DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on November 03, 2010, 04:13:16 AM
-
BrotherH
bösk1
El JoNNo
gmillerdrake
GuineaPig
hefdaddy
Jamesman
juice
Perpetual Change
Philawallafox
ReaperKK
Rina93
sneakyblueberry
yeshua4
02T
The reading plan we'll be following can be found here: https://www.ewordtoday.com/year/ There are multiple programs they have--just scroll down to your version and click "Beginning" in that row. We might do one of the other plans in years to come, but the plan from Genesis to Revelation is what we'll be sticking to this time.
-
I'm in dude! Would love to do this, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you.
-
:tup :tup :tup
I'm adding a sign-up sheet so we can see who's participating!
-
Are you talking the entire Bible, or just the New Testament?
I did the entire Bible in a year a few years ago. I'm down.
-
Are you talking the entire Bible, or just the New Testament?
I did the entire Bible in a year a few years ago. I'm down.
All right, now we've got hefdaddy in this thing! ;D :hefdaddy
The whole thing, by the way. :D
-
Cool. Even though I'm a Christian, the Hebrew Scriptures are more interesting reading, IMO (except for Leviticus, lol).
-
Yeah, the last time I "read" Leviticus was when I uploaded an audio version to my iPod and listened to it as I fell asleep.
-
The OT is fun reading. I'd tentatively be down.
-
I wish you all the luck
Albiet most people who do this stop after Exodus for obvious reasons. ;)
-
I'm down. I'm gonna try and read a Chinese translation, too, if that's okay with everyone. That way I kill two birds with one stone... hehe.
-
I read the bible for the second time last year, so I'm not entering. This is pretty cool idea though. :tup
-
I am down...
I highly recommend the Chronological Bible, by F Lagard Smith. It puts the Bible in chronological order (as much as humanly possible). For example, the psalms are placed in the middle of the historical sections as they were written, the NT letters are placed in the middle of Acts based on their timing, etc. Samuel/Kings/Chronicles and the gospels are harmonized into one chronological writing. It is also divided into daily reading sections.
It makes a year long reading much more enjoyable.
-
I am down...
I highly recommend the Chronological Bible, by F Lagard Smith. It puts the Bible in chronological order (as much as humanly possible). For example, the psalms are placed in the middle of the historical sections as they were written, the NT letters are placed in the middle of Acts based on their timing, etc. Samuel/Kings/Chronicles and the gospels are harmonized into one chronological writing. It is also divided into daily reading sections.
It makes a year long reading much more enjoyable.
I just got an email about that translation the other day, and I've been meaning to check it out in more detail.
-
I am down...
I highly recommend the Chronological Bible, by F Lagard Smith. It puts the Bible in chronological order (as much as humanly possible). For example, the psalms are placed in the middle of the historical sections as they were written, the NT letters are placed in the middle of Acts based on their timing, etc. Samuel/Kings/Chronicles and the gospels are harmonized into one chronological writing. It is also divided into daily reading sections.
It makes a year long reading much more enjoyable.
That does sound like a great way to read through the Bible. However, since most people don't own that, and since I don't know if it's the best idea for a first time through, I think we'll be sticking with the canonical order.
-
I wish you all the luck
Albiet most people who do this stop after Exodus for obvious reasons. ;)
Oh yeah. Any chance we could skip Numbers? :lol
-
The OT is fun reading. I'd tentatively be down.
Yea, reading Deuteronomy makes me laugh, cry and pee at the same time. It's like a michael bay movie in book form.
-
I wish you all the luck
Albiet most people who do this stop after Exodus for obvious reasons. ;)
Oh yeah. Any chance we could skip Numbers? :lol
Of all the ones you want to skip, you want it to be Numbers? :lol There are way more brutal books in there.
-
I wish you all the luck
Albiet most people who do this stop after Exodus for obvious reasons. ;)
Oh yeah. Any chance we could skip Numbers? :lol
Of all the ones you want to skip, you want it to be Numbers? :lol There are way more brutal books in there.
Well I always thought it was just like 'Gimli was son of Gloin who in turn was son of Groin who fathered three blah blah blah.' You have to go through the huge lists to get to the good parts.
-
I double-checked that lineage because I totally thought you made Groin up...Well done. :clap:
-
I double-checked that lineage because I totally thought you made Groin up...Well done. :clap:
I'm 2 legit
2 quit
-
Definitely. I've been needing some accountability with my bible reading.
-
This is a great idea and a great thread. I kind of have certain planned things I read and study at different times so I wouldn't be able to stick to a planned schedule, but I applaud you all! :tup
-
I did this back in...2007, I think. I read it pretty much every night and got through it in about six months. It really answered a lot of my questions about Christianity and was partially responsible for moving me to a Christian mindset, albeit not permanently. Over the summer I tried to make it through the Quran but I only made it about a quarter of the way. I do intend to finish it one day though.
-
I've done this before and I'm up for it again.
-
I am down...
I highly recommend the Chronological Bible, by F Lagard Smith. It puts the Bible in chronological order (as much as humanly possible). For example, the psalms are placed in the middle of the historical sections as they were written, the NT letters are placed in the middle of Acts based on their timing, etc. Samuel/Kings/Chronicles and the gospels are harmonized into one chronological writing. It is also divided into daily reading sections.
It makes a year long reading much more enjoyable.
I just got an email about that translation the other day, and I've been meaning to check it out in more detail.
I think you probably knew this, but it's not a different "translation." It's standard NIV. He just edits it together in such a way that it ends up being chronological (and it's been over a decade since I used it, so I can't remember for certain, but I believe where there appears to be duplication in parallel passages, he only uses one of the two instead of both).
Anyway...
1. I'm up for it.
2. I think we need a parallel thread for taking bets on who drops out when. I'm guessing we lose half our numbers before cracking Deuteronomy.
-
I've been meaning to read a lot more of the Bible, but the whole thing is too much for me to commit, especially when it comes to sections that do lineage etc. I already spaced out on the NT lineage of Jesus :lol
rumborak
-
2. I think we need a parallel thread for taking bets on who drops out when. I'm guessing we lose half our numbers before cracking Deuteronomy.
I'm betting people are gonna drop out way before Deuteronomy. :lol
-
I am down...
I highly recommend the Chronological Bible, by F Lagard Smith. It puts the Bible in chronological order (as much as humanly possible). For example, the psalms are placed in the middle of the historical sections as they were written, the NT letters are placed in the middle of Acts based on their timing, etc. Samuel/Kings/Chronicles and the gospels are harmonized into one chronological writing. It is also divided into daily reading sections.
It makes a year long reading much more enjoyable.
I just got an email about that translation the other day, and I've been meaning to check it out in more detail.
I think you probably knew this, but it's not a different "translation." It's standard NIV. He just edits it together in such a way that it ends up being chronological (and it's been over a decade since I used it, so I can't remember for certain, but I believe where there appears to be duplication in parallel passages, he only uses one of the two instead of both).
Oh, I didn't know that. Haven't had time to check on it.
-
Eh, I dunno about a chronological Bible. I feel like God superintended the canonization process, and that the order of the books is the order they are meant to be in (and meant to be read).
-
Why?
-
I'm not saying that they have to be read in that order every time, but probably it's best for the first time. Not that you won't profit if you read it any other way. I just think God makes his word as simple to understand as possible, so that the truth can be communicated in the most effective way possible.
-
I think would be even worse doing it that way for a first-time reader. Someone without much Bible knowledge is not going to have any context for why some things in the OT seem esoteric, outdated, or just flat-out outlandish (which they do if you don't know why they are there). Much easier for a first-time reader to just start with the NT.
-
Well, yes, I agree that the New Testament is the place to start. I didn't mean the first time you ever read the Bible in your life, you should work your way through the OT. I meant the first time you decide to tackle the whole thing.
But of all the yearlong Bible programs I've seen, where they have you jumping between the OT, the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs, while some of them might definitely be interesting and worth a shot....from what I've heard and from what my instinct tells me, the Genesis-Revelation method is the most enlightening. But that's just based on my experience.
-
I don't know if anyone in this thread is a first-time reader, though.
-
I think would be even worse doing it that way for a first-time reader. Someone without much Bible knowledge is not going to have any context for why some things in the OT seem esoteric, outdated, or just flat-out outlandish (which they do if you don't know why they are there). Much easier for a first-time reader to just start with the NT.
Actually it's much better for a first time reader to start out with the "story" of the Bible skipping over the parts that do not deal with it, for example Leviticus, numbers, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, etc. The NT is rather easy for any first-time reader since the whole of the NT doesn't digress like the OT does quite a bit.
-
our entire church did the chronological bible together, and those who had never read it through (and those that had several times) were all saying they loved the format
for example, you are reading the psalms about David's anxiety over Saul hunting him as you are reading about Saul hunting him, etc
very powerful
-
In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)
rumborak
-
^ You can do that, but it is really hard to read (and to do), because the gospels present the material in a different order. When you have discrepencies, whether there is one man, two men or one angel at the tomb, how are you supposed to merge them together without taking liberties in assuming things that may not be true? That would be decietful to the reader.
-
In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)
rumborak
Yes. Obviously, any time one creates an "edited Bible" that does that, there are lots of editorial judgment calls that have to be made. For example, where we don't necessarily know the order of certain events for certain. Or if it is unclear whether two gospels are recording one event, but each providing some different details, or whether they are simply recording two different but similar events. There are bound to be disagreements over those types of decisions. But it still makes for an interesting read that leads one to pick up on things he otherwise probably would not have.
-
^ You can do that, but it is really hard to read (and to do), because the gospels present the material in a different order. When you have discrepencies, whether there is one man, two men or one angel at the tomb, how are you supposed to merge them together without taking liberties in assuming things that may not be true? That would be decietful to the reader.
Well, if there are discrepancies, I think one is justified to take liberties too. So, you could say there were "some" angels, and the sidenote would then enumerate which gospel said how many. I mean, this is the same kind of decision process a translator had to do when choosing an appropriate translation to some Greek phrase.
rumborak
-
I'm just gonna use my own bible, but I do think that the NT is easier for someone who isn't familiar with the bible or hasn't read the whole thing through yet.
-
Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.
-
In that Bible, are the gospels interleaved too? That would be an interesting read, and something that Ehrmann also suggested doing in his book. (even though it's essentially impossible to fit John in without changing its order)
rumborak
they are interweaved, but as larger sections rather than the individual words.
the diatessaron of Tatian (from the 200's I think) is my favorite harmony of the gospels.
-
Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.
it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do
-
If you really want to vote on doing it chronologically, we will do that closer to January. And I don't think we should limit any particluar version...NIV, Chinese, whatever.
I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible. I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.
-
If you really want to vote on doing it chronologically, we will do that closer to January. And I don't think we should limit any particluar version...NIV, Chinese, whatever.
I would participate, but not if it's not limited to chinese.
-
Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.
it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do
Oh, I thought the whole point of it was that we'd all be reading the same part at the same time?
-
Maybe we should vote on whether or not to do it chronologically.
it would be nice for all of us to be on the same page at the same time, but not sure if it is necessarily something we have to do
Oh, I thought the whole point of it was that we'd all be reading the same part at the same time?
That was one of the goals.
Well, I am going to limit the discussion to only certain areas at a time, which will progress with the canonical order. Most of the people that won't read it in the canonical order have probably already read it, so they'll still be able to participate.
-
I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible. I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.
No, that's a different one. I have that as well, and I LOVE it. There are some interesting editorial choices, but I find it very good. And I like that it has a timeline across the top of each page that always reminds you of what year (approximately) you are in for each given section. However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.
The one Yesh was talking about is the "Daily Bible." https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Bible-International-Devotional-Insights/dp/0736901981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289254303&sr=8-1 I think it only comes in NIV.
As far as doing this in chronological order, I don't think we should. It's a great study. But I think we should all be on the same schedule. That makes discussion easier. Whatever the schedule is that we decide to use, let's all use it. I wouldn't want to necessarily choose the Daily Bible and have someone not participate just because they don't want to buy it.
-
I was checking out my bookstore today and I stumbled upon a Chronological Bible. I'm not sure if it's the one you guys are talking about, but this one was a NKJV.
No, that's a different one. I have that as well, and I LOVE it. There are some interesting editorial choices, but I find it very good. And I like that it has a timeline across the top of each page that always reminds you of what year (approximately) you are in for each given section. However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.
The one Yesh was talking about is the "Daily Bible." https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Bible-International-Devotional-Insights/dp/0736901981/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289254303&sr=8-1 I think it only comes in NIV.
As far as doing this in chronological order, I don't think we should. It's a great study. But I think we should all be on the same schedule. That makes discussion easier. Whatever the schedule is that we decide to use, let's all use it. I wouldn't want to necessarily choose the Daily Bible and have someone not participate just because they don't want to buy it.
agreed...even though I was expecting the stock I have in it to go up with the mass purchases, but oh well
-
However, it has lots of "explanatory" notes along the lines of what you would find in a study Bible, and most of them are just horribly, horribly off-base.
I have to admit, at this point in time you commenting on some Bible commentary as "horribly off-base" piques my interest :lol
rumborak
-
:lol Fair enough.
-
I'd be interested! I've never really read the whole way through. How does this work exactly? Whats the scheduling?
-
If anyone cares (and they probably don't, but whatever), the way I read it the time I did it in a year was to read the entire Hebrew Scriptures first, but not in Christian Bible order, but Hebrew Bible order (first the Law, then the Prophets, then the Writings). Then I read the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, then Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John. Then James, Hebrews, and the rest of the Pauline corpus. Then the rest of the NT Epistles, and lastly Revelation.
But for something like what we are proposing here, for a large number of people (both believer and non-believer) reading through the Bible together, we should all follow the same schedule, and probably the given order of the Bible would work the best.
-
If anyone cares (and they probably don't, but whatever), the way I read it the time I did it in a year was to read the entire Hebrew Scriptures first, but not in Christian Bible order, but Hebrew Bible order (first the Law, then the Prophets, then the Writings). Then I read the 7 undisputed letters of Paul, then Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John. Then James, Hebrews, and the rest of the Pauline corpus. Then the rest of the NT Epistles, and lastly Revelation.
But for something like what we are proposing here, for a large number of people (both believer and non-believer) reading through the Bible together, we should all follow the same schedule, and probably the given order of the Bible would work the best.
That sounds like a great way to read through. It totally allows you to put yourself in the shoes of an ancient Israelite.
24 books in a Hebrew Bible. 39 in a Christian Old Testament. 24 is twice 12, the number of Israel. 39 is three times 13, the number of rebellion. :octavarium:
-
I support just reading it the way it's already organized, too.
-
I'm in. I recommend M'Cheyne's plan, but the ESV daily reading plan is also good.
-
I looked over it, and while I appreciate the recommendation....I don't think it'll work. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but I don't think we'll be using it.
I just googled a progam that looks good and I will add it to the OP.
-
As for me, I've been a non-Christian for about a year and a half. My general approach to it is to take it literally as much as I can. I'd rather err or the side of being too literal than being too allegorical. So..."fundamentalist," basically, even though that's considered a "bad word" in today's media.
Why would a non-Christian be a fundamentalist?
-
Whoops. Fixed.
-
This still happening?
-
Of course. Check the OP for a website that has the plan we will follow.
-
This still happening?
??? Why ask now? It won't start until January.
-
This still happening?
??? Why ask now? It won't start until January.
For some reason I thought we were starting sooner.
-
I didn't see the bit to say what denomination/history etc. we are/come from
I'm an Australian Presbyterian in the tradition of the Reformation. I have some slight charismatic influences but I'll err to the side of conservativism than all out fainting and stuff. I haven't made my mind up about the gift of speaking in the the tongue of angels yet.
To expand a little further:
Some theologians or pastors that I like:
Mark Driscoll
John Piper
Tony Bird
Greg Goswell
John Calvin
John Knox
Ulrich Zwingli
William Tyndale
-
I didn't see the bit to say what denomination/history etc. we are/come from
I'm an Australian Presbyterian in the tradition of the Reformation. I have some slight charismatic influences but I'll err to the side of conservativism than all out fainting and stuff. I haven't made my mind up about the gift of speaking in the the tongue of angels yet.
To expand a little further:
Some theologians or pastors that I like:
Mark Driscoll
John Piper
Tony Bird
Greg Goswell
John Calvin
John Knox
Ulrich Zwingli
William Tyndale
That's all interesting enough, but I'm not sure that it matters very much in the context of this enterprise.
Or, it might. *shrugs*
-
John Calvin
We are going to have a tough time with you on board. :loser:
-
Count me in, tentatively.
our entire church did the chronological bible together, and those who had never read it through (and those that had several times) were all saying they loved the format
for example, you are reading the psalms about David's anxiety over Saul hunting him as you are reading about Saul hunting him, etc
very powerful
I think this is a great idea.
-
This still happening?
??? Why ask now? It won't start until January.
For some reason I thought we were starting sooner.
Me too, guess we have another month and a half.
-
That's all interesting enough, but I'm not sure that it matters very much in the context of this enterprise.
Or, it might. *shrugs*
BrotherH asked us to say....I just went into depth....
John Calvin
We are going to have a tough time with you on board. :loser:
what now?
-
I am sorry fora sking, but you are making some Bible reading meeting or ? :smiley: I do not understand ,so sorry for stupid question !
P.S. is it better to start reading from New Testament ? Bunch of people who are involved in studying Bible told me that.
-
I am sorry fora sking, but you are making some Bible reading meeting or ? :smiley: I do not understand ,so sorry for stupid question !
P.S. is it better to start reading from New Testament ? Bunch of people who are involved in studying Bible told me that.
We are not doing a personal meeting...we are just going to be discussing things as we go through the Bible. For example, lets say week one we read and discuss Genesis 1-21. Anyone that has anything interesting to bring up or discuss can be done.
It is probably better for a beginner to start with the New Testament. However, since 1) most people have already read at least parts of the NT, and 2) we want to get the "cover-to-cover" experience, we'll be starting with the Old.
-
Thanx for replying :) :)
It is cool to read that DT fans are going through things like that .. Full respect !
-
NT may be easier, especially to understand, but yeah, OT is better for this. :laugh:
-
The NT is good but you wont understand it without a good knowledge of the OT. The NT writers refer to and even cite OT references alot. not just a little bit, alooooooooooot.
-
I agree that you won't completely understand the NT if you start with it, but seeing as the days when the OT applied are over, I don't really see why anyone should start with the OT first. Plus it's incredibly daunting and would probably be a major turnoff.
That said, the first verse of the first book of the NT refer to two major OT characters God made promises to, which are fulfilled by the NT.
-
It is incredibly daunting, and incredibly boring but they go together. They're a canonical unit for a reason, and when you've got people who are reading it with you and who already know stuff in the NT you will be able to have it brought alive for you.
Also if that's still not enough, read the NT while you read the OT. No-one's stopping you except yourself.
-
I agree that you won't completely understand the NT if you start with it, but seeing as the days when the OT applied are over, I don't really see why anyone should start with the OT first. Plus it's incredibly daunting and would probably be a major turnoff.
That said, the first verse of the first book of the NT refer to two major OT characters God made promises to, which are fulfilled by the NT.
I have a hunch there are some people who disagree with you.
-
I think he means if you have never read the OT and have no prior knowledge of it.
-
Yeah, but I thought this was supposed to be a straight Bible read. Coming at it from a Christian perspective defeats the purpose. Or so I thought.
-
Yeah, but I thought this was supposed to be a straight Bible read. Coming at it from a Christian perspective defeats the purpose. Or so I thought.
Yeah, but I'm just saying in general it's good to start with the NT for people living in the twenty-first century. We'll be sticking with a straight read here, though.
-
I still don't understand the thinking behind saying it's better to start with the NT.
-
I still don't understand the thinking behind saying it's better to start with the NT.
you would make a good jew :)
-
I still don't understand the thinking behind saying it's better to start with the NT.
you would make a good jew :)
I know a Messianic Jew who told me the same thing.
I told him I would convert except for Sukkot. He lol'd.
-
:lol
-
I'm in as well. I began to read the 'Bible in a year' every year 4 years ago so 2011 will be the start of my 5th. It'll be nice to have an area to come and discuss or even lend an opinion. I like to read out of the NKJV but also keep a NASB study Bible close by for reference.
-
I'm not religious but I'm going to give this a shot, the Bible has been something that I've always wanted to read.
-
OK, so I guess we'll get started on this tomorrow, right? Genesis 1-3?
-
Oh snap! We are ON! I haven't seen much of BrotherH around. Is he running it?
-
Oh snap! We are ON! I haven't seen much of BrotherH around. Is he running it?
He's been around. I guess he's "running" it, but whether he is or not, it is still up to us to do the daily reading.
-
I was wondering because are just doing 3 chapters a day, or who is deciding this? Don't wanna search this thread.
-
Still here. Someone said that I post too much so I decided to hang back a bit more.
Reading for January 1 is Genesis 1-3.
-
I'm still in, but I'm also putting together my own yearly reading program for my kids that takes them through a good chunk, but not everything, and has much shorter readings. They're 5 and 7 (almost 6 and 8), and both very good readers, but I need to make sure not to overload them and to try to keep it age-appropriate. I want them to read through 2 of the gospels, and we just went through Mark. So here's my general outline for them, in case anyone is interested:
-Starting off with the the gospel of John. It's very different than Mark, and makes a lot of ties to Jesus being present in the OT, so I think it is a great place to start with them this year. After that, we'll be going mostly chronological.
-Most of Genesis through Exodus 20
-Just a bit from Numbers about the Israelits complaining and being denied entrance to the promise land.
-One reading from Deuteronomy when Moses is addressing the Israelits and turning things over to Joshua.
-Excertps from Joshua, Judges, and Ruth to give them some of the basic stories.
-For the united kingdom years, I'll excerpt a bit about Saul, David, and Solomon, focusing more on David. I'll spinkle in a small handful of the shorter psalms and some individual proverbs here.
-Divided kingdom: I'll probably spend only about a week, excerpting some stories that are more significant.
-Exile and return: Most of the first half and then the end of Daniel should cover most of the exile for now. I'll cover just a bit from Ezra and Nehemiah for maybe two days' worth of readings. I may also work in a 1-2 day excerpt of Esther if there ends up being room in the outline. Maybe also just a few short readings from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and one or two of the minor prophets. Not sure yet.
-Luke
-Excerpts from Acts. I wanna chop it down to about 1/3-1/2. I'll sprinkle in a few short readings from the episltes where they would fit.
-Excerpt from Revelation. Mabye about 3 chapters' worth of material.
The outline is coming along great. It's fun putting it together.
-
That is really cool. Do you homeschool them?
Also did you got my PM a couple weeks ago? I didn't save a copy for the outbox so I am doubting if I ever even sent it.
-
That is really cool. Do you homeschool them?
If you want to call it that. We keep them locked in the basement with only a flashlight, a Bible, and a small tv/VCR combo unit with only the DVD for Expelled. We slide a bowl of porridge through a slot in the door twice a day. Overall, I think we're doing right by them. :biggrin:
-
That is really cool. Do you homeschool them?
If you want to call it that. We keep them locked in the basement with only a flashlight, a Bible, and a small tv/VCR combo unit with only the DVD for Expelled. We slide a bowl of porridge through a slot in the door twice a day. Overall, I think we're doing right by them. :biggrin:
JESUS CHRIST DUDE!!!!
Spoil them much?
-
Oh damn it put me down for a read..
