul, editing them for any mention of the Jews that favored them (this meant rejecting his letter to the Romans), and finding a gospel that was written by a gentile convert in Greek that he would claim was his own (that he edited as well), Marcion devised what he called was the "rule" (or in Greek kanon) for salvation. Anyone who studied it could expose themselves to the proper knowledge that led them to become like the demi-god, Jesus.

Marcion gained followers and felt his place in history and the Church was now solidified. He felt all he had to do now was go to Rome to show the Pope what he had done. But upon arrival it is reported that Marcion was "surprised" when he found himself excommunicated for his efforts.

Apparently he had been warned along the way to stop his work but would not listen. Gnosticism had been the Church's greatest threat. And while the Church treasured the Scriptures, it never viewed salvation as based upon one's study of them. Some people could not read as many people in the world were still illiterate in those days. Salvation, the Church taught, was katholicos or universal (where we get the word "Catholic" from today). Any person can be saved whether they read the gospel for themselves from the Bible, hear it preached from a sermon or learn it from another Christian who teaches it to them personally. One isn't saved via contact with the Scriptures, no matter how holy these texts are. People are saved, the Church teaches, via Jesus.

To stop the Marcionist threat, the Church studied the spreading problem as copies of Marcion's canon were growing. It appeared that Marcion had merely copied the gospel of Luke and claimed it as his own, minus the first two chapters (because they are very "Jewish"). And spending about almost 200 years of study and discussion with the churches around the world regarding what was being used during the liturgy, the New Testament was eventually (albeit slowly) canonized. It was not the basis for the faith, but the standard for what was Scripture for the Christians to counter the Marcionist movement.

If you notice, it is heavy with Pauline writings and includes a non-apostolic gospel, that of Luke. This is due to Marcion since his Bible used only the works of Paul and stole that singular gospel. Marcion claimed Paul was anti-Jewish. So the Church proved that he was not by using Paul's best work, especially Romans to counter Marcion. Romans even begins the Pauline library if you notice, and in it Paul teaches that despite the fact that the Jews rejected Christ, the covenant is still intact and that somehow, in the end, the Jews will still be saved.

Luke, even though not one of the apostles, is a witness to Jesus as a gospel writer. He even writes the only history of the apostles in the canon. This is likely to counter the claims of Marcion. Luke is likely a Gentile convert to Judaism. Marcion claimed he wrote the gospel of Luke and that Judaism was rejected by Jesus and unnecessary. But if you replace in the portions of this gospel that Marcion removed (chapters 1 & 2), they are some of the most Old Testament-sounding pieces found in the whole New Testament. Mary and others sing in canticle form to the Lord in Hebrew style and the Temple is described in detail. In both Luke and in Acts it is demonstrated that Luke and Paul obviously worshipped in the Temple regularly, a point Marcion would not have other know.

Except for groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and a few other rare Fundamentalists that may be labeled as cults as well, most Christians, even Sola Scripturians, do not rely solely on Scripture alone. Much Tradition lies at the center of their faith. The creation of the canon, for instance, is Tradition, and belief in it as a Standard is outside of the Bible's scriptural reach as there are no Bible texts that tell us what books should be in the Bible and what should be excluded, or that there should even be a divine library in the first place.

But one thing is clear: Catholics do not teach that the Bible is the source of salvation. If they did, the Protestant Reformation never would have occurred.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

Halcon:

...since God is spirit. The gnostics would say that "God is mind"...

While I don't know or cannot address Halcon's personal views on "God," neither is it any of my business, I should explain what I said at the end of my last post before I get into any debates.

I am an ignostic. No an "agnostic" but an ignostic. That generally doesn't exist much in Christianity or in the Western world due to the influence of Christian thought. In Judaism, one can be atheist and agnostic and fully practice the religion of Judaism. It doesn't change anything. You can still "do good to your neighbor" and "not worship" any other God but the God of Abraham (the Torah doesn't require prayer or belief as worship, for instance).

An "ignostic" is someone who doesn't view that it is possible or efficacious to discuss or debate about "God" since God is either Ineffable or people have different views, understanding or the term cannot be or isn't/hasn't been defined to the point that all can agree upon.

In Judaism, idolatry is wrong. If you build a god out of wood or stone or metal and call that God or a deity and worship it, we know that is not right.

But what if you create a god out of words? If you make up definitions for God and claim that God "is" this and God "is" that, and then worship what you have created via definitions, aren't you creating a God of words? How do you know that God is really what you define God to be? Isn't God self-defining?--Exodus 3:14.