-
You know, Zechariah 14, John 1 and Revelation 21 are really cool to read alongside this.
-
I was wondering because are just doing 3 chapters a day, or who is deciding this? Don't wanna search this thread.
Here was the schedule. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.ewordtoday.com/year/31/bjan01.htm
-
The study of the Pentateuch will be very interesting, especially the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, as we will be able to see in action the elements of the Documentary Hypothesis: the theory of the assembling of four originally separate texts to constitute what we now know as the Pentateuch. If you aren't familiar with the hypothesis, this article is decent as an introduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Yes, I know that now there are other theories out there, but I have read them, and to me the Documentary Hypothesis still makes the most sense.
Here in the first 3 chapters, we get some of the seeds of the theory. We have 2 separate and complete versions of the story of creation. The first is in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, and the second one is in Genesis 2:4 - 25. The first is from the Priestly source (known as P), which is relatively late, and the second one is from the Yahwist source (known as J), which is the earliest source. Some of the characteristics of P include the use of the Hebrew word elohim for "God" and a depiction of God as transcendent and non-anthropomorphic; God does not personally do things, but rather commands them to happen and they do. In the P source, a person could not have intimate knowledge of God, because God was too transcendent and non-human-like. Some of the characteristics of J include the use of the personal name of God, the Tetragrammaton (later translated as adonai or The LORD in English translations, to avoid depiction of The Name), as well as depicting God in anthropomorphic terms. God makes and forms things, and places things in various locations, and makes things for the humans. He makes Adam by hand, and breathes life into him. He then takes a rib from Adam and makes Eve. He has a personal and intimate relationship with Adam & Eve.
Then, of course, in Chapter 3 (also from J), we get the story of the Temptation and the Fall. What a brilliant depiction of human nature this is. I know that many Christians point to this story as the foundation of the concept of sin from which we need saving, but please try to read the story for what it is - there is no such concept in the text. There is no mention in the text that the serpent is Satan. He is just a serpent. All of that stuff is later Christian retconning.
-
Two things about the Documentary Hypothesis that I have a problem with:
1) It is just a theory. It is based on internal rather than external evidence. There is no substantial manuscript evidence that demands that the DH must be true. Rather, the reason scholars divide the Pentateuch like they do is based on their own method of categorization. To a lesser degree, it is similar to a person claiming that Shakespeare couldn't have written both Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet, since one is comedic and the other is tragic.
2) There are so many apparent so-called contradictions that are close in proximity, such as the two creation accounts, and God's commandment to Noah in regard to what types of animals and how many he is to bring on the ark. If the Documentary Hypothesis is true, the Redactor must have been either blind or extremely lax when he caught these mistakes.
-
Personally, I thnk thinkgs like DH should be in their own thread. I can see going so deep down that road that pretty soon, we lose sight of discussing what a given daily reading actually says.
-
I think it's covered by this thread. I thought the whole purpose was to read the Bible with "fresh eyes" and comment upon it, and the two narratives in Genesis certainly falls under that (and the Documentary Hypothesis).
-
What do people think about the "gap theory" that says that between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 there was a spanse of time during which Lucifer and the angels fell from heaven?
-
I lump it together with the theory that Peter Pan was really a girl, Santa lives in the North Pole, and other things that aren't remotely mentioned in the text.
-
You mean...Santa isn't in the Bible???
:(
-
Not according to most reliable translations. ;)
-
https://tinyurl.com/yfao5zp
-
Two things about the Documentary Hypothesis that I have a problem with:
1) It is just a theory. It is based on internal rather than external evidence. There is no substantial manuscript evidence that demands that the DH must be true. Rather, the reason scholars divide the Pentateuch like they do is based on their own method of categorization. To a lesser degree, it is similar to a person claiming that Shakespeare couldn't have written both Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet, since one is comedic and the other is tragic.
2) There are so many apparent so-called contradictions that are close in proximity, such as the two creation accounts, and God's commandment to Noah in regard to what types of animals and how many he is to bring on the ark. If the Documentary Hypothesis is true, the Redactor must have been either blind or extremely lax when he caught these mistakes.
I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid. And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.
bosky, I think that the recognition of different depictions of God is one of the best ways to get the most out of what the text actually says. It's a discussion about what we're reading. There's no reason that everyone has to agree with what anyone's viewpoint is on what we read. In fact, I am not expecting much agreement on almost anything. But the sharing of the different views is where the strength of the study lies, IMHO. I mean, I've read the Bible before, many times. I'm looking forward to sharing my views on various texts, and learning the views of others, whether I agree with them or not. I may gain a new point of view which I may not have previously encountered. Or, I might get some new laughs. Either way, I am very excited about the possibilities.
Having said that, I share your opinion of the gap theory.
-
I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid. And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.
What is it that I am misunderstanding in both thiese cases?
-
And here we go...
:trainwreck:
-
lol
It was bound to happen, I mean come on, it is the bible.
-
Oh i almost forgot about this! *reads today's amount*
-
my daily bible is packed up, but I was in a bible bookstore so I grabbed one off the shelf and got caught up for a while :biggrin:
-
Just finished the reading.
Got a quick comment/question. Gen 3:8 (ESV) says this:
8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The syntax of the first clause is confusing. Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God? Depending on how you read it, it seems like you could interpret it either way. But if it is God that is walking in the garden, that seems odd to me, since God the Father is an omniprescent being that (to my knowledge) always hangs out in heaven and doesn't manifest himself on Earth. Although I have heard arguments that the personified God in the OT is actually Jesus, and I don't see too much of a problem with that.
Anyway, this verse has always been awkward for me.
Thoughts?
-
I've always understood the garden of Eden (prior to sin/fall) was where God had a real relationship with His people. sin severed that relationship, hence heaven will be a return to the relationship of Eden
-
Just finished the reading.
Got a quick comment/question. Gen 2:8 (ESV) says this:
8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The syntax of the first clause is confusing. Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God? Depending on how you read it, it seems like you could interpret it either way. But if it is God that is walking in the garden, that seems odd to me, since God the Father is an omniprescent being that (to my knowledge) always hangs out in heaven and doesn't manifest himself on Earth. Although I have heard arguments that the personified God in the OT is actually Jesus, and I don't see too much of a problem with that.
Anyway, this verse has always been awkward for me.
Thoughts?
wut
I agree the syntax is odd, but I think the author meant Adam and Eve were walking. Doesn't really make sense in any other context.
-
Ok I just looked it up in the NIV which says
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
I don't completely trust the NIV because of its thought-for-thought translation style but so far it looks like it is God that is walking.
-
Just read The Creation by Neal Morse, with God's take on it. No cool synth solos, though. :(
-
No cool synth solos, though. :(
Wait a minute, is such a thing even possible?
-
I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid. And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.
What is it that I am misunderstanding in both thiese cases?
Hmm, maybe bosk1 was right. lol
By the way, I think that this passage is talking about God walking, not Adam and Eve. They heard him walking. That's why they hid. This is consistent with J's anthropomorphic depiction of God. And the incongruity of the depictions of God throughout the Pentateuch is one of the lynchpins of the Documentary Hypothesis.
I think that any interpretation of this being Jesus is not treating the text with the respect it deserves. The author didn't have any concept of Jesus. BH, I also don't get your idea that God just hangs out in Heaven and never manifests himself on Earth. The Bible (especially the OT) is replete with depictions of God's interactions with humans.
IMHO
-
Today's reading, Genesis 4-7, is another rich literary expression of the ancient Israelites. I will continue to look at it from the viewpoint of the Documentary Hypothesis.
Chapter 4 is all from the J source, and features the story of Cain and Abel (again showing God taking a personal and individual interest in the characters of the story) and the beginnings of civilization.
Most scholars feel that chapter 5 isn't from J, E, P, or D, but rather is part of a hypothetical document called by some the Book of Generations that the Redactor used to unify the different texts he used in formulating the book of Genesis.
With chapter 6, we get an interesting bit involving the sons of God and the daughters of men, who produced the Nephilim. This leads to God's grief over the increasing wickedness of humanity, and God's regret in creating them in the first place, and his resolve to destroy what he had created. All of this, from verses 1-8, are from the J source. This is followed by the rest of chapter 6, drawn from the P source, which is an account of God's revelation to Noah and his disclosure of his plan to Noah.
Beginning in chapter 7, we get a real taste of the Redactor's artistry, as this entire chapter, along with chapter 8 in tomorrow's reading (the entire depiction of the Flood story), feature him weaving bits of J and P, two separate accounts of the Flood, together into a rich and vibrant tapestry.
At any rate, we see in today's reading that God can become angry, yet remain compassionate (Cain), and is capable of regret, which is a strange quality in a being who is normally depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing.
-
Spoiler: Adam really knows Eve hard.
-
Know her? I barely...
Wait a second.
-
That's right, you saw what I did there.
On a serious note... I have a few questions for y'all. Why do Adam, Eve (aka A&E) and the rest of the family even bother to worship this God. There really is no point; they have been kicked out of paradise, never too return. When they work hard and give offerings, God seems to care more about the animal sacrifice and not the hard work put into the sacrifice. On top of all this he is all about cursing them for life when they do minor things not including the murder. Plus hell doesn't exist for mortals yet as far as the story is concerned.
Any thoughts?
-
Reading for January 2 is Genesis 4-7. (sorry to steal your thunder hef, I just like to feel official :biggrin:)
On a serious note... I have a few questions for y'all. Why do Adam, Eve (aka A&E) and the rest of the family even bother to worship this God. There really is no point; they have been kicked out of paradise, never too return. When they work hard and give offerings, God seems to care more about the animal sacrifice and not the hard work put into the sacrifice. On top of all this he is all about cursing them for life when they do minor things not including the murder. Plus hell doesn't exist for mortals yet as far as the story is concerned.
The way I take it is that there is a hierarchy between the creatures and the man. The purpose of God creating man is to have dominion over all the earth and the rest of earth's creatures (Gen 1:26). We can see a manifestation of this purpose when God allows Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19). There are other cross references form other books that support this concept but I can't remember any.
When Adam and Eve are kicked out, the earth falls under the curse, and they lose that dominion, so I think they experience both 1) the desire to get on top like they once were, and 2) fear of more punishment if they continue to be rebellious.
And regarding God being super anal about cursing man for seemingly little things, remember that God doesn't view any sin as "little" or "big" (as I have heard from the Catholic Church). Mat 5:28 says that being mentally lustful is just as bad as actually committing adultery. Jam 2:10 says that whoever is guilty of one sin is guilty of all. So even though something might seem minor and insignificant to us or Adam and Eve, remember that in the Bible, God is the final judge on matters and it really doesn't matter how man sees it.
-
Where do you get the idea that the earth fell under a curse after they were expelled from the garden?
-
You don't get that by reading only Genesis. I believe it talks about that in Romans.
EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23
-
You don't get that by reading only Genesis. I believe it talks about that in Romans.
Oh, Paul. Nevermind then, carry on.
-
Just finished the reading.
Got a quick comment/question. Gen 3:8 (ESV) says this:
8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
The syntax of the first clause is confusing. Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God?
I must say I am confused by that you think the syntax is confusing. I mean, if your point was that the translation is faulty I could see it in some way, but the passage, to me at least, is crystal-clear. God walks in the garden, Adam and Eve hear it, they hide because they hear Him.
And I'm not in the least confused by that either. The Jewish god is a very heavy-handed and often vengeful guy; somebody you better not get in the way of.
rumborak
-
An interesting thing I recently read about the genealogy of Genesis 5, when you translate those names from Hebrew to English.
Adam -> Man
Seth -> Appointed
Enosh -> Mortal
Kenan -> Sorrow
Mahalalel -> The Blessed God
Jared -> Shall come down
Enoch -> Teaching
Methuselah -> His death shall bring
Lamech -> The despairing
Noah -> Rest, or comfort
Potential evidence of design?
-
Whoa...
-
Whoa...
-
You mean...Santa isn't in the Bible???
:(
Oh man, I read that "Santa" as "Sonata"
and I was like
Yeah I'm in there. But they call me stuff like God or Him or He and stuff.
-
You don't get that by reading only Genesis. I believe it talks about that in Romans.
EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23
If we are reading this in order, shouldn't we not cloud what we read by later interpretations of things? If it doesn't say it in Genesis, then we shouldn't bring it in yet.
-
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
-
Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).
*threat neutralized*You don't get that by reading only Genesis. I believe it talks about that in Romans.
EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23
If we are reading this in order, shouldn't we not cloud what we read by later interpretations of things? If it doesn't say it in Genesis, then we shouldn't bring it in yet.
You're right. One more reason for spoiler tags. :yeahright
-
Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).
*threat neutralized*
Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth. It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.
-
Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).
*threat neutralized*
Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth. It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.
But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth. The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to). I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born. Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.
But it seems like you've made up your mind.
-
Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).
*threat neutralized*
Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth. It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.
But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth. The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to). I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born. Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.
But it seems like you've made up your mind.
Nah, I'm just nitpicking. It was something that jumped out at me the first time I read it, and it still does. Besides, it's much easier to point out and discuss these little things than the big issues.
-
Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.
One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. They are the only four humans on Earth. Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod. Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife. Where did she come from?
Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).
*threat neutralized*
Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth. It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.
But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth. The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to). I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born. Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.
But it seems like you've made up your mind.
Nah, I'm just nitpicking. It was something that jumped out at me the first time I read it, and it still does. Besides, it's much easier to point out and discuss these little things than the big issues.
Look at chapter 5. You haver people living several hundred (close to 1,000) years and having children VERY late in the process. In 5 chapters, you have several thousand years of storyline, so of course a ton of detail is left out and you can easily jump ahead several hundred (or thousand) years in the span of a few verses. It is easy to picture Cain and Abel being fairly young in that account, but I don't think that is the case given the details you pointed out. So as far as other people being around, there could easily have been lots. I mean, if people were supposedly having children at almost 200 years old, think about how many children they could potentially have. Even at the rate of 1 every 5 years, if we assume Adam and Even were created as adults (which they seem to be), that's 40 kids (if no twins, etc.). And during that time, some of them would have had kids, etc.
-
That is still going off of supposition and not what the text actually says. GP is right in that the text doesn't mention Adam and Eve having other kids until after Seth. I think to just gloss over that with details of what, according to the story, happened hundreds or thousands of years later is not to take seriously what the text actually says about the beginning of days.
-
Of course it's going off supposition, but it's a supposition that is 100% consistent with the text (vs. a huge leap along the lines of the gap theory). A supposition that A&E began having children right away is pure speculation, of course, but even if what the text means (even though it does not say so) is that they only had other children after Seth, it is still 100% consistent with the text that by the time Cain married, there were LOTS of other offspring of A&E running around and that he married one of them.
-
I agree that it is a gap but not a gap that is earth shattering or anything. It would have been smart of the writers to include some sort of reassurance that there were more offspring besides Cain and Abel. Not mentioning something isn't necessarily proof of absence. Cain and Abel were probably mentioned for more shock and awe, merely because it was probably considered the first murder and punishment for murder. Otherwise you would probably have one of the those annoying he begot this and that right up until Noah, which is another significant event in the bible.
What concerns me is the willful path to incest the bible takes.
-
Of course it's going off supposition, but it's a supposition that is 100% consistent with the text (vs. a huge leap along the lines of the gap theory). A supposition that A&E began having children right away is pure speculation, of course, but even if what the text means (even though it does not say so) is that they only had other children after Seth, it is still 100% consistent with the text that by the time Cain married, there were LOTS of other offspring of A&E running around and that he married one of them.
I basically agree with you.
Hey, we should be friends or something.
-
Look at chapter 5. You haver people living several hundred (close to 1,000) years and having children VERY late in the process. In 5 chapters, you have several thousand years of storyline, so of course a ton of detail is left out and you can easily jump ahead several hundred (or thousand) years in the span of a few verses. It is easy to picture Cain and Abel being fairly young in that account, but I don't think that is the case given the details you pointed out. So as far as other people being around, there could easily have been lots. I mean, if people were supposedly having children at almost 200 years old, think about how many children they could potentially have. Even at the rate of 1 every 5 years, if we assume Adam and Even were created as adults (which they seem to be), that's 40 kids (if no twins, etc.). And during that time, some of them would have had kids, etc.
That idea is extremely unsettling. The idea of a family running on for that long is just really strange to me.
-
In today's reading, 12-15, we get the debut of Abram/Abraham as a major player. Now we're getting somewhere lol.
-
Sorry I've been late guys. I'll be able to start Thursday.
-
In today's reading, 12-15, we get the debut of Abram/Abraham as a major player. Now we're getting somewhere lol.
So...somebody needs to do a photoshop of Abraham going, "I'm a maja' playa', yo!"
Going back to day one (sorry), something I find incredibly interesting in the six-day creation account is the entire cosmology of it all. Obviously, there is a lot we could be misisng simply because of the piont of view of the text--i.e., it isn't trying to explain the creation of the universe from a complex scientific view, but is merely presenting the story in terms that a reader can understand. For this reason, I have often struggled with just how literally the reader is meant to take the creation account. On one hand, it is written in a very literalistic style. But then again, in today's society, we say things like, "the sun rose" knowing full well that the sun doesn't literally "rise" at all, and yet we're perfectly comfortable using language that if an alien who knew nothing about us landed on earth one day and heard us use, he'd think we were serious and either laugh at us or be horrified that we could be so ignorant. I sometimes wonder how much of the creation account is like that.
For instance, we have the earth initially being lit by some source other than the sun and the sun not yet existing. Or do we? If the account is literal, that to me suggests one of at least two options that are pretty unconventional views of the cosmos: (1) The earth existed independently in the beginning, and God just held it all together until he was ready to put the sun (and everything else in place). Then when the sun and stars were created, they were created with their light instantaneously reaching the earth. OR (2) We are not properly understanding what was meant by the word that is translated "created" or "made." Perhaps the rest of the universe DID preexist (i.e. they were literally "created" much earlier), and the timing was simply such that their light did not reach or was not permitted to shine on the earth until the moment God deemed them to be [insert term for whatever the text means when it said "created"], at which time their light was permitted to shine on the earth. OR...something else.
-
How literally the reader was meant to take Genesis is an interesting question. For obvious reasons it cannot be taken literally, but I'm interested in what Hefdaddy or others might know on scholarship concerning the use of metaphors/imagery in the OT. I remember thinking from my original reading that the OT was a lot more evocative (in some places, not in others...) in its style. I've heard some arguments that elements like the creation account were not intended to be taken literally, but I have no idea what modern scholars think.
-
Opinions vary greatly.
-
I have an issue/thought about how literal to take 'God created man in his image'. They way I understand that is being created in God's image does not literally mean 10 finger and toes and so forth, but more of recieving conciousness and emotion in it's rawest form. Everything form joy and sadness to love and hate and all in between placed in our spirit available to experience and learn from.....which would allow us to, if we chose to, cultivate that spirit or conciousness in order to commune with God and prepare ourselves for our lives after the physical expires.
To me, Being made in his image means I have been given the spiritual (conciousness, emotional) building blocks and awareness to prepare for an eternal existance while here in this physical body. To try and imagine who and what God is and his capabilies and power...is impossible for our minds to comprehend and although I won't bother with citing it here, there is countless scripture teaching us and instructing us to that point. While here on this Earth we will never have the ability to fully understand God's intentions...I'm cool with that.
I guess my point is I don't picture a Zeus like figure with a long grey beard and flowing silver hair as God's image because God is not contained in a body. He did take human form and come to us as Jesus, but in his every day operational 'form', he is just simply any and everything at any moment.
So my issue/question is, does anyone else percieve 'being created in God's image' not as a physical statement but a spiritual/conciousness/emotional statement? Hopefully I described that well enough to be understood.
-
you described it perfectly, and I agree 100%. He is a spiritual being, so there is no physical form to be like. however, we share all of the same passions and emotions because we are created like Him. the only difference is our emotions are scarred by the fall.
-
you described it perfectly, and I agree 100%. He is a spiritual being, so there is no physical form to be like. however, we share all of the same passions and emotions because we are created like Him.
-
Another question I have which I am sure some of you have thought about and even addressed, is that God 'knows' everything...he created existance itself and tells us he knew us before we were in the womb. So one would assume that when he created A&E and instructed them NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge that he was aware they would. Does the fact that he knew they would anyway negate free will in any way or justify it?
What was his motivation if the outcome was already determined? Was he simply putting the pieces in place to ultimately culminate in him coming to Earth in the form of Christ? Was he ensuring that in order to test and refine the 'raw' conciousness and emotion he created and bestowed within us that sin HAD to be introduced to fulfill our purpose?
-
Those are all great questions and discussion points, but they should probably be in a different thread.
-
yeah, that particular question has been hashed out multiple times in different threads
-
If you do take the Bible creation account literally, which will lead you to the conclusion that the earth is between 6000-10000 years old, there is a way to reconcile it with science.
In the creation account, God created things in an aged form. Here's an example. On Day 2 he planted the seeds for the trees. By the end of the day, we are told that the seeds not only matured into full grown trees, but that they also bore fruit. A seed became a fruit-bearing tree over a 24-hour period.
Suppose a botanist came along on Day 3 and decided to test these trees to see how old they were. He would certainly not conclude that the tree is only a single day old--it normally takes years to reach the fruit-bearing phase!
In order to reconcile science and the creation story, I believe that just because something has the appearance of age doesn't mean it is actually that old. As accurate a scientist's tools and methods might be, they cannot account for the "accelerated" growth that creation underwent.
But then again, in today's society, we say things like, "the sun rose" knowing full well that the sun doesn't literally "rise" at all
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are talking about the battle in Joshua where the sun "stood still"? That gave me problems for a while since we now think of the sun as a stationary object that the planets revolve around.
But then I got to thinking that all motion is relative. For example we think of ourselves as being motionless when we are sleeping. But in comparison to the solar system, we are actually moving quite rapidly with the rotation of the earth. So it's all a matter of perspective. In that way I don't think it is an incorrect statement to say "the sun rose."
Aaand Reading for January 4 is Genesis 12-15.
-
No, I wasn't referring to Joshua. I'm just saying that we use a colloquial wording to describe something in a way that is completely contradictory to how we know it really works. (The sun doesn't truly "rise" or "set" at all. It stays right where it is [relative to the earth, at least], and the rotation of the earth merely gives the illusion that the sun rises and sets) But, yet, it's not a contradiction at all. It's just an accepted way of describing the phenomenon of a "sunrise." (see, I just did it again)
-
If you do take the Bible creation account literally, which will lead you to the conclusion that the earth is between 6000-10000 years old, there is a way to reconcile it with science.
In the creation account, God created things in an aged form. Here's an example. On Day 2 he planted the seeds for the trees. By the end of the day, we are told that the seeds not only matured into full grown trees, but that they also bore fruit. A seed became a fruit-bearing tree over a 24-hour period.
Suppose a botanist came along on Day 3 and decided to test these trees to see how old they were. He would certainly not conclude that the tree is only a single day old--it normally takes years to reach the fruit-bearing phase!
In order to reconcile science and the creation story, I believe that just because something has the appearance of age doesn't mean it is actually that old. As accurate a scientist's tools and methods might be, they cannot account for the "accelerated" growth that creation underwent.
This doesn't even come close to "reconciling" anything. We don't age the Earth from trees or plants or animals, or things that "grow". We age the Earth from dating rocks and minerals; both from our planet and extraterrestrial objects. How would a gneiss from the Canadian Shield that we measure to be 4 billion years old actually be 6,000 years old? Appearance has nothing to do with it. We don't look at rocks and guess the age. You either don't understand the scientific method, or you don't understand the methods used to collect and date rock samples.
And then of course there's the obvious fact that the Flood never happened, continental drift, evolution, archaeology, and all other manners of scientific and historical evidence. It's impossible to support the notion that the Earth is as young as the Bible would suggest. Simply impossible.
-
He's saying that our commonly accepted methods of dating things are flawed and draw incorrect conclusions because the earth was formed "fully mature," in every sense (animals, trees, rocks and minerals, etc.). But, again, I know I opened that can of worms with my post, but I'm merely making an observation about the text. If you want to go into detailed argument about whether or not creation science is valid, IMO, that is a discussion for another thread.
-
What do you think of that concept bosk?
-
What do you think of that concept bosk?
I think it makes sense. I'm not 100% sure it is correct, but I think it makes sense in the context of what is written. (except that I think you are incorrect in your interpretation about the seeds; it doesn't say God planted seeds, which then grew into mature plants in a day; it reads as though God created the plants the same way as everything else--in other words: bam! there they are)
-
Yeah you're right, it doesn't say it like that. Hmm...I guess I've always instinctively thought there was a "growing process" with creation taking six days and all....if it was just a BAM! then why not just do it the first day in a moment of time? But anyway I guess it isn't too critical which way you go. TBH I'm not too sure what I think about it.
-
But when you say "mature", what does that mean? How can a gneiss be dated to be 4 billion years, but a limestone only a couple million if they were created at the same time? If the Earth appears to be approximately 4.5 billion years old, why is the Big Bang dated at ~13 billion years ago? What about all the fossils that show a far richer biodiversity than exists presently, but is not dated concurrently with existing species?
To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception. That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted. It's not falsifiable, it's not testable, it doesn't even make sense. To claim that God created a species of rocks at the same time, but with different 238U/206Pb and 235U/207Pb ratios just to give them the appearance of difference in age is really grasping at straws.
-
To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception. That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.
I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.
-
To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception. That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.
I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.
That doesn't even make any sense.
-
It does to me. But come now. Let us not dwell on such idle things. Let us instead mediate, you and I, on Abraham, the playa'. :abraham:
-
Word.
Or should I say, THE Word?
-
If you like Abraham so much, just wait til you hear about his bosom. :eyebrows:
It is in these chapters that I feel the argument for a prophesied literal eathly physical kingdom in the NT is strong. I mean, Abe physically walks the land, and God says he will give it to him and his offspring for ever. Take it for what it is, connect it with the promises of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel, and with the 490-year time schedule in Daniel, and out the other end comes the conclusion that Christ preached and believed a literal kingdom at hand.
-
If you like Abraham so much, just wait til you hear about his bosom. :eyebrows:
It is in these chapters that I feel the argument for a prophesied literal eathly physical kingdom in the NT is strong. I mean, Abe physically walks the land, and God says he will give it to him and his offspring for ever. Take it for what it is, connect it with the promises of a kingdom to David in 2 Samuel, and with the 490-year time schedule in Daniel, and out the other end comes the conclusion that Christ preached and believed a literal kingdom at hand.
I don't think the one is connected in any way to the other.
-
But do you agree that God does promise physical land to Abraham that he later (and later Israel) will inhabit for eternity?
-
But do you agree that God does promise physical land to Abraham that he later (and later Israel) will inhabit for eternity?
No. I just read the covenant in Genesis 15, and I didn't see the words "forever" or "for eternity." I guess I could have missed that.
Of course, that section is from J. The P version of the covenant, in today's reading (chapter 17), does mention permanency.
But the land certainly hasn't belonged to Abrahamic descendants for all of the last 3500 years.
-
To argue that is to argue that the natural world is just a giant deception. That what we measure and observe cannot be trusted.
I think that what we measure and observe can only be trusted to the extent that we realize every variable we use to calculate/measure/test etc. has been created by MAN to TRY and comprehend this planet/universe.....our existance. Just because the mathmatics and physics and all other forms of scientific understanding appears to make sense and 'fit', does not mean that it is the 'proper' way to view the universe or natural world. It is comfortable and accepted because of how it 'makes sense' to us...but in the end these concepts are birthed, cultivated then used by man, and (IMO) inherantly flawed because of that fact.
That doesn't even make any sense.
Exactly
-
Reading for January 5 is Genesis 16-18.
-
Just caught up from yesterday.
Gen 14 is really confusing for me. I'm going to have to map it out...way too many proper names of nations and kings for me to follow naturally.
I've always wondered how a just God could lead his nation to utterly destroy other nations...it just seems violent and cruel to command the deaths of the women and children...but I think that the answer lies at the end of Genesis 18, that God would have spared those cities if but a few people were righteous.
-
Well he's already wiped out most of the world once, so all in all a couple towns is small potatoes.
-
:lol pretty much.
-
Also, reading the OT reminds me of reading a fantasy novel with all these strange names and places, but the author didn't include a map of the region. So frustrating. It's like, "Damnit Tolkien! If so much stuff is going to happen at Angband, include it in the damn maps!" Exact same sentiment.
-
Sorry guys, festive season has been amazingly drunkenly awesome for me. Will catch up tonight.
-
Just caught up from yesterday.
Gen 14 is really confusing for me. I'm going to have to map it out...way too many proper names of nations and kings for me to follow naturally.
I've always wondered how a just God could lead his nation to utterly destroy other nations...it just seems violent and cruel to command the deaths of the women and children...but I think that the answer lies at the end of Genesis 18, that God would have spared those cities if but a few people were righteous.
I agree, it seems very heartless and cruel. However, when you realize that those nations all trace their roots to the family of Noah who were the only righteous people on earth upon exiting the ark, it becomes clear that they have rejected God. They aren't simply other nations that have always been there and here comes big bad God to rain down hell for no reason whatsoever.
-
Just caught up from yesterday.
Gen 14 is really confusing for me. I'm going to have to map it out...way too many proper names of nations and kings for me to follow naturally.
I've always wondered how a just God could lead his nation to utterly destroy other nations...it just seems violent and cruel to command the deaths of the women and children...but I think that the answer lies at the end of Genesis 18, that God would have spared those cities if but a few people were righteous.
I agree, it seems very heartless and cruel. However, when you realize that those nations all trace their roots to the family of Noah who were the only righteous people on earth upon exiting the ark, it becomes clear that they have rejected God. They aren't simply other nations that have always been there and here comes big bad God to rain down hell for no reason whatsoever.
It really is scary to think that out of all the people that were alive during Noah's time, only eight were spared judgment. I know that if I was born back then I would pretty much be screwed. It's things like this that make me really thankful for living in a day where God pours out grace and not wrath...
-
If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then why did he pour out so much wrath back then and pours out grace now?
I'm just sayin'.
-
Cause we have the cross and they didn't. We deserve judgment of death and suffering in Hell but Christ took the blow for us.
Reading for January 6 is Genesis 19-21.
-
WARNING: This is long. It's hopefully my first attempt at reading through the whole Bible, so I want to capture the experience of reading through it for the first time.
In fairness to potential readers, I ruthlessly edited this post so as few words as possible are wasted. On the other hand, anybody who reads the Bible for the first time will have lots of dumb thoughts and questions, which might be tough to sit through.
MY PRIOR BIBLE BACKGROUND: I don't see The Bible as the inerrant word of God. Too many inconsistencies that make too little sense. On the other hand, that doesn't make it an invalid religious document. From a secular perspective, I understand little if any of the archeological and historical background the Bible exists in.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS READING: Too find out what purpose The Bible serves in understanding that which cannot be understood on purely human terms.
Inevitably, there will be many parts of this post that are variations of "This is actually in the Bible!? What!?" But I don't want to pick at every little thing. That's what the skeptics Bible is for.
Version will be NRSV.
Let's go.
Genesis 1
Right away, I'm forced to wonder how I'm supposed to take this literally. This text evokes many of the same myths as the Greek Myths I read in grade school.
"[6] And God said, Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. [7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. [8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. "
If I'm reading correctly: The dome is the sky, and there's water above and below the dome, meaning there's water above the sky. I don't see how there's any room for interpretation.
I don't see how this is supposed to be literally the word of God. This isn't an issue of our scientific classification not squaring with poetic language. God understands there isn't water above the sky, so why would his divine word make such a fundamental factual error?
I wonder if somewhere up in Heaven god's thinking "I can't even be disappointed by this kid. I knew it would happen because I'm omniscient."
[26] Then God said, Let us make humankind* in our image, according to our likeness;
Oh boy. This is just strange and confusing to read. I guess passages where God refers to himself as "us" or "we" are why the idea of the Trinity exists. Hopefully future passages will elaborate on this.
Genesis 2
I'll ask a common question: Why is the second creation story different from the first? These kinds of internal logical inconsistencies make me wonder how Fundamentalist Christianity manages to exist.
On a positive note: One of the most prevalent literary techniques I've seen in the Bible is stating events in summary before they're described in detail. I like this. Foreshadowing is effective and builds expectation.
7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east;
Two comments:
- What is Eden east of?
- I've heard that some groups interpret this to mean a Fetus is not a person until it breathes Oxygen outside the womb. I'm not sure we should go this far, but I wonder if "life begins at conception" is too simple. Maybe I'm post-modernistically interpreting this too much.
I wonder about the preachers who say you won't believe the Bible is truth if you don't try. But if you do try, you'll believe. IKEA instruction manuals aren't open to interpretation, and the stakes are far lower than Heaven vs. Hell.
I need to keep going.
10 A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
I can't even articulate my thoughts about this section properly. Was the name of the Tigris river even the Tigris river in the language of the time? Or did we determine through archaeology what river the author was referring to?
I feel way more frustrated with this reading than I believe I should. Am I doing this wrong? We've found no archeological evidence I'm aware of that the Garden of Eden exists. The Bible doesn't say it would eventually disappear over time. So what is the author describing?
Perhaps unwisely given my current emotions, I'll continue.
So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.
These couple passages have always struck me as confusing. For a reader of the book now, it seems purposeless. It feels like one of those Greek Myth stories that tries to explain something rather mundane in cosmic terms.
21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,*
for out of Man this one was taken.
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
I'll talk about the nudity next post.
This implies woman is inferior to man. A lot of the Bible seems to say the same thing. It makes me wonder why more Christians don't say our modern understanding of gender equality is wrong. Bad PR I guess.
Also, this verse, by itself, seems to be a rock-solid endorsement of monogamous marriage, and implies divorce is not good. What this means for polygamy, sex before marriage, and many other things? We'll find out later, I guess.
Questions I have about Genesis 1-2
1. I've commented a lot on how I don't see this at all literally. What are the arguments for understanding it as a literal and/or inerrant document?
2. What was the purpose for which this document was written? To what degree can we say it was divinely inspired?
3. What purpose does this serve in the context of a modern understanding of Christianity?
-
If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then why did he pour out so much wrath back then and pours out grace now?
I'm just sayin'.
He is always just and merciful, wanting righteousness/holiness in His children. HE is the one who stays the same...His plan may change over time. By your logic, He should have been sending Jesus into the world every second. Though He is not bounded by time, His plans change over what we perceive as time.
Also, even if I don't post in here, I have been reading. FYI.
-
Ok Reap I'll take a stab at a couple things. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are critiquing theological viewpoint? If not then disregard the following, since my answers are how these problems you address are theologically explained (well, at least by me).
Version will be NRSV.
Steeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrike ONE!
Just kidding. But seriously, that will limit how much I can respond to since we are using different versions...the NRSV is a nondevotional academic translation that tends to make the Biblical words "fit" into common academic views of where the Bible came from, whereas the devotional translations will of course be influenced by theology...so pick your poison. ;D
If I'm reading correctly: The dome is the sky, and there's water above and below the dome, meaning there's water above the sky. I don't see how there's any room for interpretation.
I don't see how this is supposed to be literally the word of God. This isn't an issue of our scientific classification not squaring with poetic language. God understands there isn't water above the sky, so why would his divine word make such a fundamental factual error?
I don't know of a translation other than the NRSV that uses the terms "dome" and "sky." So right away we have problems. ESV calls them "expanse" and "Heaven," respectively. Theologically the first term is usually described (from my experience) as "the firmament," which I believe comes from the KJV. But at the end, we grasp that there is a barrier of sorts that separates Earth from the waters above.
The way I justify this, thelogically, is that there are different "levels" or "layers" to heaven. Paul says over in 2 Cor 12:2 that he was called up to the "third heaven," which is paradise. The first and second heaven are not too difficult to deduce....they are the earth's air, and outer space, respectively.
So, now that we understand that the earth is round, we can lay out the universe using the Bible. I like to think in terms of shells. First we have the Earth. Take a rocket ship with unlimited fuel and travel outward. First, we are caught up in the first heaven, the earth's atmosphere. Travel further and we hit the second heaven, outer space. Travel even FURTHER and I reckon we'll hit the third heaven where God dwells. (I anticipate the question, "Well why can't we see the brightness of God or the details of the third heaven if we look out in space with a telescope?" The answer lies in Ps 97:2--God surrounds himself with darkness.)
So, where's the water? Well, we learned that Heaven (the three heavens combined) acted as a barrier between the two waters. The lower waters became the earth. The upper waters must therefore be stored beyond the third heaven. (As a side note, I believe that God used these upper waters for the Flood.)
Jamesman, if you read this, do you have any design tools to map this out? I don't know if I'm communicating the picture in my head across properly.
Oh boy. This is just strange and confusing to read. I guess passages where God refers to himself as "us" or "we" are why the idea of the Trinity exists. Hopefully future passages will elaborate on this.
Bingo. EDIT: I'd actually like to revise this a little bit. It could either be referring to the Trinity, or it could be a speaking/writing style. Kings and leaders often spoke in the third person. I vaguely vaguely recall seeing a verse somewhere, or maybe even an extrabiblical source, where a king said things like "let us" and "we."
I'll ask a common question: Why is the second creation story different from the first? These kinds of internal logical inconsistencies make me wonder how Fundamentalist Christianity manages to exist.
Have you ever seen a movie which displays an event, and frequently revisits that event in a flashback? And during those flashbacks, more and more information about that event is revealed? That's what the Bible is like.
An example of a common "inconsistency" that is pointed out by critics is that Gen 1 says animals were created before man, and Gen 2 says that man was created before animals. The Fundamentalist answer is that he did both. Just because God created animals on one day doesn't mean he can't create some more another day. It is just a simple process of synthesis on the theologian's part.
- What is Eden east of?
I don't really know, but at this point I believe that land was still in its Pangean, singular form. Perhaps it is on the eastmost side of the continent.
- I've heard that some groups interpret this to mean a Fetus is not a person until it breathes Oxygen outside the womb. I'm not sure we should go this far, but I wonder if "life begins at conception" is too simple. Maybe I'm post-modernistically interpreting this too much.
This is a big debate but I would reckon that life begins with the soul. All that really matters is how to identify when the soul begins in The Bible...I would like some more light on this too. But after rummaging through my memory I came across Jer 1:5 which indicates that the soul exists before birth.
I can't even articulate my thoughts about this section properly. Was the name of the Tigris river even the Tigris river in the language of the time? Or did we determine through archaeology what river the author was referring to?
Adam and Eve may or may not have known these landmarks, but I believe Moses wrote Genesis. The audience of Israelites he wrote it for probably knew the landmarks.
We've found no archeological evidence I'm aware of that the Garden of Eden exists.
That's because there's a flaming sword and a Cherubim to prevent its discovery. :P
This implies woman is inferior to man.
No it doesn't. At least, the passage you referenced doesn't. Just by saying Woman was created out of Man doesn't tell you anything about gender status.
Hope you find some of those views interesting...again if it wasn't the type of response you were looking for, I apologize. It just seems like you wanted to see how these things were theologically explained.
-
WARNING: Like the one before, this is long. And its about one chapter, so the depth will be more ridiculous. But Genesis 3 addresses fundamental questions about the nature of free will in a powerful way, thus being worthy of in-depth analysis.
Genesis 3
The Serpent is an interesting character. From what I understand its a snake. It feels like the Greek Myth thing again. We dont like snakes, so someone writes a story showing how its a result of the proper cosmic order. And why cant snakes talk anymore?
The argument for the Serpent being Satan or controlled by Satan isnt completely invalid. Otherwise, what its motivation?
The way the Serpent convinces Eve to eat the apple is actually genius. He doesn't merely say God is lying. She'd never believe that. He appeals to humanity's natural jealousy, desire for power, and tendency toward projection.
He says that God would be jealous if there were others around with his power. She projects her jealousy of God and desire for power onto him. Now she wants to attack that which represents her worst qualities, and thus she eats from the tree.
Id ask why God would make humanity when he knows humanity will fall from grace, but I dont live outside the bounds of time. I cant answer the question.
But what aspect of the purpose of humanity calls for us being able to make the choice to fall from grace in the first place. Maybe because being in Gods good graces is meaningless if it isnt a choice. But that isnt satisfactory.
8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, Where are you? 10 He said, I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? 12 The man said, The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate. 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, What is this that you have done? The woman said, The serpent tricked me, and I ate.
Why doesnt God teleport Adam, Eve, and the Serpent to him, explain their transgression, and dole out the punishment? Its odd to me than an omniscient god would ask these rhetorical questions.
He sounds like parents who know their child did something wrong, and are leading him to see what he reveals in covering up the deed. But since God already knows everything, isnt this a bit sadistic? Why is a perfect God portrayed this way?
More confusion:
- Isnt death punishment enough? And really, weve figured out pain in childbirth and plowing fields. Shouldnt divine justice has more ompth?
- This book implies we just die. Which actually makes more sense than heaven and hell the way original sin is explained.
Im going to use Dogmas theory of the universe here. Lets say God does something imperfect. His existence and the universes existence are predicated on his perfection, so without that everything would die. He does go to Heaven or Hell.
By eating the forbidden fruit, we are now like God because we have an understanding of good and evil, though an imperfect one. We die as punishment for our imperfection, like God.
Of course, Im sure Im missing much much other context, so I dont want to commit to this theory too hard.
- Why does God choose to keep the Garden of Eden around? It has no purpose to anyone after we leave... Are we fated to return some day? Will it be repopulated with something else? Do the animals get to stay there?
With all that out of the way, lets discuss free will.
The book contrasts Adam and Eves view of Good and Evil with Gods. They see their nakedness as indecent, even though God defaulted them to nakedness. And then God makes clothes for them to exit the Garden with.
Though in simplistic terms, we see God has a better understanding of morality than man. In theoretical terms, this is true.
But really, we dont understand morality at all. Without religion, from where does it derive? Intuition? Genesis shows us our intuition is simplistic and wrong. I think the state of the world shows us the same thing.
No matter what wed like to think, our conception of morality comes from one thing - who has the power to enforce their version of it. We dont have access to the ineffable order of the universe to find out otherwise. We arent God.
This tortures us. Even when were certain were right, something lingers and tells us otherwise.
Before eating the Fruit, humanity experienced none of this conflict. If we didnt die, but didnt know how to act perfectly (Eve clearly didnt), then something had to keep us from sinning. (I havent seen the word used in the Bible itself yet, but well go with it).
Either it didnt matter what we did, or God made sure we did the right thing at all times. Since I doubt the first is true, because Gods law codes apply whether you know of them or not (if I remember the rest of the Bible correctly), then the second is true.
What this means is you weren't responsible for your actions, but you didn't have free will. Also, you were literally incapable of understanding the why behind Gods will, you just had to trust it was correct. The Serpent broke that fundamental trust between humanity and God.
I wonder how that made God feel?
Plus, naive and innocent babies and children seem pretty happy and blameless.
Do we prefer perfection that's forced upon us or do we prefer the imperfection of our choice?
I almost prefer the second choice. But maybe thats humanitys fundamental flaw, or at least related to it. Now were thinking of humanity beyond humanitys terms. At this moment I feel like the Bible is accomplishing its purpose. I appreciate this genuinely edifying moment.
Still, Im not sure why we have to die for our sins. You can call it justice, but only if you see cosmic justice in legalistic terms, which are a product of human thought.
If the author of this book thinks theres water in the sky, then Id like to think for the moment that God has something better in store for us than death or hell.
I feel right now like things just are, which might be the highest form of experience possible.
I feel like God does matter, even if we dont quite know why.
And I think thats good.
-
Oh boy, I really hope I'm not making a fool of myself by responding to these...
The Serpent is an interesting character. From what I understand it’s a snake. It feels like the Greek Myth thing again. We don’t like snakes, so someone writes a story showing how it’s a result of the proper cosmic order. And why can’t snakes talk anymore?
The argument for the Serpent being Satan or controlled by Satan isn’t completely invalid. Otherwise, what it’s motivation?
Eze 28:13 refers to the enemy as the one in the garden. Whether it was Satan possessing the serpent or Satan himself, I do not know. An interesting thing I thought about is that this serpent must have had legs, since it wasn't forced onto its belly until after God busted him.
What would you call a serpent with legs? I would call it a dragon. And Satan is referred to as the "red dragon" several times over in Revelation...
The way the Serpent convinces Eve to eat the apple is actually genius. He doesn't say God is lying. She'd never believe that. He appeals to humanity's natural jealousy, desire for power, and tendency toward projection.
Yes truly a crafty creature. I believe Satan is the wisest of God's creatures...such a shame. Plus he's been around since creation, so he's acquired quite a library of knowledge, I'm sure. What's interesting is that Satan does not use his potential as "the prince of the power of the air" (Neal Morse reference, anyone?) and cause a bunch of earthquakes under every Christian church, but rather, as Paul says, he works through subtlety, as the "author of confusion" (another NM nugget for ya). Satan is often portrayed by society as the polar opposite of Jesus, but I believe that Satan's ultimate desire is to be God. Satan's end is not destruction, malice, and evil...his desire is to rule as king of the universe. Check out Isaiah 14 which says he desires to be just like God. Ezekiel 28 also gives tremendous insight on Satan.
As for your free will questions, I do not feel qualified enough to answer or comment. :-\
-
Hope you find some of those views interesting...again if it wasn't the type of response you were looking for, I apologize. It just seems like you wanted to see how these things were theologically explained.
This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. Even though I disagree with much of it, there was one part I had to concede and the rest of it at least made me think. That's the idea here... I think
[All the stuff about the Water]
I feel like what all you're saying is possible, but it feels like it's on the wrong side of Occam's razor.
I checked a bunch of translations. All the wordings are different in some way. To me the common thread of all of them is the water above the sky. They seem to differ in whether the stuff in between is the water or the sky or whatever.
So to go with your explanation, we have to make a very specific assumption amongst a whole mess of translations. Then there's the assumption that the water above space went into heaven. This feels like an assumption heaven is part of our physical universe, which I feel is inaccurate, but I'm not an authority on that.
But that's seemingly yet another assumption. Unless the water was teleported into the next realm, which is still an assumption on top of the text.
I'm not saying your theory is invalid. In the broader context of your beliefs it works just fine. But as I look at the text and what it means it doesn't seem to mean that.
Plus, I go back to my broader thing, which is that God's word, given the stakes that are supposed to be at play, should not be this open to interpretation and and difficult to understand on such a basic level.
Oh boy. This is just strange and confusing to read. I guess passages where God refers to himself as "us" or "we" are why the idea of the Trinity exists. Hopefully future passages will elaborate on this.
Bingo.