Even the Jews stopped taking the anthropomorphic descriptions of God literally and no longer view God as personal to a great extent--not having human qualities like jealousy or anger, and not being a king or being of any gender or a "Lord." God is often not viewed as a person by many Jews. This is what is often meant by God being Ineffable.

God is not a spirit in Jewish thought or has a spirit body like in Christian or Watchtower thought. God might be a force or something experienced as happening more than an entity as in Christian thought. The ideas in the Bible are seen as mythical compared to what "God" actually could be.

But since "God" is Ineffable, to attempt to define and debate "God" is not worth it. Time could be better spent helping those in need, caring for family, finding ways to mend what is broken, aid others in practical terms. Be "God" to others instead of arguing God to win pointless debates, that is my motto.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

The Torah wasn't written by the Gnostics or for the Gnostics. They had no idea of its existence. They were Hellenists, Greeks. The Torah was written by the Jews to teach them to observe the Mosaic Law. It wasn't written for the Gentiles.

While I lived for a few years with a JW aunt after my family dissolved, I was born and raised Jewish and continue to be to this day. One of the things my Jewish education has afforded me is to know the difference between when the Gnostics came on the scene and when the Levitical priesthood did, which was centuries before.

The Kohen line, otherwise known as the Levites, were influencing the people of the Levant to Judahite religion long before Babylon came and drove the people away in chains. The Yahveh God may not have been the only God the Kohens promoted at the time, but eventually they developed their trademark monotheism that Judaism became known for. Some time before 586 B.C E. these priests and their scribes (and their prophets) were a group, even though they didn't resemble the Bible tales exactly the way they are portrayed in the narratives.

The Gnostics, who are Gentiles of Greek origin, did not come onto the scene until circa 300 B.C.E., maybe 400, but that is stretching it. Most scholars actually put their arrival at about 200 B.C.E.. But the ones who studied the Gnostics who studied the Jewish texts? Those are the generally known as the Marcionists.

Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd-century (C.E.) Christian bishop who went rogue by creating (get this) the very first Biblical canon (as the Church Fathers did not believe the Christian congregation needed an official Biblical canon), made things worse by threatening the Church with Gnosticism and the teaching that salvation came to a select group that could glean enough gnosis from holy writings and become demi-gods like Jesus. (The Church countered this with the teaching that salvation was "katholicos" or "universal"--catholic, open to all who had faith in the gospel, whether they read it from Scripture or merely heard it preached from another Christian. And the Church thereby set to creating an official list of canonical writings, excommunicating the Marcionists.)

Plato was born in 428 BCE. He did not read, study or teach the Hebrew text. In fact, there is no textual evidence which shows any early Greek philosopher (from Thales to Epicurus) quoting or commenting on The Old Testament. Both Phythagoras and Plato were reported by some to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East but there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this.

I am Jewish. I know the interpretation of my own people's culture. The reason for the narratives and the characters of Eve and Balaam are placed in the Torah is to teach Law--this is not a book of "History." This is the Law, a book of binding commands. Any narratives within the Law teach Jews how to apply the Law by illustration, not history or a bedtime story. These narratives do not teach Greeks wisdom. They are designed to teach my people how to apply the Mosaic Law. Five books of Law. Not history. Not tales of wisdom. Law. Torah.

In Judaism, God is not spirit or mind. God is Ineffable.

34

The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon in

we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

KalebOutWest

Well of course. And I am not arguing with your general conclusions.

The Christians and the Gnostics later saw things in the words the same way that rabbinical sages of the Talmud composing midrash would from these texts. This was not the original intent, any more than Balaam telling his donkey that her warning was making him a "fool" or "made a mockery of me" at Numbers 22:29. Was the donkey likewise wise, shrewd, able to "navigate" in a way that Balaam could not? Or was this just a device for what he could do himself if he followed the Law? What was the intent of the authors of the Torah but to tell Jews to observe the Mosaic Law?

The Christian and Gnostic commentators and theologians of later ages endowed the serpent not only with qualities, but entirely disconnected it from the Torah. In both Genesis and Numbers the "speaking animal" is simply a stand-in for the Jewish conscience telling the Jew not to break any of the Ten Commandments. (Later, Jews would actually invent what cartoonists would much later depict as an "angel" on one shoulder and a "devil's advocate" on the other.)

Eventually the serpent became an entity of its own for Christians, but it's all unassociacted invention whether it's Christology, Gnostic teaching or even Jewish Midrash.

I can invent anything after the fact that looks like it matches the original material. Anybody can do that. To "ooh" and "aah" over something that is not original is to give a lot of credit where it just isn't due.