Excellent. I am clearly a genius. ;)
I'll ask a common question: Why is the second creation story different from the first? These kinds of internal logical inconsistencies make me wonder how Fundamentalist Christianity manages to exist.
Have you ever seen a movie which displays an event, and frequently revisits that event in a flashback? And during those flashbacks, more and more information about that event is revealed? That's what the Bible is like.
Fair statement.
An example of a common "inconsistency" that is pointed out by critics is that Gen 1 says animals were created before man, and Gen 2 says that man was created before animals. The Fundamentalist answer is that he did both. Just because God created animals on one day doesn't mean he can't create some more another day. It is just a simple process of synthesis on the theologian's part.
Unless someone has anything better, I might need to concede this point.
The "second creation account" doesn't really describe all of creation again. It's more about the creation of the Garden of Eden.
The description of the plants at the beginning is about the whole Earth, but we go from them to the animals for a logical causal reason:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung upfor the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground 7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
Although that's strange in its own way. We exist because the Earth needed groundskeepers?
- What is Eden east of?
I don't really know, but at this point I believe that land was still in its Pangean, singular form. Perhaps it is on the eastmost side of the continent.
Not impossible, but does this implication match how long we have scientifically determined humanity has existed?
- I've heard that some groups interpret this to mean a Fetus is not a person until it breathes Oxygen outside the womb. I'm not sure we should go this far, but I wonder if "life begins at conception" is too simple. Maybe I'm post-modernistically interpreting this too much.
This is a big debate but I would reckon that life begins with the soul. All that really matters is how to identify when the soul begins in The Bible...I would like some more light on this too. But after rummaging through my memory I came across Jer 1:5 which indicates that the soul exists before birth.
Well, okay. We'll assume that passage can be literally taken as the word of God. I'm still not sure where it says that his soul existed before the biological materials in his mother's womb did. Or when his soul was created.
God knew him before he was born because God knows everyone before they're born, he's omnipresent.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong because of my own biases, but I'm not seeing it.
I can't even articulate my thoughts about this section properly. Was the name of the Tigris river even the Tigris river in the language of the time? Or did we determine through archaeology what river the author was referring to?
Adam and Eve may or may not have known these landmarks, but I believe Moses wrote Genesis. The audience of Israelites he wrote it for probably knew the landmarks.
This is maybe an overly anal question. It's just weird to describe the location of something that doesn't exist, or at least something the author's not supposed to know exists.
We've found no archeological evidence I'm aware of that the Garden of Eden exists.
That's because there's a flaming sword and a Cherubim to prevent its discovery. :P
But in literalistic terms, doesn't this just mean we can't go in? Considering we have satellites that can see every inch of the Earth, how does it manage to not be seen? Is it in a cave?
This implies woman is inferior to man.
No it doesn't. At least, the passage you referenced doesn't. Just by saying Woman was created out of Man doesn't tell you anything about gender status.
A major aspect of the Bible is the idea that creation of something implies authority of it. Man didn't create woman, but we supplied the parts. Plus, it says woman comes from man, robbing women of their own distinct identity.
-
Oh boy, I really hope I'm not making a fool of myself by responding to these...
I don't think so.
The Serpent is an interesting character. From what I understand its a snake. It feels like the Greek Myth thing again. We dont like snakes, so someone writes a story showing how its a result of the proper cosmic order. And why cant snakes talk anymore?
The argument for the Serpent being Satan or controlled by Satan isnt completely invalid. Otherwise, what its motivation?
Eze 28:13 refers to the enemy as the one in the garden. Whether it was Satan possessing the serpent or Satan himself, I do not know. An interesting thing I thought about is that this serpent must have had legs, since it wasn't forced onto its belly until after God busted him.
What would you call a serpent with legs? I would call it a dragon. And Satan is referred to as the "red dragon" several times over in Revelation...
All interesting. Not sure how it adds up, but worth thinking about.
The way the Serpent convinces Eve to eat the apple is actually genius. He doesn't say God is lying. She'd never believe that. He appeals to humanity's natural jealousy, desire for power, and tendency toward projection.
Yes truly a crafty creature. I believe Satan is the wisest of God's creatures...such a shame. Plus he's been around since creation, so he's acquired quite a library of knowledge, I'm sure. What's interesting is that Satan does not use his potential as "the prince of the power of the air" (Neal Morse reference, anyone?) and cause a bunch of earthquakes under every Christian church, but rather, as Paul says, he works through subtlety, as the "author of confusion" (another NM nugget for ya). Satan is often portrayed by society as the polar opposite of Jesus, but I believe that Satan's ultimate desire is to be God. Satan's end is not destruction, malice, and evil...his desire is to rule as king of the universe. Check out Isaiah 14 which says he desires to be just like God. Ezekiel 28 also gives tremendous insight on Satan.
I think I'm not getting something. Both of these chapters seem to be about fallen kings and princes.
-
Wow. I just typed a lengthy response, clicked "post,"and my log-in timed out. Ahhh. Forgive me if my responses are too curt.
Anyway Reap, I really appreciate you being open-minded and everything. Sometimes it seems that P/R can get pretty hostile, and even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum it is refreshing to have a polite debate. Thank you! :)
I checked a bunch of translations. All the wordings are different in some way. To me the common thread of all of them is the water above the sky. They seem to differ in whether the stuff in between is the water or the sky or whatever.
It's like bosk was saying earlier about the sunrise, and it being a matter of linguistics and colloquialism...what is the "sky," exactly? More importantly, what was the "sky" to the original audience, the ancient Israelites? Well, the "sky" is what we see when we look up, isn't it? And, if we assume that heaven is part of the universe (which I'll address next) and that heaven consists of atmosphere, space, and paradise, well....that's what we see when we look up, isn't it? So I think it isn't a far cry to say heaven IS sky.
As far as heaven being in this universe or being a part of a different dimension, I have not seen any verses that indicate heaven is in a different dimension. Moreso, when we look at the list of thing God did create, we can identify them as part of our universe that we can interact. So when something comes along like heaven, that we can't easily define or observe on instinct....well, since pretty much all the created things we know about are part of our universe without exception, it seems likely to me that heaven is also a part of the universe.
And I'll just mention what is called "Jacob's Ladder" in Gen 28, which serves a physical connection between heaven and earth.
Oh boy. This is just strange and confusing to read. I guess passages where God refers to himself as "us" or "we" are why the idea of the Trinity exists. Hopefully future passages will elaborate on this.
Bingo.
Excellent. I am clearly a genius. ;)
I actually edited my original answer, I think you might be right, but then again maybe not. :-\
We exist because the Earth needed groundskeepers?
There are a lot of verses I am forgetting at the moment, so forgive me. But Gen 1 tells us that we are created to have dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants...that concept appears multiple times in the Bible. God likes hierarchy...you see it all over the place. Elders as head of the assembly, husbands over their wives, wives over their children...even in Job you can see that there is a hierarchy of angels! So I dunno, maybe God just likes keeping things organized?
- What is Eden east of?
I don't really know, but at this point I believe that land was still in its Pangean, singular form. Perhaps it is on the eastmost side of the continent.
Not impossible, but does this implication match how long we have scientifically determined humanity has existed?
Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
This is a big debate but I would reckon that life begins with the soul. All that really matters is how to identify when the soul begins in The Bible...I would like some more light on this too. But after rummaging through my memory I came across Jer 1:5 which indicates that the soul exists before birth.
Well, okay. We'll assume that passage can be literally taken as the word of God. I'm still not sure where it says that his soul existed before the biological materials in his mother's womb did. Or when his soul was created.
God knew him before he was born because God knows everyone before they're born, he's omnipresent.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong because of my own biases, but I'm not seeing it.
I am not quite sure if God knew Jeremiah before birth or before conception, but either way it is before birth, which supports the pro-life stance.
We've found no archeological evidence I'm aware of that the Garden of Eden exists.
That's because there's a flaming sword and a Cherubim to prevent its discovery. :P
But in literalistic terms, doesn't this just mean we can't go in? Considering we have satellites that can see every inch of the Earth, how does it manage to not be seen? Is it in a cave?
Well there's two events that greatly deface the earth--the flood with Noah, and the division of Pangea. I'm sure you've heard a lot about the former, but people don't ever talk about the latter as a Biblical event, even though it's there. Just check Gen 10:25. Eden along with the tree of life was probably destroyed.
This implies woman is inferior to man.
No it doesn't. At least, the passage you referenced doesn't. Just by saying Woman was created out of Man doesn't tell you anything about gender status.
A major aspect of the Bible is the idea that creation of something implies authority of it. Man didn't create woman, but we supplied the parts. Plus, it says woman comes from man, robbing women of their own distinct identity.
I agree that the Bible subjects women to men, but this is a result of the curse at the end of Gen 3 and not the creation. Besides, men don't have much of an identity anyway if we came from the dirt.
I think I'm not getting something. Both of these chapters seem to be about fallen kings and princes.
Common writing style...first the king is criticized, and then Satan through the king is criticized. You know it's talking about Satan in Isa 14 once the king is addressed as Lucifer, and you know it's talking about Satan in Eze 28 once the garden of Eden is alluded to.
-
WARNING: As always, it's long.
Genesis 4
Now the man knew his wife Eve
I keep forgetting how awesome a way this is to talk about having sex.
I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.
Interesting...
Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions.
Connects with Leviticus.
6 The Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.
I could be wrong, but this is always the most ineffective way to motivate people possible. The only solution I can think of is that unless God interfered, nothing would stop Cain, so he made sure he said what would make Cain aware of the consequences of his actions.
I might need to stop doing these kinds of asides. One of the most maddening aspects of this text is how it depicts an omniscient being acting in human temporal terms. The Gospels actually do a much better job presenting Jesus as all-knowing.
Cain said to his brother Abel, Let us go out to the field.
Love this detail.
Really, I appreciate the whole Cain story. It's just good. It shows a lot about God's personality, and the imagery is kinda chilling. Lots of potential lessons to take from it. Jealousy leads to wrongdoing. God will punish you. Murder messes up the entire order of the universe. Your wrongs don't justify other people's wrongs. Plus, it's the first murder, a notable event.
Plus, it gave us Kane from Command and Conquer, one of the greatest video game characters ever.
I don't understand the Genealogy sections of the Bible. To what extent can they be assumed to be accurate?
23 Lamech said to his wives:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.
Awesome, the first appearance of polygamy, and we're only four chapters in!
I'm going to assume for now that polygamy isn't quite endorsed by God, but on the other hand I haven't seen a decree that you can't do it yet.
That aside, I don't understand the point of this story. Is it to say that killing a man out of blind impersonal rage in the moment is worse than pre-meditated murder for personal reasons?
I guess I can actually agree, because at least Cain's situation is understandable. There's a reason. But I'm not sure if I'm reading it right in the first place.
Genesis 5
Question to Hef and all Bible not-necessarily-literalists: What do the heavily extended lifetimes of the Old Testament Biblical characters mean? Exaggerations for story-telling? Possibly a real thing?
Genesis 6
3 Then the Lord said, My spirit shall not abide* in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.
Jeanne Calment disagrees.
6And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Why do it in the first place then since you know it would happen? Wait, I said I would stop doing these.
It's interesting that the only evil of humanity listed was violence. Granted, this is a theme of the material so far, but still interesting none the less. Makes sense to me because doing evil involves doing something to someone else, and unjustified violence is the most evil version of that.
In a general sense though, I can't believe there's one righteous person and family on Earth. I mean, jeeze.
I'm not sure the ark works in purely scientific terms. At the very least it indicates limited biodiversity on Earth.
At this point, God is still talking to people. Why isn't he communicating with everyone else on Earth and telling them to get it together?
Genesis 7
Technical Question: What's the difference between a clean and an unclean animal?
On that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Yes! Yes!!!!!!!!! The meaning of the words "Biblical Destruction"!!!!!
I think I'm ceasing to be entirely lucid. (BTW BrotherH, I see where the water from heaven theory comes from in terms of the wording of the text).
This theme will inevitably come up many times. As much as I find damning all non-believers to hell inexplicable, I still really appreciate the violence of God. I'm not a pacifist or really even uniformly anti-violence. I'd like to think that violent acts are justified, but it's not necessarily some evil horrible crossing of the line. For instance, the plagues of Egypt are one of the Bible's finest moments. Pharaoh had it coming.
While in this case I'm not convinced the entire Earth needed to be wiped out, it makes for good reading.
And I think we need to stop here for today.
General Questions about Genesis 4-76
1. Could someone please explain the Genealogy stuff? It's really confusing.
2. What's God's motivation throughout all this? It seems to be casting aside the unfaithful.
-
6 The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’
I could be wrong, but this is always the most ineffective way to motivate people possible. The only solution I can think of is that unless God interfered, nothing would stop Cain, so he made sure he said what would make Cain aware of the consequences of his actions.
I don't know if I buy the following theory on this, but it's an interesting take. Remember when God made skins for Adam and Eve? Well, in doing that, he actually taught them to make animal sacrifices...and that's why Abel's sacrifice was honored and Cain's was rejected. It seems plausible but I dunno. At any rate it seems like Cain should have known to bring an animal sacrifice based on God's chastisement toward him.
-
I don't understand the Genealogy sections of the Bible. To what extent can they be assumed to be accurate?
Sarcasm green?
-
1. Could someone please explain the Genealogy stuff? It's really confusing.
From the Documentary Hypothesis perspective, it was added in by P to connect all the stories together.
From the theological perspective, one of the major purposes I can see is that it allows the reader to construct a calendar, because these genealogies give the age at which they bore their child. I don't know how accurate it is but I made a calendar one time and got 1657 years between the creation of Adam and the Flood. Unfortunately, the genealogies after Noah don't tell you how old they were when they had children so unfortunately you can't keep track anymore...
2. What's God's motivation throughout all this? It seems to be casting aside the unfaithful.
I'm not sure. You see this happen a lot. First, Eve is the "mother of all living." God narrows it down to only Noah and his descendents. Then he narrows it down to Abraham and his descendents. Then he narrows it down to the believing remnant within apostate Israel, beginning with John the Baptist. And all the while more and more information about his ultimate goal to redeem the earth from the hands of corruption is revealed.
-
*makes a mental note to come back and try to revisit Reap's questions later*
In the mean time...
If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, then why did he pour out so much wrath back then and pours out grace now?
The OT is full of grace. A few examples from text we've already read:
1. When Adam and Eve had disobeyed the simplest of commands, rather than destroy them and start over (which would have been easy to do since we still would have been at the beginning with presumably only two people to wipe out and start over with [although, again, it's possible that by the time they were thrown out of the garden, they had children already. It doesn't seem like it from the way the text reads, but it also doesn't really tell us how much time has passed when that occurs, so we don't know), God spared them.
2. God demonstrates grace toward Noah and his family by sparing them (and affording an opportunity for anyone else who was willing to listen to Noah to be spared as well).
3. Same with Sodom. Abraham pleaded for the city to be spared to preserve the innocent. God relented somewhat, and yet still couldn't find even 10 righteous in the city. Still, despite Lot's own imperfections, God extended grace toward he and his family by sparing them.
4. God extended grace toward Abraham and Sarah by granting them a child through whom an entire nation would come.
Grace, boiled down to its simplest definition is simply "unmerited favor." God certainly granted favor that was not merited by its recipients in the examples above. And if we keep an eye out for them, I think we'll see many, many more examples as we continue our readings. Crossing over just a bit into Opinion Land, I think it is necessary to have such concrete examples of both judgment and grace in such a physical sense so that we can truly appreciate how judgment and grace ultimately work in a spiritual sense. If I don't see concrete physical examples of how God did it in the real world, how can I possibly understand some abstract concept of a final judgment in the afterlife? And without these physical examples of grace in the real world, how can I understand that God will extend grace to the faithful in the afterlife? These examples are certainly very helpful to us even if, culturally (and in other ways), they may seem very foreign.
-
Wow. I just typed a lengthy response, clicked "post,"and my log-in timed out. Ahhh. Forgive me if my responses are too curt.
Pro-tip: Don't compose epic posts in the reply box. I've been burned before on this too.
Curt language does not bother me. Wasted words are worse.
Anyway Reap, I really appreciate you being open-minded and everything. Sometimes it seems that P/R can get pretty hostile, and even though we are on opposite sides of the spectrum it is refreshing to have a polite debate. Thank you! :)
Eh, don't worry. At some point you'll tell me I'm going to hell and I'll tell you you're repressing people's sexuality and causing gays to kill themselves. The natural order will re-assert itself in good time.
It's like bosk was saying earlier about the sunrise, and it being a matter of linguistics and colloquialism...what is the "sky," exactly? More importantly, what was the "sky" to the original audience, the ancient Israelites? Well, the "sky" is what we see when we look up, isn't it? And, if we assume that heaven is part of the universe (which I'll address next) and that heaven consists of atmosphere, space, and paradise, well....that's what we see when we look up, isn't it? So I think it isn't a far cry to say heaven IS sky.
None of these things are necessarily wrong. From the perspective of understanding the Bible as a piece of Hebrew culture, I find it interesting. It shows how they viewed the world, and makes you wonder how that world view influenced their belief system in a broader sense. Like, the Hebrews clearly believed God was omnipresent in their lives and had law codes reflecting this.
But the point I always come back to is that Christians today see the Bible as an eternally relevant infallible word of God. Why was it written with seemingly so little foresight?
As far as heaven being in this universe or being a part of a different dimension, I have not seen any verses that indicate heaven is in a different dimension. Moreso, when we look at the list of thing God did create, we can identify them as part of our universe that we can interact. So when something comes along like heaven, that we can't easily define or observe on instinct....well, since pretty much all the created things we know about are part of our universe without exception, it seems likely to me that heaven is also a part of the universe.
This isn't impossible, and maybe lines up with ideas about Heaven being some kind of crazy state of existence within our universe.
If that's not true though, then where's Heaven? Can astronomers find it? I sound kind of short because mentally I'm running on fumes, but I feel these aren't invalid questions.
And I'll just mention what is called "Jacob's Ladder" in Gen 28, which serves a physical connection between heaven and earth.
It was used as the title of a Rush song, so I'll definitely be paying attention to that when it happens.
[God in third person]
I looked back at your post. I find the Kings in third person explanation interesting, because it pertains to the culture in which the material was written.
There are a lot of verses I am forgetting at the moment, so forgive me. But Gen 1 tells us that we are created to have dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants...that concept appears multiple times in the Bible. God likes hierarchy...you see it all over the place. Elders as head of the assembly, husbands over their wives, wives over their children...even in Job you can see that there is a hierarchy of angels! So I dunno, maybe God just likes keeping things organized?
It just all feels so utilitarian to me. Where's the love and togetherness and companionship?
Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
I don't claim to know much of anything about how humans evolved in a broader historical context, but it seems to be in natural conflict with The Bible. What if fossil records really do conclusively show we evolved from some kind of lower order mammal? What does that mean? Can the Bible still be made to fall in line with it and be literally true?
I am not quite sure if God knew Jeremiah before birth or before conception, but either way it is before birth, which supports the pro-life stance.
It seems you're going with the argument that any fetus that's conceived has a potential plan from God that we're then snuffing out?
Well there's two events that greatly deface the earth--the flood with Noah, and the division of Pangea. I'm sure you've heard a lot about the former, but people don't ever talk about the latter as a Biblical event, even though it's there. Just check Gen 10:25. Eden along with the tree of life was probably destroyed.
Didn't think of it that way. I can still nitpick for a number of reasons (lack of archaeological evidence for... well... any of this), but in a broad sense this explanation satisfies me.
I agree that the Bible subjects women to men, but this is a result of the curse at the end of Gen 3 and not the creation. Besides, men don't have much of an identity anyway if we came from the dirt.
But we're directly from the Earth! Women are like a second generation VHS copy of men. o_O
Debating this point seems unproductive though. Only women ramble about topics they don't agree on like this instead of doing other more useful things. And we shouldn't emulate the inferior sex.
Common writing style...first the king is criticized, and then Satan through the king is criticized. You know it's talking about Satan in Isa 14 once the king is addressed as Lucifer, and you know it's talking about Satan in Eze 28 once the garden of Eden is alluded to.
Good times. When my brain works again I'll recheck these.
I don't understand the Genealogy sections of the Bible. To what extent can they be assumed to be accurate?
Sarcasm green?
Maybe they aren't accurate at all, but they were put in the books for a reason. I'd hate to just ignore them or dismiss them out of hand. The point of this thread is to take it seriously.
-
I have to go to class (History of Rock :metal) so I'll just answer this one:
If that's not true though, then where's Heaven? Can astronomers find it? I sound kind of short because mentally I'm running on fumes, but I feel these aren't invalid questions.
Ps 97:2 says God surrounds himself with darkness.
-
Yes, I'm being selective in what points I address at the moment, but there's been so much posted that I don't know how I can get to it all. Regarding the Pangea argument, I'm not so sure that is biblicly supported. I could be wrong, but I think the statement about the "earth being divided" in 10:25 is merely referring to what we read happening in 11:1-9. I don't get the sense it is talking about the earth itself being literally divided.
I know I great many people who believe the earth was completely reformed during the flood and that a lot of statements made in Chs. 7-8 about the flood (e.g. "springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened") refer to cataclysmic events that accompanied the flood. Highly possible. I tend to lean in that same direction myself. But I'm not sure that's what 10:25 is saying at all.
-
Ok one more post and I'm gone.
Yes, I'm being selective in what points I address at the moment, but there's been so much posted that I don't know how I can get to it all. Regarding the Pangea argument, I'm not so sure that is biblicly supported. I could be wrong, but I think the statement about the "earth being divided" in 10:25 is merely referring to what we read happening in 11:1-9. I don't get the sense it is talking about the earth itself being literally divided.
I know I great many people who believe the earth was completely reformed during the flood and that a lot of statements made in Chs. 7-8 about the flood (e.g. "springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened") refer to cataclysmic events that accompanied the flood. Highly possible. I tend to lean in that same direction myself. But I'm not sure that's what 10:25 is saying at all.
If the Flood is what caused the Pangean split, then there would be no Babel because the people wouldn't be able to unite. So I think it was after Babel. I believe the Flood is certainly related in that it primed the Earth for this rapid movement, but I do believe Gen 10:25 (reiterated in 1 chr 1:19) is a separate divine event. I hate to be nitpicky, but it does say that it is the earth that is divided...I know it is tempting to think of "the earth" as a colloquialism for "the nations" but I would rather err on the side of being too literal than supposing the verse means something different that what it say.
-
Ok one more post and I'm gone.
Yes, I'm being selective in what points I address at the moment, but there's been so much posted that I don't know how I can get to it all. Regarding the Pangea argument, I'm not so sure that is biblicly supported. I could be wrong, but I think the statement about the "earth being divided" in 10:25 is merely referring to what we read happening in 11:1-9. I don't get the sense it is talking about the earth itself being literally divided.
I know I great many people who believe the earth was completely reformed during the flood and that a lot of statements made in Chs. 7-8 about the flood (e.g. "springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened") refer to cataclysmic events that accompanied the flood. Highly possible. I tend to lean in that same direction myself. But I'm not sure that's what 10:25 is saying at all.
If the Flood is what caused the Pangean split, then there would be no Babel because the people wouldn't be able to unite. So I think it was after Babel. I believe the Flood is certainly related in that it primed the Earth for this rapid movement, but I do believe Gen 10:25 (reiterated in 1 chr 1:19) is a separate divine event. I hate to be nitpicky, but it does say that it is the earth that is divided...I know it is tempting to think of "the earth" as a colloquialism for "the nations" but I would rather err on the side of being too literal than supposing the verse means something different that what it say.
Please stop treating the Bible as an authority on geological history. The Himalayas didn't form overnight.
-
If the Flood is what caused the Pangean split, then there would be no Babel because the people wouldn't be able to unite. So I think it was after Babel.
??? I don't follow you at all. Why not? All people were in one location immediatley after the flood. Shortly after, they begam to spread out somewhat, but not a lot, and were united in the plain of Shinar. Whether there was one supercontinent or were many continents at the time does not matter at all.
-
Please stop treating the Bible as an authority on geological history. The Himalayas didn't form overnight.
Again, I'm not opposed to debating that topic. But, really, I think those kinds of debates should be in a separate thread. If we don't limit this to what the text actually says and means, the thread will be out of control and probably won't be any use by the end of the year.
But as far as what the text actually says, whether referring to Gen 1, or a theory that the flood or some other event caused shifting of the earth, I think the implication from the text is that, yes, they actually did form overnight (or, at least, in a day).
Again, though, as far as what the text says, I don't think 10:25 refers to a cataclysmic event at all. I think you can infer one from the flood (aside from the flood itself), but even that is just an inference. I really don't think BrotherH's theory has textual support. The text doesn't contradict such a thing, so I'm not saying it didn't happen. But I don't think anything in the text even attempts to address such a theory either. Beyond that, I don't think I want to debate it much further. No point in being dogmatic about what boils down to interpretation of one verse that, IMO, doesn't matter much either way.
-
@Reap re "what is Eden east of?" (because this one is easy and I can answer it with a short response): From the point of view of the first recipients of the text (the Hebrews), it would have been east of whereever they were when the account was first given to them. Whenever you believe that was, they would have been somewhere in the western middle east. So Eden was somewhere east of there.
Re the rivers (because I think this is a fascinating question that I have thought about myself): Not sure, but here's my opinion on the subject: It refers to four rivers that existed before the flood; that part is certain. Likely, those rivers, at least to an extent, did not exist in the post-flood world. At the very least, their paths would have changed somewhat. But, in my opinion, at least some of them probably no longer existed in any recognizable form. But (and this is still opinion), they were very well-known rivers before the flood, so either (1) they were still partially identifiable after the flood, and the names that are recorded are merely the names the people would have been familiar with when the flood account was passed down, or (2) those were the actual pre-flood names of the rivers, and whether those same rivers existed or not after the flood, people assigned the four biggest rivers in the region those names. Pure speculation on my part, but I thought they are interesting thoughts that I'd share.
-
Since these kind of long debates (which are great to read) may spawn periodically throughout the year, is it possible to snip them out into a separate thread to keep this one from being too convoluted with all kinds of posts?
-
I was thinking about that as well. But I think the stuff Reap' raises, while lenthy and detailed, are really direct discussions of the daily reading material.
Maybe one thing that will help a little bit is starting a new thread each month.
-
I like that idea as well.
But what am I, but one person amidst a sea of posters. I'm on a forum.
-
:lol Nice. :imonahorse:
-
Since we are in close in proximity to the creation chapters, I think discussion about the creation is relevant in this thread. It should obviously not be brought up once we hit Exodus, but as for now I think it is ok.
If the Flood is what caused the Pangean split, then there would be no Babel because the people wouldn't be able to unite. So I think it was after Babel.
??? I don't follow you at all. Why not? All people were in one location immediatley after the flood. Shortly after, they begam to spread out somewhat, but not a lot, and were united in the plain of Shinar. Whether there was one supercontinent or were many continents at the time does not matter at all.
Back up for a second...
I think we are having trouble understanding each others points.
Here's what I'm saying:
All the people in the world in were in one place in Genesis 11: Babel. If the earth was physically broken up by this point due to the flood, a uniform meeting would have been impossible...crossing the oceans between each continent to unite in one place would be impossible with their poor transport technology. Therefore, at Babel, Pangea must have been whole.
Since Pangea was whole at Babel, the flood did not cause the breakup of the supercontinent. Nor could one of the side effects of the flood have caused it--Peleg was Noah's great great great grandson. That's far too removed from the original event. Something else must have been the cause of the physical split. The only thing I can think of is 10:25.
What are you saying?
-
Your argument makes no sense. Babel was only two generations or so after the flood. Whether or not the continents were separate at that time is completely irrelevant because they hadn't spread that far. Read chapter 11 again. They had only spread as far as the plain of Shinar. Whether there was one mega-continent or several separate ones, they simply had not spread past Shinar at that point in time.
-
Ok let's assume for a second that you are right and that the flood split the continents apart, but not far enough to where the people couldn't gather together.
Now after Babel happens (where, according to you, the continents are drifting but really aren't that far apart), you have about 4000-5000 years til present day. Assuming natural continental drift resumed a steady rate after the flood, there would be no way the earth would look like it does now. 5000 years is just not enough time.
-
I never said I assumed slow continental drift.
-
I think this warrants its own thread. It is related to the topic at hand, but it soon won't be.
-
I never said I assumed slow continental drift.
So then....
We're basically in agreement. :lol I think the Bible teaches that the flood came down and "primed" the earth for separation (so to speak), and shortly after, God divinely "accelerated" the tectonic plate movement. It sounds like you are saying pretty much the same thing.
The only difference between me and you is that I explain the accelerated tectonic plate movement with 10:25 and you explain it with...something else.
One more thing, because I really wanna be picky about 10:25....I am going to do a concordance runthru of the word "earth," and see how many times it is used to describe the physical land mass versus how many times it is used to describe the people/nations that inhabit it. The Bible is its own dictionary, and depending on the results, it will shed light on how we ought to read the word "earth" in 10:25...
-
First off there's no way I'm checking every reference, so I just checked the ones in Genesis, and every verse referred to the physical land mass, except for only one wishy-washy verse that could have gone either way in Gen 18:25.
Using Strong's online concordance, it provides the Hebrew word for "earth" in Genesis 10:25, which is erets.
Erets has the following definitions::
1) land, earth
a) earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)
b) land
1) country, territory
2) district, region
3) tribal territory
4) piece of ground
5) land of Canaan, Israel
6) inhabitants of land
7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8) city (-state)
c) ground, surface of the earth
1) ground
2) soil
d) (in phrases)
1) people of the land
2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
3) level or plain country
4) land of the living
5) end(s) of the earth
e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1) lands, countries
a) often in contrast to Canaan
It is possible that 10:25 is referring to the people of earth based on Strong's definitions...However, I doubt this because pretty much every single other reference in Genesis for "earth" is a reference to the physical land.
But it seems like we are really butting heads on the interpretation of this single verse...yeshua and Jamesman and whoever has an opinion on this, what are your thoughts? A fresh look would be nice.
-
NLT (my preferred translation):
Eber had two sons. The first was named Peleg (which means division), for during his lifetime the people of the world were divided into different language groups. His brothers name was Joktan.
Genesis 10:25
-
The Hebrew word there is the same Hebrew word used in Gen 1:1, so I think that is just the NLT translators taking a bit of liberty, since NLT is translated thought-for-thought.
No offense to your preferred translation, I'm just saying.
-
OFFENSE TAKEN
-
So then....
We're basically in agreement.
No, we're not in agreement at all. I don't think there is any textual support for the idea that the flood primed the earth for tectonic separation that happened sometime after. Not saying it didn't happen. But there is no textual basis for drawing that conclusion.
The Bible simply never mentions there ever being a single continent. Ever.
In contrast, what I believe most likely is that:
(1) There never at any point in history ever was a single continent and the continents have always been substantially where they are now. This position is not really addressed by the text either. OR
(2) If there was a split. It happened during the flood and was virtually instantaneous. The text doesn't directly address this either (again, because it doesn't mention a single continent, much less the breaking up of that single continent). But if such an event happened, it would be consistent with the kinds of things described in the flood cataclysm.
Again, that doesn't mean either of these are correct. Your theory might very well be correct. But you are claiming it is supported by the text, when it isn't.
-
Oh ok. Now I see where you're coming from. But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split. All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes? Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided. Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.
Does that make sense? For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg." Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.
-
I can't imagine your point of view being much fun, bosk. I mean, don't you find it tiring to be in constant battle with factual evidence? That is, every time science uncovers another mechanism, be it geological, physical, astronomical, you have to add another epicycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle) to your belief system?
rumborak
-
Any scientist will tell you there are no concrete facts (much less "factual evidence"). I am halfway through my science major, and every science professor I've had has said that.
-
Please, no metaphysical discussion about "facts". I think the hard sciences stand on pretty damn solid ground.
You can always take a nihilistic approach and construct your own reality, but it's not gonna be much fun since physics cares little about our little minds. Just as little as it cared about Ptolemy's wondrous explanation of planetary motions.
rumborak
-
Oh ok. Now I see where you're coming from. But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split. All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes? Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided. Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.
Does that make sense? For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg." Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.
Yes, and insistent that "At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg" really means that Johnny broke the leg on his favorite coffee table because Johnny likes to talk about furniture a lot, really ignores what is being communicated and illogically assumes a meaning that isn't supported by the context.
I can't imagine your point of view being much fun, bosk. I mean, don't you find it tiring to be in constant battle with factual evidence? That is, every time science uncovers another mechanism, be it geological, physical, astronomical, you have to add another epicycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle) to your belief system?
rumborak
As I've told GP already, if you have anything to add to the actual discussion at hand, which is about what the texts we are studying actually say, by all means, contribute. If you want to argue the truth of the text or some other topic, take it to another thread.
-
So, you're gonna discuss the texts, which are about this universe, outside the context of this universe and its demonstrable constraints? Well, that surely is gonna be a fruitful discussion :\
rumborak
-
Oh ok. Now I see where you're coming from. But the Bible does support the idea of a once-uniform continent, and of a split. All it takes is a single verse to make something true--looking at 10:15 again...it says that the earth was divided, yes? Now if it is indeed that land that is divided, then the verse is stating that there was a specific period of time where the land was divided. Which means that BEFORE that period of time, it was not divided.
Does that make sense? For example, if I say...."At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg." Implied in that statement is that before 12pm Saturday, Johnny's leg was not broken....and hence.
Yes, and insistent that "At 12pm Saturday, Johnny broke his leg" really means that Johnny broke the leg on his favorite coffee table because Johnny likes to talk about furniture a lot, really ignores what is being communicated and illogically assumes a meaning that isn't supported by the context.
Maybe I'm reading your e-tone incorrectly, but....I don't know what I said you to make you so mad at me :(
But I'm done discussing this, the verse is crystal clear.
-
I'm not mad. I'm just losing patience with you insisting something is there that isn't.
-
ya ok
sorry
i just got the impression that you were "speaking" in a condescending, belittling, mocking tone
ive had a lot of experiences with childhood bullying and i dont really take well to that
but this isnt really gettgg anywhere so lets drop it
-
BrotherH, I'm simply confused by your position. You seem to believe geologists about Pangaea, but then reject almost everything else there is a geological consensus on. If Pangaea, why not Rodinia?
-
BrotherH, I'm simply confused by your position. You seem to believe geologists about Pangaea, but then reject almost everything else there is a geological consensus on. If Pangaea, why not Rodinia?
I would answer, but I have this ever so slight warning in the back of my mind that you aren't really curious--you just want me to slip up somewhere so you can cut me down so you can feel good about yourself. This is a thread where we discuss various readings in the Bible, and what we understand about it from all our various backrounds. Although located in P/R, I wanted this thread to be a safe place, where we can share our diversity peacefully. I never wanted it to become a flame-fest where we mock others for their beliefs. When you or rumborak or whoever come in and try to disrupt that mutual respect, it ruins the whole point. There are people participating in the reading with valuable knowledge, insight, and perspective, like Jamesman, that aren't really participating in the discussion, and I have a hunch it's because there is an impending fear of getting scrutinized for making even the slightest claim.
-
I will say it is annoying to see posts from rumby and GP where, while holding their opinions because that's what they believe, they come into the thread with the kinds posts I've seen earlier in this thread.
It's not to knock unbelievers views (of some which may be correct anyway), but it's the tone and context in which they are being brought into. It's a fine line, though, but I feel rumby and GP crossed it, honestly.
-
Well, rumborak won't be crossing it anymore for at least a week.
-
the NRSV is a nondevotional academic translation that tends to make the Biblical words "fit" into common academic views of where the Bible came from
This is not really an accurate picture of what the NRSV is or how it came to be produced.
Well there's two events that greatly deface the earth--the flood with Noah, and the division of Pangea. I'm sure you've heard a lot about the former, but people don't ever talk about the latter as a Biblical event, even though it's there. Just check Gen 10:25. Eden along with the tree of life was probably destroyed.
I would say that it is a real stretch to claim that Genesis 10:25 is a Biblical reference to Pangea.
Common writing style...first the king is criticized, and then Satan through the king is criticized. You know it's talking about Satan in Isa 14 once the king is addressed as Lucifer, and you know it's talking about Satan in Eze 28 once the garden of Eden is alluded to.
Lucifer just means "morning star," it is poetry. Neither Isaiah 14 nor Ezekiel 28 are about Satan.
Question to Hef and all Bible not-necessarily-literalists: What do the heavily extended lifetimes of the Old Testament Biblical characters mean? Exaggerations for story-telling? Possibly a real thing?
They mean that the good old days were awesome but now life sucks. Of course it is an exaggeration for story-telling.
All the people in the world in were in one place in Genesis 11: Babel. If the earth was physically broken up by this point due to the flood, a uniform meeting would have been impossible...crossing the oceans between each continent to unite in one place would be impossible with their poor transport technology. Therefore, at Babel, Pangea must have been whole.
Does it really say that all the people in the world were in one place in Genesis 11? Genesis 10 goes to quite a lot of trouble explaining how the descendants of Noah spread out to different places, and specifically the area of Babel in the land of Shinar was under the rule of Nimrod the hunter, son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah. Everybody else was other places. The only thing in Genesis 11 that talks about all of the people in the world is verse 1: "The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary." There is nothing in Genesis 10 that corresponds with an interpretation of Genesis 11 that ALL the people went to Shinar, built the Tower of Babel, and then were dispersed.
And bosk1 is completely right that the text simply doesn't address the idea of a proto-continent. It just isn't there.
-
With yesterday's reading (19-21), we come to the first appearance of the E source according to the Documentary Hypothesis. Chapter 19, featuring the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah and some truly commendable actions from Lot, was almost all from the J source, but chapter 20, detailing the dealings of Abraham and Abimelech, is entirely from the E source. Chapter 21, featuring the birth of Isaac and the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael among other things, is mostly from E, with a smattering of J and P.
With today's reading (22-24), we learn more about the family of Abraham, the death of Sarah, and coming of Rebekah. But here is piece of controversy from the Documentary Hypothesis: in chapter 22, featuring the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac, many scholars feel that the E source originally featured Abraham following through with the sacrifice! Here is the thinking: most of the chapter is clearly from the E source. Throughout most of the chapter, the deity is referred to as Elohim, a trait of E. However, just as the knife is raised, the text says that the angel of THE LORD (using the Divine Name) stops him, and also the section featuring verses 11-16a dealing with the sparing of Isaac also use the Divine Name, which E does not do (until the revelation of the Name to Moses). This section includes, therefore, both a contradiction and a change in reference to the deity. So this section has apparently been inserted here by the Redactor. Also, note the wording of 16b-17: " because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies." Also, note verse 19:"Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed." No mention of Isaac. Moreover, Isaac is never mentioned again in the E source. There was also a later Midrashic tradition that Isaac had been sacrificed. So apparently, the original story from the E source featured Abraham actually sacrificing Isaac. However, this didn't jibe with the other sources, so when assembling them, the Redactor glossed over that part and had God avert the sacrifice.
What does it all mean? Nothing, really. But it's neat.
-
But it's neat.
Eh. You say "neat." I say "bollocks." Tom-ay-to; tom-ah-to. :biggrin:
Personally, aside from the fact that I don't buy into the Documentary Hypothesis, I don't think the "contradiction" exists here. Here's why:
-The "you have not withheld your son" line does not indicate Isaac was sacrificed, but merely that he was as good as sacrificed in Abraham's eyes. Abraham did not withhold Isaac. The knife was on its way "home" when God intervened.
-The lack of mentioning of Isaac in verse 19 isn't very tell-tale either. There are plenty of instances where not everyone in a company of people is mentioned. Abraham is mentioned because he is the central figure in this part of the narrative. The servants are mentioned because that is who he is going to join. Sure, Isaac could have been mentioned for clarity. But there's no reason why he has to be either--especially if the reader already knows he's with Abraham.
-Perhaps most importantly, the repeating in verse 17 of the promise to multiply Abraham's descendants makes no sense if he sacrificed Isaac. We are already told that the promise will not come through Ishmael. Abraham had no other descendants. Isaac had to be alive. Perhaps Isaac is never mentioned again in the "E source" because it is not a separate source at all, and what is being pointed to as a separate source just happens to be those passages that do not mention him.
Anyhow, I'll just leave it at that. And since this is the Internet and not everyone may be able to tell, I'll jsut put out there for the record that there is no hostility between me and hef whatsoever. We're just having a friendly debate about our personal views.
-
I agree with what bosk said, Abraham was the focal point of the narrative, so if Isaac isn't mentioned, it makes sense that he wasn't.
And bosky, this is just mean:
I'll fight you to the death, hefpunk42. I ain't afraid of no sucka!
-
That's just how I roll.
-
God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac confuses me. What is the point? (honest question)
-
Some see it as a typology to the later sacrifice of the Son being slain for the world's benefit/blessing (just like God blessed Abraham and his descendants through almost sacrificing his own son). Some see it as a test of Abraham's faith. And those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.
-
I definitely think both of those are true. But as far as taking the reading in isolation, the testing of Abraham's faith is the most obvious. The question that blows my mind is: was the test for God or for Abraham? I think much more the latter. For Abraham's faith to grow, he had to put it into action, and he was tested in a way that is really a "fish or cut bait" moment, as in, "if you really trust me and believe I am capable of doing all I promise, prove it by giving up that which is most precious to you." It may sound cruel on the surface, but what an ultimately amazing act of grace is once again demonstrated by God in this passage.
-
What do you mean by "was it a test for God or for Abraham"?
-
-Perhaps most importantly, the repeating in verse 17 of the promise to multiply Abraham's descendants makes no sense if he sacrificed Isaac. We are already told that the promise will not come through Ishmael. Abraham had no other descendants. Isaac had to be alive. Perhaps Isaac is never mentioned again in the "E source" because it is not a separate source at all, and what is being pointed to as a separate source just happens to be those passages that do not mention him.
I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?
-
What do you mean by "was it a test for God or for Abraham"?
Questions like, what is faith, what is its role in a Christian's relationship to God, how is it applied in daily life, etc., are difficult, meaty questions, IMO. I know a lot of people who believe, as I do, that the "test" was for Abraham's benefit. I.e., he was tested because that test was needed to cause his faith to grow (and, perhaps, his confidence in his own faith). But some might look at the wording of the text where God is speaking and basically says, "Because you were willing to sacrifice your son, now I know that you have faith," and take from that that God didn't know whether Abraham's faith was sufficient and had to test Abraham to learn whether or not he did. I don't really buy that, but it's a much deeper issue than it appears to be, and raises the issues of what God's omnipotence means, free will, predestination, etc. So, anyway...that's all I was referring to.
-
I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?
Okay, here's the deal: Some scholars refer to this "E" source. But in reality, E is just short for Edgar, which was actually Moses' name. But when he was a kid, the big kids in Pharaoh's household always made fun of him, so he hated that name and just shortened it to his initial and decided to go by his middle name, which is Moses. Kind of like J. Edgar Hoover shortened his first name to an initial and just went by Edgar. Same thing here. E. Moses Garcia just became "Moses." And there you have it.
-
I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?
Okay, here's the deal: Some scholars refer to this "E" source. But in reality, E is just short for Edgar, which was actually Moses' name. But when he was a kid, the big kids in Pharaoh's household always made fun of him, so he hated that name and just shortened it to his initial and decided to go by his middle name, which is Moses. Kind of like J. Edgar Hoover shortened his first name to an initial and just went by Edgar. Same thing here. E. Moses Garcia just became "Moses." And there you have it.
:rollin
-
-The "you have not withheld your son" line does not indicate Isaac was sacrificed, but merely that he was as good as sacrificed in Abraham's eyes. Abraham did not withhold Isaac. The knife was on its way "home" when God intervened.
Yes, it could be interpreted that way (and that is the mainline interpretation, obviously). But that is not the natural sense of the phrase. "Your have not withheld your son" means that the son was not withheld.
-The lack of mentioning of Isaac in verse 19 isn't very tell-tale either. There are plenty of instances where not everyone in a company of people is mentioned. Abraham is mentioned because he is the central figure in this part of the narrative. The servants are mentioned because that is who he is going to join. Sure, Isaac could have been mentioned for clarity. But there's no reason why he has to be either--especially if the reader already knows he's with Abraham.
I understand what you're saying. But it seems strange that the text goes out of its way to record specifically that Abraham took his son Isaac and 2 servants along, and then told the servants to wait while he and Isaac go up to the place of sacrifice, but only mentions Abraham returning. Is it a smoking gun by itself? Of course not. But there are many little points like this, and they are telling.
-Perhaps most importantly, the repeating in verse 17 of the promise to multiply Abraham's descendants makes no sense if he sacrificed Isaac. We are already told that the promise will not come through Ishmael. Abraham had no other descendants. Isaac had to be alive. Perhaps Isaac is never mentioned again in the "E source" because it is not a separate source at all, and what is being pointed to as a separate source just happens to be those passages that do not mention him.
That is strange, given that the passage saying that the promise would go through Isaac is also from E. But this passage is nowhere near enough to discount the hypothesis. The fact that Isaac is never mentioned again throughout what we have left of the E source may just mean that the Redactor didn't need those parts of E, since he had plenty to work with from J and P.
Anyhow, I'll just leave it at that. And since this is the Internet and not everyone may be able to tell, I'll jsut put out there for the record that there is no hostility between me and hef whatsoever. We're just having a friendly debate about our personal views.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I think it's just a little sad that you even needed to post this, buddy. But times are what they are.
Some see it as a typology to the later sacrifice of the Son being slain for the world's benefit/blessing (just like God blessed Abraham and his descendants through almost sacrificing his own son). Some see it as a test of Abraham's faith. And those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I don't get it being a type of the sacrifice of the Son. For one thing, I don't buy typical typology theology. But even if I did, this one doesn't seem to fit, because Isaac wasn't sacrificed, but Jesus was.
I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?
Well, the text is inconclusive. E picks up again with the first couple of verses of chapter 25, but then not again until the story of Jacob's Dream at Beth-El. So the sections that are extant don't really cover it. But you could check out this book (https://www.amazon.com/Last-Trial-Legends-Sacrifice-1899-1984/dp/187904529X), which treats the Midrashic tradition of Isaac's actual sacrifice.
-
But it's no wonder some scholars refer to him as "E." As you know, Moses wrote a couple of the Psalms. Unfortunately, one of the earlier psalms he composed under the moniker, "EZ E," didn't make it into the Bible and was later stolen (althought slightly reworked) by a certain Southern California rapper. Original words here:
The name is Eazy for me to come off like the inforcer'
Mass murder Canaanits in a course of
An everyday situation where I would stalk by
F*** the camel, I do a muthaf***ing walk-by
Eazy-E and the A-Ron and Miriam and
Run house and there won't be no disagreeing
'Cause if there is some, you feeling staticy
Then I'm arrested (For what?) assault and battery
Never outdone, only outdoing
Loving the Hewbrews and leave the Amorites boo hooing
Why? 'cause they're addicted to what my staff did
The pleasure of pain, the wing-ding inflicted
(Yea) and never forget when done in Egypt by
Eazy, the name of a Hebrew hard head
Cool but local like loc never broke
'Cause they're paid to be ruthless, this is why I do this
I don't give a f*** about fame
I rather live in a tent that has a Mormon-sounding name (word)
Get me paid and then rap
'Cause all the other camel**** without manna ain't jack
Eazy but not that Eazy to deal wit
Especially if you're talking camel****
Put the E-A-Z-Y and to the E
Expression of thought on the mutha****ing grand finale
Fortunately, he toned it down quite a bit on future attempts.
-
Some see it as a typology to the later sacrifice of the Son being slain for the world's benefit/blessing (just like God blessed Abraham and his descendants through almost sacrificing his own son). Some see it as a test of Abraham's faith. And those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I don't get it being a type of the sacrifice of the Son. For one thing, I don't buy typical typology theology. But even if I did, this one doesn't seem to fit, because Isaac wasn't sacrificed, but Jesus was.
It's not a direct one-to-one correspondence, correct. But to me, that's what makes it all the more beautiful and poignant. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is probably the most shocking demonstration of personal sacrifice and most committed degree of faith in the entire OT. At the very least, it certainly is up to this point in the story.
In the NT, I think it was intentional to not only echo that, but to show that it isn't a one-to-one correspondence because as shocking and deep as that example was, God is willing to not only do that, but take it to the next level to actually go through with the sacrifice out of his love for us. To put it in DTF terms, it is not:
Post #1: something...
Post #2: something...
It is more the equivalent of:
Post #1: something...
Post #2: something...
+1
:biggrin:
-
But it's no wonder some scholars refer to him as "E." As you know, Moses wrote a couple of the Psalms. Unfortunately, one of the earlier psalms he composed under the moniker, "EZ E," didn't make it into the Bible and was later stolen (althought slightly reworked) by a certain Southern California rapper. Original words here:
The name is Eazy for me to come off like the inforcer'
Mass murder Canaanits in a course of
An everyday situation where I would stalk by
F*** the camel, I do a muthaf***ing walk-by
Eazy-E and the A-Ron and Miriam and
Run house and there won't be no disagreeing
'Cause if there is some, you feeling staticy
Then I'm arrested (For what?) assault and battery
Never outdone, only outdoing
Loving the Hewbrews and leave the Amorites boo hooing
Why? 'cause they're addicted to what my staff did
The pleasure of pain, the wing-ding inflicted
(Yea) and never forget when done in Egypt by
Eazy, the name of a Hebrew hard head
Cool but local like loc never broke
'Cause they're paid to be ruthless, this is why I do this
I don't give a f*** about fame
I rather live in a tent that has a Mormon-sounding name (word)
Get me paid and then rap
'Cause all the other camel**** without manna ain't jack
Eazy but not that Eazy to deal wit
Especially if you're talking camel****
Put the E-A-Z-Y and to the E
Expression of thought on the mutha****ing grand finale
Fortunately, he toned it down quite a bit on future attempts.
lol
Some see it as a typology to the later sacrifice of the Son being slain for the world's benefit/blessing (just like God blessed Abraham and his descendants through almost sacrificing his own son). Some see it as a test of Abraham's faith. And those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I don't get it being a type of the sacrifice of the Son. For one thing, I don't buy typical typology theology. But even if I did, this one doesn't seem to fit, because Isaac wasn't sacrificed, but Jesus was.
It's not a direct one-to-one correspondence, correct. But to me, that's what makes it all the more beautiful and poignant. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is probably the most shocking demonstration of personal sacrifice and most committed degree of faith in the entire OT. At the very least, it certainly is up to this point in the story.
In the NT, I think it was intentional to not only echo that, but to show that it isn't a one-to-one correspondence because as shocking and deep as that example was, God is willing to not only do that, but take it to the next level to actually go through with the sacrifice out of his love for us. To put it in DTF terms, it is not:
Post #1: something...
Post #2: something...
It is more the equivalent of:
Post #1: something...
Post #2: something...
+1
:biggrin:
Well, that is certainly one way to interpret it. Whatever works. :tup
Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? :lol
-
Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? :lol
I'll certainly pray for you every day when we get to the last half of Exodus and through Leviticus.
-
I'm really curious as to whom E would attribute the link of Abraham's descendants to if there really was a version where the sacrifice went all the way. Any ideas of where to look for theories, hef?
Well, the text is inconclusive. E picks up again with the first couple of verses of chapter 25, but then not again until the story of Jacob's Dream at Beth-El. So the sections that are extant don't really cover it. But you could check out this book (https://www.amazon.com/Last-Trial-Legends-Sacrifice-1899-1984/dp/187904529X), which treats the Midrashic tradition of Isaac's actual sacrifice.
So there possibly was an entirely different patriarch between Abraham and Jacob :P Oh well, Isaac's adventures weren't as exciting as Abraham's or Jacob's anyways, I think I can do without.
EDIT: Actually, I just read a review in that link for the book, and in the legends of those Jews Isaac is sacrificed and then resurrected. That scenario is actually way more Messianic than slaughtering a ram that jumps out of the bush lol.
-
Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? :lol
I'll certainly pray for you every day when we get to the last half of Exodus and through Leviticus.
Yeah, I am really dreading Leviticus in particular.
My favorite book of the OT is probably Psalms, and I really doubt we have the time to treat it in the detail it deserves. We could spend a year on Psalms.
-
Thank you everyone for your insight on the Isaac sacrifice. To me, it has always seemed sort of cruel but I know there must be a better answer than "well, the OT God is just mean."
Bosk I just wanted to comment/question on something you said:
I definitely think both of those are true. But as far as taking the reading in isolation, the testing of Abraham's faith is the most obvious.
I do not know where you or anyone else stands on this, but I want to ask you, what do you think about theology that bases itself on "comparing scripture with scripture"?
Suppose you read Verse A, and it doesn't make sense, but as you study, you come across a different verse, Verse B, which is in a different chapter/book (even on the other side of the Bible). Verse B doesn't directly allude to Verse A, but Verse B contains a truth that can be used to help you find new meaning in Verse A.
I guess I should give you an example: the angelic realm. You read the book of Job, which talks about a congregation of angels. Then you read Isa 14 and Eze 28, which indicate that Lucifer was not only a Cherubim, but the musical leader of the angelic community. Then you read over in Revelation that he has a following of angels. Back to Isa 14, he fell, being "cut down to the ground."
You never have a book or even a passage that tells a story that Lucifer was an angelic leader that garnered support from fellow angels, and then they fell, etc. There is no "isolated reading" that teaches that concept. But by combining verses together, you put together a bunch of "half-truths" to make a whole.
What do you think of that method of theology?
-
It's more a method of hermaneutics than a theology, but I get what you are saying. And, yes, I absolutely agree with that. But most who are participating in this thread do not take that approach, so for the sake of discussing what certain things would have meant to the reader in isolation, I'm trying to mostly take that much more limited approach.
-
Thank you everyone for your insight on the Isaac sacrifice. To me, it has always seemed sort of cruel but I know there must be a better answer than "well, the OT God is just mean."
Bosk I just wanted to comment/question on something you said:
I definitely think both of those are true. But as far as taking the reading in isolation, the testing of Abraham's faith is the most obvious.
I do not know where you or anyone else stands on this, but I want to ask you, what do you think about theology that bases itself on "comparing scripture with scripture"?
Suppose you read Verse A, and it doesn't make sense, but as you study, you come across a different verse, Verse B, which is in a different chapter/book (even on the other side of the Bible). Verse B doesn't directly allude to Verse A, but Verse B contains a truth that can be used to help you find new meaning in Verse A.
I guess I should give you an example: the angelic realm. You read the book of Job, which talks about a congregation of angels. Then you read Isa 14 and Eze 28, which indicate that Lucifer was not only a Cherubim, but the musical leader of the angelic community. Then you read over in Revelation that he has a following of angels. Back to Isa 14, he fell, being "cut down to the ground."
You never have a book or even a passage that tells a story that Lucifer was an angelic leader that garnered support from fellow angels, and then they fell, etc. There is no "isolated reading" that teaches that concept. But by combining verses together, you put together a bunch of "half-truths" to make a whole.
What do you think of that method of theology?
I think it is dangerous. You are taking a bunch of things that are said by different authors and combining them into a teaching that is written by NO author. Especially in the example you gave, where it is by no means clear that the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are even about Satan.
It seems to be a way to play fast and loose with the text(s).
-
It's more a method of hermaneutics than a theology, but I get what you are saying. And, yes, I absolutely agree with that. But most who are participating in this thread do not take that approach, so for the sake of discussing what certain things would have meant to the reader in isolation, I'm trying to mostly take that much more limited approach.
Ah ok. I get the term "hermaneutics" confused with "theology" quite a bit. I agree with the concept as well...It is risky though because might take something out of context.
So, taking this "compare scripture with scripture" approach...how do we know that the sacrifice of Isaac is a type of the sacrifice of Christ?
Hef I understand what you are saying, but this method is based upon the inspiration and complete accuracy of all the scriptures, which I know we don't see eye-to-eye on. But supposing every verse is true, I don't see the problem with adding two truths together to get a bigger truth. Of course, I am assuming that Genesis is not meant only for ancient Israel, but also for us (that God authored the Bible so that everyone was meant to hear it and benefit from, and not just to whom it was initially given).
-
Hef I understand what you are saying, but this method is based upon the inspiration and complete accuracy of all the scriptures, which I know we don't see eye-to-eye on. But supposing every verse is true, I don't see the problem with adding two truths together to get a bigger truth. Of course, I am assuming that Genesis is not meant only for ancient Israel, but also for us (that God authored the Bible so that everyone was meant to hear it and benefit from, and not just to whom it was initially given).
My trepidation for this technique is, to me, irrelevant to the question of inerrancy, and in fact seems even more dangerous if you DO subscribe to inerrancy. Then you are taking different parts of things that "God" said and constructing it into a new thing that "God" NEVER SAID and calling it divine theology. Really, really dangerous IMHO.
-
I don't get it. As long as you simply combine two things and don't make anything up to fill the gaps, you should be ok.
-
I don't get it. As long as you simply combine two things and don't make anything up to fill the gaps, you should be ok.
Well, again, as in the example you posted, you are creating a backstory of Satan using texts that aren't necessarily about Satan. You are therefore creating a teaching that isn't explicitly found anywhere in Scripture. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.
Also, what does this have to do with reading through the Bible day by day? This is extremely off-topic.
-
because I wanted to precursor it to my question about Isaac
-
Well, yes, I see your point, hef. (and I agree with you on the specific example BH gave as well) But there are indeed some basic rules that I abide by in my study that I believe should be abided by, such as harmonizing passages that talk about the same thing, and using easier passages to help understand more difficult passages. I'm not working this very well, but I will give some illustrations:
1. Abraham's faith. Yes, we read all about it in the section of Genesis we are in. And yet, reading Paul's mini-treatise on Abraham's faith in Romans 4 gives me a completely different appreciation of and understanding of Abraham's faith. Even simply statements, like defining what faith is by the statement that Abraham's faith was made apparent by the fact that he acted as someone "convinced that God was able to do what he had promised" gives a deeper understanding of the Genesis account of Abraham and what kind of man he was.
2. Isaiah 53. This is a difficult passage in terms of figuring out exactly who it is talking about. The Jews of Jesus' day certainly didn't understand it. And we have an account of the Ethopian in his chariot reading that passage in Acts 8. And we learn from Acts 8 (as well as some different references in the gospels) that that passage is indeed about Jesus. So these other passages help us understand the meaning of the more difficult Isaiah 53.
3. What happened to Judas? Acts 1:18 says "and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." What a bizarre thing to have happen. How often do you see someone just fall down, and then burst open and have their guts gush out? I'm still waiting. Oh, wait a minute. Matthew 27:5: "And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself." That explains it. A rotted corpse that falls from a height may indeed likely burst open. Putting these together, most likely what happened is that he hanged himself and his rotting, bloated body then fell and burst open. Not a pleasant thought. But now the texts make sense.
So, yes, I think passages that talk about like subjects have to be harmonized and can help explain one another. Of course, we need to be VERY careful about context and other clues in doing so. I would probably not apply Isaiah 53 to Jesus, for example, were it not for the fact that several NT passages tell us that that is exactly what Isaiah 53 is about. Anyhow, I'm done because I'm tired...
-
Well, none of the examples you give are really what BH was talking about, AFAIK.
1. Paul's writing about Abraham just give a different insight into Abraham. It doesn't make up new stuff.
2. I'll wait until we get to Isaiah to discuss that in detail, but the main interpretation of it (which you also supply) is that of prophecy. That is a foretelling, not a mixing of two different passages to create a heretofore unseen one.
3. I don't buy your harmonization of Judas's demise. The two passages describe two completely different things, and for me, harmonizing them as you have stretches the boundaries of imagination. But even so, it doesn't matter, because the nature of Judas's death is not a matter of theological doctrine. He died, either way. So to me, it is neglible.
-
Whew, we traveled all the way to the NT. It happens, and is expected.
3. I don't buy your harmonization of Judas's demise. The two passages describe two completely different things, and for me, harmonizing them as you have stretches the boundaries of imagination. But even so, it doesn't matter, because the nature of Judas's death is not a matter of theological doctrine. He died, either way. So to me, it is neglible.
I think this was also debunked archeologically, but here's a good article that explains how to harmonize them (and not just for the sake of making the Bible consistent):
https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846
-
Whew, we traveled all the way to the NT. It happens, and is expected.
3. I don't buy your harmonization of Judas's demise. The two passages describe two completely different things, and for me, harmonizing them as you have stretches the boundaries of imagination. But even so, it doesn't matter, because the nature of Judas's death is not a matter of theological doctrine. He died, either way. So to me, it is neglible.
I think this was also debunked archeologically, but here's a good article that explains how to harmonize them (and not just for the sake of making the Bible consistent):
https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2846
That explanation doesn't treat either text with respect. It assumes that the writer of Acts "forgot" to include the hanging. The cause of death for Matthew was hanging. The cause of death for Acts was that Judas burst open. To say that he burst open after he was hung distorts what the text actually says.
-
The Acts verse doesn't say he died at that instance. All it says is that he fell headfirst and his guts spilled everywhere. Nothing about death, and he could have been alive, dying, or dead at that moment.
-
The Acts verse doesn't say he died at that instance. All it says is that he fell headfirst and his guts spilled everywhere. Nothing about death, and he could have been alive, dying, or dead at that moment.
Read the passage. It doesn't say anything about him dying before he fell and burst open. He bought the field and then fell in it and burst open. To conflate the two passages is to disrespect the account from Acts and to create a third passage.
-
Acts 1:18:
Now this man obtained a piece of land with the [money paid him as a] reward for his treachery and wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle [of his body] and all his intestines poured forth.
(Judas had bought a field with the money he received for his treachery. Falling headfirst there, his body split open, spilling out all his intestines.
(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
this one, indeed, then, purchased a field out of the reward of unrighteousness, and falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed forth,
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.
And if you read verse 18 in conjunction with 17, it's telling a progression Judas went through during Jesus' ministry, not a series of events in close proximity with each other. And there is absolutely no mention of any death happening that was the cause of him falling and spilling.
-
Yes, you're right. There is no death mentioned before he fell and burst. That's what I'm saying, James.
-
The cause of death for Matthew was hanging. The cause of death for Acts was that Judas burst open. To say that he burst open after he was hung distorts what the text actually says.
I'm scared and confused.
-
The cause of death for Matthew was hanging. The cause of death for Acts was that Judas burst open. To say that he burst open after he was hung distorts what the text actually says.
I'm scared and confused.
Why?
-
Confused because what you posted is what I addressed, and scared because I feel the heat from your incoming wrath on my soul.
-
There will be no soul heat. I'm sick.
But since you posted that apologetics link, I don't think you're addressing what I am.
-
(and I agree with you on the specific example BH gave as well)
*sigh*
I await the day when we see eye to eye on something. Will be a glorious moment.
-
I hereby make a proposal that we hold off all future NT discussion until we get to the NT (unless and until we get to some actual passages that are seen by mainstream Christians as being prophetic). We have devoted a lot of posting over the last several pages to topics that have nothing to do with the text of Genesis (although certainly worthy of discussion).
-
I hereby make a proposal that we hold off all future NT discussion until we get to the NT (unless and until we get to some actual passages that are seen by mainstream Christians as being prophetic). We have devoted a lot of posting over the last several pages to topics that have nothing to do with the text of Genesis (although certainly worthy of discussion).
I semi-agree. But inevitably all of the Bible has to be looked at it context of the other passages. Like we shouldn't just start NT discussions for no reason. But throughout the last couple pages there's been discussion of Satan, a subject that depending on the interpretation is extensively discussed in the New Testament. So I don't see how you can just leave it out.
Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? :lol
I'll certainly pray for you every day when we get to the last half of Exodus and through Leviticus
Yeah, I am really dreading Leviticus in particular.
My favorite book of the OT is probably Psalms, and I really doubt we have the time to treat it in the detail it deserves. We could spend a year on Psalms.
Being that I'm behind, I'm gearing up for another marathon session though the book (super long posts to accompany it of course).
I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but for some reason I once chose to read through Leviticus by choice. The intricacies of God's code as described by the book are interesting.
-
Wow, I forgot how much filler is in this book. So much stuff that just has nothing to do with anything. It reads like a poorly written story book.
-
Wow, I forgot how much filler is in this book. So much stuff that just has nothing to do with anything. It reads like a poorly written story book.
If you're really going to try to read Genesis you need to split it up by their original texts (it's usually understood as a combination of about three originals). The level of clarity was mind blowing for me. No more repetition of same events.
-
Time to rock this.
WARNING: A lot of this post comes down to "I have no idea what is going on in these passages." I wouldn't call the last two posts insightful, but they were at least taking the verses and building ideas on top of them. In this post, I'm just really confused and bewildered and heated.
Genesis 8
I like the imagery of the dove.
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
22 As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.
These people seem to be following some form of God's law, but we don't know what. Why isn't the book telling the reader?
And really, why is it God seems to reveal his law so incrementally over time? It always applies to everyone, right? What if Noah didn't have access to the rules of sacrifice the Israelites did? He'd be sacrificing for nothing. I'd guess God revealed some form of his law to them, but how much and why? I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism.
And I'm driving myself crazy. I guess the point I'm making is that if I'm God, I'm using the full powers of my omnipresence. If someone wanted to ask me a question - boom - I would be there. And my word would be completely unopen to interpretation, which wouldn't matter since I could answer any questions anyway. Not sure if you should bang that whore? BAM! I could tell you not to.
What I definitely wouldn't do is make my word so incomprehensible to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism towards it. la;skdjfasoidjvlakjdalskdj
Unfortunately I think I'm sounding more insulting than I want to be. I'm just really really baffled.
It seems The Bible is predicated on the idea humanity is naturally evil, which honestly may be true. It seems we can train ourselves to be good, but otherwise we just want eat and reproduce, whatever the cost. But I'm not really sure, whatever semi-abstract notion of humanity is on my mind, my mind starts seeing the evidence from that perspective.
This passage seems to contradict the idea of the apocalypse. Otherwise, isn't the whole idea of God not wiping out humanity contradicted?
Genesis 9
God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
This is something I hear about a lot, and it bothers me.
If you ask a conservative Christian if you should have kids, the answer you get will be yes and this passage will likely be used as support.
But this seems more specifically direct at Noah than anything else. Why does it necessarily mean that YOU should have kids? Or that there's something wrong with you if you don't? Then again, we're all supposedly still suffering the consequences of original sin, so maybe this mandate does still apply to all of us. I feel confused.
I need to break down the rest of this piece by piece.
Verses 2-3 basically say we own the Earth and animals are afraid of us. My dogs don't exactly fear and dread me though, so I don't understand the use of such language in a situation where the opposite is shown to be true in actual Earthly behavior.
Still, I don't understand how you're supposed to be a Christian and an animal rights supporter. This verse seems super explicit on the idea that they don't have any. This doesn't mean we can destroy the Earth either, but we're supposed to run the show.
But isn't this a weirdly human centric thought? This sounds like a writer trying to justify the power of humanity in cosmic terms, the myth thing again.
4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that persons blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind.
I don't understand verse four. We have to kill things before eating them? We can't eat raw steaks?
And from there I just get completely lost. I don't understand any of it. Sorry.
I don't understand why this chapter is so repetitive. ALso, we see the rainbow being explained - more of the Greek myth thing. This isn't necessarily impossible. If you're God you can change the laws of physics however you want. But in the context of world history it's again suspicious.
Just like God not acting omniscient, I might need to stop mentioning these every time they happen. It gets repetitive at some point. I just want to again mention the overall point I guess - these scriptures are following a pattern that's common throughout all religions. In this respect, it's not unique or special, which takes away from it in my eyes.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their fathers nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
Cursed be Canaan;
lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.
26 He also said,
Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.
27 May God make space for* Japheth,
and let him live in the tents of Shem;
and let Canaan be his slave.
I don't think I understand what's happening here. Why is Canaan cursed for his father's crime? What is his father's crime even? Why does Noah have the authority to dole out these curses and blessings?
What's the moral lesson of this story? Why is it in the Bible?
Genesis 10
Does anything important happen in this Genealogy? It feels like explaining things that can be done better by archeology. Why is Nimrod a word for idiot when in the Bible he's a mighty warrior? Why does it curiously omit the fact that Noah's sons had to have sex with someone - namely his daughters. The Bible is generally pretty brutal and uncompromising, why not just state the bitter truth?
Genesis 11
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2And as they migrated from the east
Then I look at the footnotes: "Or migrated eastward."
Another thing I'm going to stop mentioning so much to avoid repetition - Basic facts being wrong or vague.
I don't understand the Tower of Babel story. It seems to be stating that humanity was divided into multiple languages because they were trying to build a tower so high that it would reach into the heavens and their having the same language meant nothing would be impossible for them.
I'm forced to wonder - again - how effective God's punishment here is. We've since mastered space travel. In fact, because the Russians were in competition with us, a people with a different language, they were more motivated to get into space as quickly as they could.
Maybe this is a story about human arrogance and how we needed to be taken down a notch. But the whole thing about humans becoming more powerful and God seemingly primarily motivated by that colors the whole thing against that theory.
The whole thing seems to portray a God that's very insecure about others being even remotely as powerful as him, even though ultimately he holds all the keys. This makes zero sense to me.
Side question, why are people living longer than 120 years long after God said no one would do this?
The overriding questions of this post:
Why am I seemingly reading this completely wrong? Everyone else in the universe seems to interpret this text completely differently from me or at least understands its intent.
-
in regard to your 120 year question, reap, the reference is not to how long men would live but how long until the flood.
-
NOTE: The per-chapter length of my notes has vastly decreased, and I think this post is more level-headed.
Genesis 12
First mention of slavery here.
For what it's worth, I'm actually not as critical towards Biblical slavery as some might be. It seemed to be less about subjugating persons (the purpose of Slavery in America) and more about saying "Look, if you do a lot of unpaid work for me and follow the rules, I'll feed and clothe you."
I'm still not sure this is right. Involuntary slavery is still involuntary and therefore something I see as wrong, but in the context of the time The Bible was written, I don't think anyone was going to be able to get away with writing about how slavery shouldn't exist.
You could get into how the Bible was used as an excuse to keep slavery around, but I'd rather not without more information.
From a fundamentalist perspective, I don't see how even this is defensible though. Why should someone holy and revered be keeping slaves? God gives out curses for many things, why not for keeping slaves?
From verse 10 and on, things get weird and strange. For some reason they would kill Abraham if he was Sarai's wife. Okay, I guess this makes sense - they would want to get him out of the way. So they agree to pretend she's his sister.
So then they are seen by Pharaoh and he marries Sarai because she's hot. I guess she doesn't have a choice in the matter if she wants her husband to live and eat, so I can understand the sacrifice.
And then God curses Pharaoh and Egypt because he did this. Since Pharaoh didn't know Sarai was married to Abraham, why does he deserve this? All I can tell is that God really hates Egypt.
And then Pharaoh sends Abram and Sarai on their way. At least in this regard he's smarter than the one who wouldn't let the Jews free.
The fact this story's in here at all is just weird to me. I actually think it's good in a way, don't get me wrong. It's an interesting dilemma to put characters in. But I don't understand what this has to do with the nature of God other than again casting him in a bad light.
Which is something that's bothering me about this whole thing. While I disagree with parts of Christ's theology, the gospels go out of their way to describe how Jesus is exceedingly fair and kind. I understand that this is the more hardcore version of God, but his decisions don't even make logical sense. How is this supposed to convince people to follow him again?
Genesis 13
I'm noticing a theme throughout Genesis and the Bible in general of godly men also being materially wealthy. This seems to implicitly contradict the idea of the meek inheriting the Earth and the rich having the most trouble getting into heaven.
One thing I am noticing is that obviously the various parts of the text are meant to be understood in the greater context of each other. The chapter casually mentions that these events happened before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
But once again this whole thing is strange to me. Sentences like that are sort of a dry instructional manual type thing. But then it's written as a piece of narrative. Why the conflicting writing styles?
Genesis 14
From verse 13 on this chapter is pretty cool. I like Abram's proclamation to the King of Sodom.
Genesis 15
Verses 7-11 are kinda disturbing. This sounds like God telling Abram not to ask stupid questions.
I find it interesting that God chooses this moment to tell him that before his offspring receive possession of Israel, they will be slaves in Egypt.
This feels like more of God having some of the strangest motivational tactics of all time. Abram is clearly confused. So first you make him brutally slaughter animals just to make him think you're terrible, and then you give him dreams of his children being slaves in Egypt for 400 years. How does this make him a more willing servant.
Other thought: This book clearly seems written from a Hebrew perspective. Why shouldn't this be interpreted as a culture like Greece trying to make itself seem special again?
Genesis 16
So many strange things happen here.
Why is Abram so untrusting of God? He's talked to him personally, understands his divine power, and understands that God does not go back on a promise. But he knocks up Hagar anyway?
I'm staring to feel like Sarai is a lot of trouble. First the bumps uglies with the Pharaoh and gets him cursed, and then she tells Abram to knock up Hagar, and then gets jealous of her. Verse 5 seems to be the typical thing dumb women do when they feel slighted, shift the blame where it doesn't belong.
Let it be known that Genesis does not look favorably upon women. On the other hand, it depicts women accurately, making me wonder if the Hebrew world was populated by dumb women. Maybe they weren't trying to be sexist, and it just worked out that way? Who knows.
I've heard the theory that Ishmael is the precursor to the entirety of the Arab race, but the text doesn't seem to really support that. Just sounds racist to me.
Genesis 17
God does not play around with the circumcision thing. I mean, jeeze. Is there an explanation for this beyond "The writer(s) really really wanted their audience to circumcise themselves for hygiene purposes"?
Verses 23-27 are just gross man.
Genesis 18
Kind of a cool piece of story-telling. It seems the three men with the lord of business to attend to, but God took them to Abraham's to enjoy a feast before heading to Sodom. Also interesting is how, for the first time, God seriously considers the human impact of a decision. Abraham has big things in his future, maybe this is too much for him to handle.
Also, we see a bit of God's softer side. He won't destroy the city if he can find ten righteous.
I can see why Hef is discussing this book as if it has multiple authors. It's like watching a TV show where a couple writers on staff are way better than the others, and you notice how their episodes are usually the highest quality.
-
ReaP, some of your stuff is really strange. Have you never read any of this before?
These people seem to be following some form of God's law, but we don't know what. Why isn't the book telling the reader?
God hasn't yet given any "law." They are responding to what God has done.
And really, why is it God seems to reveal his law so incrementally over time? It always applies to everyone, right?
No, of course not.
What if Noah didn't have access to the rules of sacrifice the Israelites did? He'd be sacrificing for nothing. I'd guess God revealed some form of his law to them, but how much and why?
Of course he didn't have access to those rules. They haven't been handed down yet.
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism.
Why?
And I'm driving myself crazy. I guess the point I'm making is that if I'm God, I'm using the full powers of my omnipresence. If someone wanted to ask me a question - boom - I would be there. And my word would be completely unopen to interpretation, which wouldn't matter since I could answer any questions anyway. Not sure if you should bang that whore? BAM! I could tell you not to.
You need to stop thinking about what you would do or how you would have written this. You are coming at it from a 21st-century Western Civilization worldview and knowledge base, not an Ancient Mediterranean one. You are not judging the text fairly.
What I definitely wouldn't do is make my word so incomprehensible to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism towards it. la;skdjfasoidjvlakjdalskdj
Two things: 1) it isn't incomprehesible; and 2) there was no worry about this being read by skeptics. Judaism was not then and is not now a proselytizing religion. They have never attempted to convert anyone. They are, in essence, preaching to the choir.
It seems The Bible is predicated on the idea humanity is naturally evil, which honestly may be true. It seems we can train ourselves to be good, but otherwise we just want eat and reproduce, whatever the cost. But I'm not really sure, whatever semi-abstract notion of humanity is on my mind, my mind starts seeing the evidence from that perspective.
While I don't subscribe to the concept of original sin and a sinful state of man from which we need salvation, I do agree that left to our own devices, we are a pretty miserable bunch. The evening news can give you all of the evidence of that you need. But I don't think this is a theme of the Bible (because there isn't one author, but many).
This passage seems to contradict the idea of the apocalypse. Otherwise, isn't the whole idea of God not wiping out humanity contradicted?
The two concepts don't have anything to do with one another. For one, when this text was written, there was no concept of an apocalypse - that was a later theological development. Also, the apocalypse wouldn't be the same thing as this destruction of the world. It would be transformation, not just destruction.
If you ask a conservative Christian if you should have kids, the answer you get will be yes and this passage will likely be used as support.
What? I've never heard a non-Catholic or non-Mormon use this as any kind of mandate to have kids. Never seen it written about, never heard it preached about, never heard it conversation.
But this seems more specifically direct at Noah than anything else. Why does it necessarily mean that YOU should have kids? Or that there's something wrong with you if you don't? Then again, we're all supposedly still suffering the consequences of original sin, so maybe this mandate does still apply to all of us. I feel confused.
What does original sin have to do with this? You're confused because your brain is all over the place instead of just on what you're reading. Of course this is specifically at Noah.
Verses 2-3 basically say we own the Earth and animals are afraid of us. My dogs don't exactly fear and dread me though, so I don't understand the use of such language in a situation where the opposite is shown to be true in actual Earthly behavior.
Your dogs are domesticated animals. You are again judging an ancient Mediterranean text from a 21st-century Western perspective.
But isn't this a weirdly human centric thought? This sounds like a writer trying to justify the power of humanity in cosmic terms, the myth thing again.
Yes. The myth thing again. That's because these beginning chapters of Genesis are mythic in nature: they explain why the world is the way it is. That is their function.
I don't understand verse four. We have to kill things before eating them? We can't eat raw steaks?
And from there I just get completely lost. I don't understand any of it. Sorry.
This is a retrojection of "Mosaic" law into the primeval past. It is the kosher law prohibiting the consumption of blood (see Leviticus 7:26-27). Both Leviticus and this passage of Genesis are from the P source.
I just want to again mention the overall point I guess - these scriptures are following a pattern that's common throughout all religions. In this respect, it's not unique or special, which takes away from it in my eyes.
You are right that up to here, there is a commonality with other religions. But the uniqueness is the concept of monotheism, and that God's special relationship with one people.
I don't think I understand what's happening here. Why is Canaan cursed for his father's crime? What is his father's crime even? Why does Noah have the authority to dole out these curses and blessings?
What's the moral lesson of this story? Why is it in the Bible?
The moral lesson, basically, is respect your elders. Ham sinned in not treating his father with respect. But the larger point of it being included in the Bible (at least, in its current form) is to illustrate later Israel's hatred of the people of the land of Canaan.
Does anything important happen in this Genealogy?
Not particularly. It's a bridge - a way to get from point A to point B.
It feels like explaining things that can be done better by archeology.
I don't even know what this means.
Why is Nimrod a word for idiot when in the Bible he's a mighty warrior?
Because people are stupid. That is a relatively recent use of the word.
Why does it curiously omit the fact that Noah's sons had to have sex with someone - namely his daughters. The Bible is generally pretty brutal and uncompromising, why not just state the bitter truth?
Keep up, Reap. On the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives.
I don't understand the Tower of Babel story. It seems to be stating that humanity was divided into multiple languages because they were trying to build a tower so high that it would reach into the heavens and their having the same language meant nothing would be impossible for them.
I'm forced to wonder - again - how effective God's punishment here is. We've since mastered space travel. In fact, because the Russians were in competition with us, a people with a different language, they were more motivated to get into space as quickly as they could.
Maybe this is a story about human arrogance and how we needed to be taken down a notch. But the whole thing about humans becoming more powerful and God seemingly primarily motivated by that colors the whole thing against that theory.
The whole thing seems to portray a God that's very insecure about others being even remotely as powerful as him, even though ultimately he holds all the keys. This makes zero sense to me.
Reap, this is basically a myth to explain why different peoples have different languages, with a dash of "humanity should know their roles and not have hubris." You are WAY overthinking this stuff.
Side question, why are people living longer than 120 years long after God said no one would do this?
I don't know. I know that yesh answered that the 120 years was the length of time between when that was said and the flood, and didn't refer to the age of men. That is a popular interpretation, but I'm not sure it works grammatically. In Genesis 6:3, it says "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." (ESV) The word translated as "man" could be used for an individual or the entire species, but the word translated as "he" is the third person singular, not plural; to interpret that to mean humanity seems to not take the text seriously, but to make it say what we want it to say to avoid a seeming problem. It seems to be saying that the human lifespan will not exceed 120 years, not that mankind only has 120 to go.
The overriding questions of this post:
Why am I seemingly reading this completely wrong? Everyone else in the universe seems to interpret this text completely differently from me or at least understands its intent.
You're just overthinking it.
-
These people seem to be following some form of God's law, but we don't know what. Why isn't the book telling the reader?
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism.
That's probably the problem. The intended readers were the Israelites. There was only a need to explain the questions that the Israelites of that day would have had, like 'how did we get here,' 'why are there different languages' and the origins of different people groups. Offering sacrifices was just assumed to be a natural thing that people have always done.
-
For what it's worth, I'm actually not as critical towards Biblical slavery as some might be. It seemed to be less about subjugating persons (the purpose of Slavery in America) and more about saying "Look, if you do a lot of unpaid work for me and follow the rules, I'll feed and clothe you."
I'm still not sure this is right. Involuntary slavery is still involuntary and therefore something I see as wrong, but in the context of the time The Bible was written, I don't think anyone was going to be able to get away with writing about how slavery shouldn't exist.
You could get into how the Bible was used as an excuse to keep slavery around, but I'd rather not without more information.
From a fundamentalist perspective, I don't see how even this is defensible though. Why should someone holy and revered be keeping slaves? God gives out curses for many things, why not for keeping slaves?
He does, for certain slavery practices. There are rules for slavery. But again, this is a text that was produced by a culture for which slavery was a reality. You aren't judging it correctly.
And then God curses Pharaoh and Egypt because he did this. Since Pharaoh didn't know Sarai was married to Abraham, why does he deserve this? All I can tell is that God really hates Egypt.
That's not it. The disease sent is just a tool to get Pharaoh to give Abraham a what-for and kick him out of the country, and to show Abraham the consequences of putting God's promise in jeopardy. Unlike Noah, Abraham is never presented as morally perfect. He needs these lessons from time to time. In other words, Pharaoh is not the point of the story. Abraham is.
I don't understand what this has to do with the nature of God other than again casting him in a bad light.
Which is something that's bothering me about this whole thing. While I disagree with parts of Christ's theology, the gospels go out of their way to describe how Jesus is exceedingly fair and kind. I understand that this is the more hardcore version of God, but his decisions don't even make logical sense. How is this supposed to convince people to follow him again?
Again, it isn't supposed to convince people to follow him. The ancient Jews weren't trying to win new followers, or spread the word about their God.
I'm noticing a theme throughout Genesis and the Bible in general of godly men also being materially wealthy. This seems to implicitly contradict the idea of the meek inheriting the Earth and the rich having the most trouble getting into heaven.
I think you're seeing a theme that isn't really there. Abraham is certainly wealthy, but that doesn't constitute a theme. Nevertheless, the two things don't necessarily have anything to do with one another. The teachings of Jesus to which you are referring are reflective of the society in which he lived, which is very, very different from the one in which Abraham lived.
One thing I am noticing is that obviously the various parts of the text are meant to be understood in the greater context of each other. The chapter casually mentions that these events happened before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
But once again this whole thing is strange to me. Sentences like that are sort of a dry instructional manual type thing. But then it's written as a piece of narrative. Why the conflicting writing styles?
I don't even know what you're talking about here. Sorry, buddy.
Verses 7-11 are kinda disturbing. This sounds like God telling Abram not to ask stupid questions.
Could be. But if it is, and you find that disturbing, you're going to love Job.
This feels like more of God having some of the strangest motivational tactics of all time. Abram is clearly confused. So first you make him brutally slaughter animals just to make him think you're terrible, and then you give him dreams of his children being slaves in Egypt for 400 years. How does this make him a more willing servant.
It's basically foreshadowing, and a show of God's power. Abraham asked him how he would know that God was speaking the truth, so God told him the future.
Other thought: This book clearly seems written from a Hebrew perspective. Why shouldn't this be interpreted as a culture like Greece trying to make itself seem special again?
I'm not sure what you're getting at it. It goes without saying that it is written from a Hebrew perspective. I don't get your second point at all.
Why is Abram so untrusting of God? He's talked to him personally, understands his divine power, and understands that God does not go back on a promise. But he knocks up Hagar anyway?
Because he's an idiot. He is a man, and makes mistakes that other great men throughout history have made. Unlike your point about wealth, THIS is a central theme of the Bible: that God uses faulty people for the furtherance of his purpose. Abraham was an idiot; Moses was a murderer; David was an adulterer; hell, even Jesus's disciples are portrayed as kind of stupid.
I'm staring to feel like Sarai is a lot of trouble. First the bumps uglies with the Pharaoh and gets him cursed, and then she tells Abram to knock up Hagar, and then gets jealous of her. Verse 5 seems to be the typical thing dumb women do when they feel slighted, shift the blame where it doesn't belong.
Seems judgemental.
Let it be known that Genesis does not look favorably upon women.
It doesn't look much more favorably upon Abraham.
On the other hand, it depicts women accurately, making me wonder if the Hebrew world was populated by dumb women. Maybe they weren't trying to be sexist, and it just worked out that way? Who knows.
What are you talking about?
I've heard the theory that Ishmael is the precursor to the entirety of the Arab race, but the text doesn't seem to really support that. Just sounds racist to me.
It's not racist. Both the Jews and the Arabs trace the Arab race through Ishmael back to Abraham.
God does not play around with the circumcision thing. I mean, jeeze. Is there an explanation for this beyond "The writer(s) really really wanted their audience to circumcise themselves for hygiene purposes"?
??? Hygiene doesn't enter into it. Verses 10-11: "This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: Every male among you must be circumcised. You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins. This will be a reminder of the covenant between me and you."
I can see why Hef is discussing this book as if it has multiple authors. It's like watching a TV show where a couple writers on staff are way better than the others, and you notice how their episodes are usually the highest quality.
Well, I didn't come up with the hypothesis. But I have studied it extensively, and I find it more persuasive than anything else I've read.
-
In today's reading, 25-26, we get the death of Abraham, and we see the development of the story of Jacob and Esau, sons of Isaac. We also get some examples of wonderful, upstanding behavior on the part of Jacob.
We also see examples of Isaac repeating some of the same mistakes of his father Abraham. And we see the relationship between Isaac and Abimelech.
The story moves along.
-
Oh boy, this post is a juggernaut.
First thing I want to say Hef is thank you very much for taking the time to reply to all of this. Im just a jackass on the Internet with uninformed opinions. I hope this reply reflects my appreciation for your time.
ReaP, some of your stuff is really strange. Have you never read any of this before?
Ive heard of these stories before in broad strokes, but most of the details are utterly foreign to me. I think a lot of my reactions in these posts are pure shock.
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism.
Why?
Since I think this is the primary theme driving my posts I should explain.
Its what I grew up with. Ive been more than questioning it for a while, and now my life situation is forcing me to seriously consider it.
While I think just conceptually the ideas driving the religion are inexplicable, Im trying to give the belief system a fair shake and understand it on its terms.
As you can maybe see, my attempts at doing this have been unfruitful. The very nature of the text contradicts fundamentalist Christianity.
And really, why is it God seems to reveal his law so incrementally over time? It always applies to everyone, right?
No, of course not.
If I understand what fundamentalist Christians believe, I think theyd tell you youre wrong. I believe that Gods law from their perspective is something thats eternally existent and binding.
So when youre trying to look at the text from that standpoint, and the text doesnt indicate that at all, obviously I feel driven a little bit insane.
And, as you mentioned many times in your post, it makes me look at the text from the wrong perspective.
What if Noah didn't have access to the rules of sacrifice the Israelites did? He'd be sacrificing for nothing. I'd guess God revealed some form of his law to them, but how much and why?
Of course he didn't have access to those rules. They haven't been handed down yet.
These people seem to be following some form of God's law, but we don't know what. Why isn't the book telling the reader?
God hasn't yet given any "law." They are responding to what God has done.
Because, yeah, it seems that clearly God hasnt given these laws out in the text. It seems weird to me then to have a religious belief that forces you to morph the text to fit assumptions its not meant to.
And I'm driving myself crazy. I guess the point I'm making is that if I'm God, I'm using the full powers of my omnipresence. If someone wanted to ask me a question - boom - I would be there. And my word would be completely unopen to interpretation, which wouldn't matter since I could answer any questions anyway. Not sure if you should bang that whore? BAM! I could tell you not to.
You need to stop thinking about what you would do or how you would have written this. You are coming at it from a 21st-century Western Civilization worldview and knowledge base, not an Ancient Mediterranean one. You are not judging the text fairly.
What I definitely wouldn't do is make my word so incomprehensible to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism towards it. la;skdjfasoidjvlakjdalskdj
Two things: 1) it isn't incomprehesible; and 2) there was no worry about this being read by skeptics. Judaism was not then and is not now a proselytizing religion. They have never attempted to convert anyone. They are, in essence, preaching to the choir.
I feel like these next couple paragraphs are being driven by a sense of Im not an idiot, I swear! Hopefully beyond the id driven motivations though theres a real point to be made.
The assumption of Christian fundamentalism is that if you dont believe Jesus died for your sins, you go to hell. The whole Bible is supposed to be the Gods word.
If Gods word is built then for the purpose of making you believe in these things, it would seem to me that it would be relevant in all time periods in human history. Christian fundamentalists argue the Bible is effective in this way.
So, from that perspective, it seems reasonable to me to judge it from a 21st century perspective, since its supposed to be relevant to a 21st century person. It should also be something that converts skeptics to its world-view.
As I read the text, it doesnt feel remotely like its supposed to do either of those things.
Which I guess again leads back to the overriding point of what you seem to be saying and what Im starting to believe more and more Seeing the Bible as a Christian fundamentalist document is actually antithetical to its nature.
Still, I hate to say Christian Fundamentalism isnt true before having even finished Genesis. That doesnt feel fair. And yet Im not sure I can escape the seeming inevitability of that conclusion.
The question I feel like asking then is, as I keep reading, what kind of perspective do you think I should take?
It seems The Bible is predicated on the idea humanity is naturally evil, which honestly may be true. It seems we can train ourselves to be good, but otherwise we just want eat and reproduce, whatever the cost. But I'm not really sure, whatever semi-abstract notion of humanity is on my mind, my mind starts seeing the evidence from that perspective.
While I don't subscribe to the concept of original sin and a sinful state of man from which we need salvation, I do agree that left to our own devices, we are a pretty miserable bunch. The evening news can give you all of the evidence of that you need. But I don't think this is a theme of the Bible (because there isn't one author, but many).
The idea of just saying I disagree makes me uncomfortable. Im not sure I have the knowledge to just do that. But at the same time as Im reading this I feel that the wickedness of humanity is a major theme.
We make the wrong choice and eat the forbidden fruit. The Cain story is of mans evil. The flood wipes out humanity for its evil. We see the immorality of Abram and Sarai. The Tower of Babel story illustrates mans hubris.
I see why the multi-author story is relevant. Maybe it wasnt intended for mans evil or sin to be such a recurrent theme. But it seems to be that way.
All that said, Im fully open to the possibility that either Im seeing this incorrectly or theres something Im not seeing at all. Its not like that hasnt already happened.
This passage seems to contradict the idea of the apocalypse. Otherwise, isn't the whole idea of God not wiping out humanity contradicted?
The two concepts don't have anything to do with one another. For one, when this text was written, there was no concept of an apocalypse - that was a later theological development. Also, the apocalypse wouldn't be the same thing as this destruction of the world. It would be transformation, not just destruction.
All of this makes sense to me.
If you ask a conservative Christian if you should have kids, the answer you get will be yes and this passage will likely be used as support.
What? I've never heard a non-Catholic or non-Mormon use this as any kind of mandate to have kids. Never seen it written about, never heard it preached about, never heard it conversation.
I have no idea where this came from now except for thinking poorly. I withdraw the whole notion.
But this seems more specifically direct at Noah than anything else. Why does it necessarily mean that YOU should have kids? Or that there's something wrong with you if you don't? Then again, we're all supposedly still suffering the consequences of original sin, so maybe this mandate does still apply to all of us. I feel confused.
What does original sin have to do with this? You're confused because your brain is all over the place instead of just on what you're reading. Of course this is specifically at Noah.
Youre right again.
But isn't this a weirdly human centric thought? This sounds like a writer trying to justify the power of humanity in cosmic terms, the myth thing again.
Yes. The myth thing again. That's because these beginning chapters of Genesis are mythic in nature: they explain why the world is the way it is. That is their function.
Follow-up question: What is the intended audience of these text? I dont think ancient Hebrew peoples is wrong, but that strikes me as unspecific.
Something else Ive never thought about but realize I dont understand, whats the process a text like this or Greek mythology goes through to become viewed as factual?
I don't understand verse four. We have to kill things before eating them? We can't eat raw steaks?
And from there I just get completely lost. I don't understand any of it. Sorry.
This is a retrojection of "Mosaic" law into the primeval past. It is the kosher law prohibiting the consumption of blood (see Leviticus 7:26-27). Both Leviticus and this passage of Genesis are from the P source.
Is there a book that explains the multi-source theory youre drawing from? A situational explanation of its details as we read is helpful, but Im not sure its reasonable to ask you to re-explain something I can investigate on my own.
I just want to again mention the overall point I guess - these scriptures are following a pattern that's common throughout all religions. In this respect, it's not unique or special, which takes away from it in my eyes.
You are right that up to here, there is a commonality with other religions. But the uniqueness is the concept of monotheism, and that God's special relationship with one people.
I didnt understand the historical context of the religion.
Im quickly noticing I dont understand the context any of this was written in.
I don't think I understand what's happening here. Why is Canaan cursed for his father's crime? What is his father's crime even? Why does Noah have the authority to dole out these curses and blessings?
What's the moral lesson of this story? Why is it in the Bible?
The moral lesson, basically, is respect your elders. Ham sinned in not treating his father with respect. But the larger point of it being included in the Bible (at least, in its current form) is to illustrate later Israel's hatred of the people of the land of Canaan.
I did a stupid thing here. Ill recount my bad thinking.
- Text seems to indicate Canaan was cursed for disrespect to his father. I cant say this 100% because Im not quite sure, but its the only explanation that makes sense
- This seems like an unreasonable punishment, since this to me isnt a fair depiction of disrespect for elders. I project my feelings into the material and conclude that it cant be about disrespect to elders.
- Therefore I have no idea whats going on.
Id slam my head into a wall, but I dont think it needs further damage.
Does anything important happen in this Genealogy?
Not particularly. It's a bridge - a way to get from point A to point B.
So even though its not something I find appeal in, for the generation it was written for it was an effective means of communication and story telling.
It feels like explaining things that can be done better by archeology.
I don't even know what this means.
This is that looking at it through the fundamentalist perspective thing again.
If the Bible is literally true, than everything in the Genealogy section and the recounting of the history of civilizations would be literally true.
I dont think its unreasonable to assume that with our modern knowledge of archeology and history, we could create a more accurate history of these civilizations than the Bible.
But the point you keep hammering home is that the text is clearly not designed to be an accurate work of history.
Why is Nimrod a word for idiot when in the Bible he's a mighty warrior?
Because people are stupid. That is a relatively recent use of the word.
I dispute none of this.
Why does it curiously omit the fact that Noah's sons had to have sex with someone - namely his daughters. The Bible is generally pretty brutal and uncompromising, why not just state the bitter truth?
Keep up, Reap. On the ark were Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives.
Im clearly not reading these things in my best mental state. Normally I have at least better reading comprehension.
I don't understand the Tower of Babel story. It seems to be stating that humanity was divided into multiple languages because they were trying to build a tower so high that it would reach into the heavens and their having the same language meant nothing would be impossible for them.
I'm forced to wonder - again - how effective God's punishment here is. We've since mastered space travel. In fact, because the Russians were in competition with us, a people with a different language, they were more motivated to get into space as quickly as they could.
Maybe this is a story about human arrogance and how we needed to be taken down a notch. But the whole thing about humans becoming more powerful and God seemingly primarily motivated by that colors the whole thing against that theory.
The whole thing seems to portray a God that's very insecure about others being even remotely as powerful as him, even though ultimately he holds all the keys. This makes zero sense to me.
Reap, this is basically a myth to explain why different peoples have different languages, with a dash of "humanity should know their roles and not have hubris." You are WAY overthinking this stuff.
Gonna dial back on the religious fundamentalism thing in the future, I swear.
The bug in my brain I cant shake though is the idea that God doesnt seem to want anything being even remotely as powerful as him or thinking they can do so.
To me personally this sounds like insecurity, but I dont think thats the intention of the text. Instead of insecurity maybe its more a matter of God wanting his authority being unquestioned. Is that accurate?
Side question, why are people living longer than 120 years long after God said no one would do this?
I don't know. I know that yesh answered that the 120 years was the length of time between when that was said and the flood, and didn't refer to the age of men. That is a popular interpretation, but I'm not sure it works grammatically. In Genesis 6:3, it says "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." (ESV) The word translated as "man" could be used for an individual or the entire species, but the word translated as "he" is the third person singular, not plural; to interpret that to mean humanity seems to not take the text seriously, but to make it say what we want it to say to avoid a seeming problem. It seems to be saying that the human lifespan will not exceed 120 years, not that mankind only has 120 to go.
I think I can finally (hopefully?) do something in this post thats not just dumb or related to me being dumb.
Aside from the Hebrew grammar, the sentence itself specifically makes mention of how humanity is purely flesh. The Bible in Genesis 2 also mentions how humanity lives because Gods spirit is breathed into them.
So to render the sentence another way, without anything left unsaid, it seems to me to be saying: Human beings without my spirit in them are merely dead flesh. My spirit will not reside in human beings forever, because they must die. The life span of human beings will therefore be limited to 120 years, because any longer and I will remove my spirit from them.
Yeah, it could be about the flood. But the wording so strongly connects to the previous musings on what a person being alive is, that I dont see how.
The overriding questions of this post:
Why am I seemingly reading this completely wrong? Everyone else in the universe seems to interpret this text completely differently from me or at least understands its intent.
You're just overthinking it.
Ive heard its possible to engage in levels of thinking other than over-thinking and not thinking at all. But until Ive actually experienced it personally, Im going to treat it as a rumor.
-
First thing I want to say Hef is thank you very much for taking the time to reply to all of this. Im just a jackass on the Internet with uninformed opinions. I hope this reply reflects my appreciation for your time.
Oh hey, no problem. That's what the thread is here for, AFAIK.
I'm just looking at this from the perspective of Christian fundamentalism.
Why?
Since I think this is the primary theme driving my posts I should explain.
Its what I grew up with. Ive been more than questioning it for a while, and now my life situation is forcing me to seriously consider it.
While I think just conceptually the ideas driving the religion are inexplicable, Im trying to give the belief system a fair shake and understand it on its terms.
As you can maybe see, my attempts at doing this have been unfruitful. The very nature of the text contradicts fundamentalist Christianity.
I can appreciate that. However, now that you're older, you will have to come to conclusions. Whatever perspective you wind up with, whether Fundy, liberal, Mainline, Mormon, Catholic, or Hindu - that should be your destination, not the vehicle you choose to get there. IMHO
And this might sound strange coming from me, but don't give up on your fundamentalism so quickly. I mean, it's not for me, but that doesn't make it invalid for everyone.
And really, why is it God seems to reveal his law so incrementally over time? It always applies to everyone, right?
No, of course not.
If I understand what fundamentalist Christians believe, I think theyd tell you youre wrong. I believe that Gods law from their perspective is something thats eternally existent and binding.
So when youre trying to look at the text from that standpoint, and the text doesnt indicate that at all, obviously I feel driven a little bit insane.
And, as you mentioned many times in your post, it makes me look at the text from the wrong perspective.
I would imagine you are mistaking what they are saying, or the ones you know are not thinking clearly. God's Law as given in the OT is not binding upon Gentiles. It never was. It was never given to Gentiles. It was given to the people of Israel. According to Paul, after the coming of Jesus, Christians aren't bound by the Jewish Law, either. So no, all of God's Law does not apply to everyone. And it never has.
Follow-up question: What is the intended audience of these text? I dont think ancient Hebrew peoples is wrong, but that strikes me as unspecific.
It is the ancient Hebrew people. Sorry.
Something else Ive never thought about but realize I dont understand, whats the process a text like this or Greek mythology goes through to become viewed as factual?
I would imagine that the ancient Hebrews viewed many of these stories as "factual" before they were even written down. On the other hand, I'm not sure that any of the Greek myths were ever thought of as "factual" as we would conceive the word.
Is there a book that explains the multi-source theory youre drawing from? A situational explanation of its details as we read is helpful, but Im not sure its reasonable to ask you to re-explain something I can investigate on my own.
There is actually a lot of material out there on the subject, but a great overview can be found in this book (https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353). It explains the history of how the Documentary Hypothesis came to be developed and examines how the sources may have come to be. It is very well explained.
- Text seems to indicate Canaan was cursed for disrespect to his father. I cant say this 100% because Im not quite sure, but its the only explanation that makes sense
- This seems like an unreasonable punishment, since this to me isnt a fair depiction of disrespect for elders. I project my feelings into the material and conclude that it cant be about disrespect to elders.
- Therefore I have no idea whats going on.
Id slam my head into a wall, but I dont think it needs further damage.
Well, if you aren't confused, then you aren't reading it clearly. :biggrin:
Side question, why are people living longer than 120 years long after God said no one would do this?
I don't know. I know that yesh answered that the 120 years was the length of time between when that was said and the flood, and didn't refer to the age of men. That is a popular interpretation, but I'm not sure it works grammatically. In Genesis 6:3, it says "Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." (ESV) The word translated as "man" could be used for an individual or the entire species, but the word translated as "he" is the third person singular, not plural; to interpret that to mean humanity seems to not take the text seriously, but to make it say what we want it to say to avoid a seeming problem. It seems to be saying that the human lifespan will not exceed 120 years, not that mankind only has 120 to go.
I think I can finally (hopefully?) do something in this post thats not just dumb or related to me being dumb.
Aside from the Hebrew grammar, the sentence itself specifically makes mention of how humanity is purely flesh. The Bible in Genesis 2 also mentions how humanity lives because Gods spirit is breathed into them.
So to render the sentence another way, without anything left unsaid, it seems to me to be saying: Human beings without my spirit in them are merely dead flesh. My spirit will not reside in human beings forever, because they must die. The life span of human beings will therefore be limited to 120 years, because any longer and I will remove my spirit from them.
Yeah, it could be about the flood. But the wording so strongly connects to the previous musings on what a person being alive is, that I dont see how.
Good stuff. I agree.
The overriding questions of this post:
Why am I seemingly reading this completely wrong? Everyone else in the universe seems to interpret this text completely differently from me or at least understands its intent.
You're just overthinking it.
Ive heard its possible to engage in levels of thinking other than over-thinking and not thinking at all. But until Ive actually experienced it personally, Im going to treat it as a rumor.
lol
BTW, one thing I would like to say is not to get caught up on not thinking things could have happened the way they are depicted in these accounts, and letting that observation get in the way of your analysis. The truth of these accounts doesn't lie in whether they actually happened this way or not. These are the stories we have. So, what do these stories mean? Their meaning is what it is, whether they actually happened or not. So don't even worry about that part of it for now.
-
In today's reading, we get more tasty bits. Most of this is from J, but the last verse of chapter 27 and the first 9 verses of 28 are from P, and a few verses from the account of Jacob's dream at Beth-El are from E.
In 27, we learn that Jacob is an asshole and Rebekah is a bitch. Nothing new here. Of course, Jacob's name means "supplanter" (literally: heel catcher). In this story (along with the previous passage from chapter 25 where Jacob steals Esau's birthright) we get a story explaining the enmity between the people of Israel and the people of Edom. Note that this story happens completely between human characters; God does not play a role in this story (other than Isaac's invocation of him in his blessing for Jacob). Also note the anguish in Esau's voice when he realizes what has happened. Note the belief in the power of blessings and curses, and in the idea that once done, they cannot be undone.
In 28, we see that Jacob is sent to Paddan Aram to find a wife, and is forbidden to marry a Canaanite woman. We also see that Esau is sent to his uncle Ishmael to find a wife. We then get the account of Jacob's dream where he receives the promise from God that had been given to Abraham and Isaac, and sees "Jacob's Ladder." And he calls that place, which had been called Luz, Beth-El, "House of God."
In 29, we get the stories of Jacob's marriages to Rachel and Leah, and find out that Jacob isn't the only asshole in the world. We also get the starting of what would be the twelve tribes of Israel with the births of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah through Rachel the unloved. Of course, to be unloved, Jacob apparently spent a lot of time with her, lol.
-
Aw poor Leah. To be unattractive with a hot sister...that's gotta be rough.
Got a question...so far we've seen a lot of incest. I assume that God lets it slide because there was no way around it...but when does incest officially become bad?
And as a side question, what qualifies as incest? We are all related to each other to at least a very small degree. Obviously sleeping with your sister is bad, and sleeping with your neice is bad, and sleeping with your daughter is bad...but when does the relationship distance get wide enough to where it is no longer incest?
-
Second cousins.
-
I could be wrong, but it seems like incest is used as a tool to explain how other people groups are slightly inferior to the Israelites, at least in the case of the episode of Lot and his daughters being the origin of the Moabites.
-
I could be wrong, but it seems like incest is used as a tool to explain how other people groups are slightly inferior to the Israelites, at least in the case of the episode of Lot and his daughters being the origin of the Moabites.
like mudbloods from harry potter?
-
I could be wrong, but it seems like incest is used as a tool to explain how other people groups are slightly inferior to the Israelites, at least in the case of the episode of Lot and his daughters being the origin of the Moabites.
That was my impression too when I read that story a while ago. It had the distinct taste of slander (especially since the origin story read heavily apocryphal)
rumborak
-
So are you guys just knocking out the reading in the morning? I always blow it off, and I actually got about a week behind (I caught up, though).
I've made this challenge for the past two years...the first year I didn't get past Genesis, the second year I got to 2 Samuel...I really hope I can stay on top of it this year.
-
I've been reading really late/early and in the mornings.
-
So are you guys just knocking out the reading in the morning? I always blow it off, and I actually got about a week behind (I caught up, though).
I've made this challenge for the past two years...the first year I didn't get past Genesis, the second year I got to 2 Samuel...I really hope I can stay on top of it this year.
I usually do mine in the morning, yes. But I have run out of time this morning, and will have to do mine for today later.
-
Okay guys. I'm finally catching up and should be caught up fully tomorrow. After that, I'll have no problem reading every day. Though Reap and Hef's recent exchange is definitely something I find offputting :lol
-
Why?
-
OK, with yesterday's reading (30-31), we get the births of the rest of Jacob's children, the building of Jacob's wealth from the flocks of Laban, and Jacob's flight from Laban with his family and possessions. Most of this is from the E source.
In today's reading (32-34), we have Jacob wrestling with a stranger (and receiving the name of Israel), Jacob's reunion with his brother Esau, and the badass story of Dinah's rape and the revenge of her brothers. The OT rocks. :metal
-
As we'll see (and already are seeing), Israel's twelve sons certainly had their own personality flaws to deal with.
-
As we'll see (and already are seeing), Israel's twelve sons certainly had their own personality flaws to deal with.
Oh yes, it's a recurring theme throughout the Bible. The people that God chooses are not perfect people. In fact, many of them are deeply flawed.
-
So far we've seen a number of angels/messengers. I wonder if they are still being used today?
-
Keep in mind that Genesis was written pre-Twitter.
-
So far we've seen a number of angels/messengers. I wonder if they are still being used today?
I believe so, Certainly. The issue is that people today don't appear (to me) to be as receptive as the people angelic messengers spoke to in the Bible. People today would question whether God's request or the angels promptings/suggestions fit in with thier agenda, as opposed to the fact they could be assisting God in his.
-
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There are plenty of people that do things because someone told them that it is god will.
-
I would just like to point out that the phrase "angelic messenger" is redundant.
-
:lol Correct.
-
How would you like to have a wrestling match with the Lord? Wonder how much he can bench...
-
Yesterday's reading was 35-37, where we really start to see the work of the Redactor in weaving together the sources he had available to him to produce a whole new text (especially chapters 35 & 37). We get to see Jacob's return to Bethel, the birth of Benjamin, and the deaths of Rachel and Isaac. We also see the account of the descendants of Esau, who formed the nation of Edom. We then get the account of the love of his brothers for Joseph.
Today's reading includes the story of Joseph and Tamar, Joseph and Potiphar's wife, and the story of the cupbearer and the baker. Things are thus far going swimmingly for Joseph in Egypt.
-
Genesis 19
For some reason, the text in this section is a bit hard to understand, so I need to make sure I have the basics down to begin with.
- The angels show up in Sodom. They want to stay the night in the square, but Lot urges them to stay in his house instead. They oblige him.
- He treats them well with food and foot-washing.
- All the men of Sodom come to the house. They want to rape the angels. Lot offers up his daughters instead.
- It seems as though the men in the town want to deal with the angels because they don't appreciate them coming to the town to judge them. Since Lot has refused their form of justice, now they're rebelling against him and threaten him with worse consequences.
- The men of the town are about to break down the door but then the angels take him away from the door, shut it (when was it opened?) and then blind all the men outside.
- The angels (who are now called the men for some reason) tell Lot the city is toast and that he should get his family ready to leave.
Numerous thoughts follow:
- Why did the angels want to stay in the square? In a contemporary sense, the word means a big public outside area of the town. Did the word mean something different in the context of the Hebrew Bible?
- Foot washing seems to be a relevant part of Jewish culture. Why?
- I'm not sure this is a narrative simply about either homosexuality or hospitality. It seems to be about God's displeasure with a city ruled by its animal urges, willing to commit any brutality to avoid scrutiny of its existence.
- Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is odd to me, but I can't really argue the validity of it. The angels said don't look back and she did. But why that much of a consequence?
So much squick in 30-38. Why are the origins of so many ancient civilizations in the Bible explained as the results of depraved sexual acts? Are these civilizations that were enemies of the ancient Hebrews?
Genesis 20
This is like a version of Genesis 12 that makes far more sense. I like how God takes care of business here. Are the stories perhaps connected somehow? The narrative echo is extremely strong, but why?
Genesis 21
Issac is born. God stills cares about Ishmael. I feel like 25-34 are significant, but I have no idea why.
Genesis 22
Ah yes, this story.
There's a part of me that still doesn't understand how a loving God could ask someone to sacrifice their son, even if when he's about to do it God says "Syke!" and he doesn't have to do it.
And yet, really, Abraham's whole life has been defined by being an unfaithful idiot. I guess at some point you have to make sure he's really on board, given that Israel is supposed to descend from him. In the context of Genesis as a whole, this request isn't quite as unreasonable as it seems on the surface.
The parallels with Jesus's sacrifice in this chapter are interesting. So far, interpreting Jewish scripture on Christian terms have yielded results that might be logically valid, but built on such ridiculous premises that I loose my mind. But here, regardless of the original intent of the text, it can be done.
The father sacrificing the son parallels God doing the same. We see Issac almost being the sacrificial lamb, just as Christ was. It's the first time the Bible actually seems like some kind of larger plan or design without having to retroactively reinterpret everything.
Genesis 23
I don't understand the greater religious purposes of this chapter. However it's worth noting that the foreign land Abraham lives in has, up to this point, been exceedingly kind/decent/fair with him. In the context of the Bible as a myth story, why?
After reading from Genesis 24: It's saying Abraham lives amongst the Canaanites. But don't the Hebrews hate the Canaanites? Is this inconsistency or am I misinterpreting something? Was it a huge insult to ask someone to pay for land to bury someone at the time?
Genesis 24
Most of this seems obvious enough. I find it incongruous with my own sensibilities that Rebekah seems essentially bought to be Issac's wife, but I guess relative to the culture of the time this was probably almost progressive. Plus, the servant does suss out whether she actually does have moral character, a part I really liked.
And then, as the Bible seems to love to do, it takes a hard left turn into squick territory in verse 67 by implying Issac has a raging Oedipus complex.
Genesis 25
The older serving the younger really jumps out at me. This seems to contradict how ancient cultures seem to work.
Jacob straight hustles Esau here. What I don't understand is how Esau was so desperate for food that he gave up... well... everything.
Also: "Esau said to Jacob, 'Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!' is a strange rendering of the text.
6 So Isaac settled in Gerar. 7 When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, She is my sister; for he was afraid to say, My wife, thinking, or else the men of the place might kill me for the sake of Rebekah, because she is attractive in appearance.
8 When Isaac had been there a long time, King Abimelech of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw him fondling his wife Rebekah. 9 So Abimelech called for Isaac, and said, So she is your wife! Why then did you say, She is my sister? Isaac said to him, Because I thought I might die because of her. 10 Abimelech said, What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us. 11 So Abimelech warned all the people, saying, Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death.
-_-
Why didn't Issac tell Abimelech "I am the son of Abraham"?
Why has this narrative appeared for now a third time?
Why didn't God appear in Abimelech's head again and tell him "Look, I'm sorry my prophets are this stupid. I'm trying to make a point about how anyone can be valuable in my eyes, and that can be a bit rocky. But anyway, yeah, Rebekah is his wife. You need to convince your people to be less rapey."
I'm sure in the context of Hebrew culture this makes sense. But I'm not seeing it.
Starting with verse 17, there seem to be rumblings of contention between Hebrews and Canaanites. It's patched up at the end, but I can't help but think this theme will recur.
And this is where I stop today.
-
Genesis 19
***
- Why did the angels want to stay in the square? In a contemporary sense, the word means a big public outside area of the town. Did the word mean something different in the context of the Hebrew Bible?
I dont know for certain, but I think it was more to test what Lot would do than anything else. If he had let them sleep in the town square, I tend to think they would have just said, yeah, okay, lets not bring this guy out before we destroy the city. Hes not much better than any of the others.
- Foot washing seems to be a relevant part of Jewish culture. Why?
From what Ive read, its because they walked everywhere, it was a dusty part of the world, and they wore sandles. Think about it.
- I'm not sure this is a narrative simply about either homosexuality or hospitality. It seems to be about God's displeasure with a city ruled by its animal urges, willing to commit any brutality to avoid scrutiny of its existence.
I think youre right. The sexual depravity was not the sole issue, but was a symptom of a bigger problem. The prophet Ezekiel, who wrote much later, had a few things to say about Sodom that cut against the over-simplified view that the destruction of Sodom was about
well, sodomy. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49) So, yeah, there was a lot going on beyond that one obvious issue.
- Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt is odd to me, but I can't really argue the validity of it. The angels said don't look back and she did. But why that much of a consequence?
Once again, we are back in opinion land, but heres my take: It wasnt the physical looking back, but more a wanting to go back. I could be wrong. Theres nothing overt in the text that says that. But I just look at it like this: As you yourself pointed out, the culture in that city had simply devolved to a point where it was just willing to commit any brutality to avoid scrutiny of its existence, as you put it. God shows mercy in sparing the righteous few who want to escape that. I think it makes sense that Lots wife was tempted by something back in the city that part of her regretted leaving, and that the issue was her mentally giving in to that temptation and wishing she didnt have to leave.
Genesis 20
This is like a version of Genesis 12 that makes far more sense. I like how God takes care of business here. Are the stories perhaps connected somehow? The narrative echo is extremely strong, but why?
Hefs theory aside, Ill just say that I think it is here to show that Abraham, although a man who God favored, was flawedso much so that he made the same mistake twice. I think thats the emphasis. And as is a common theme throughout various books of the Bible, I think the point is that God doesnt expect people to be perfect. He expects them to be faithful, and he will bless those who are, no matter how deeply flawed they are. Thats my take.
Genesis 21
I feel like 25-34 are significant, but I have no idea why.
A lot of locations, especially wells (which were important locations), were still there generations later. Hence, origin stories about these locations would have been important. Beyond that, Im not sure there is any special significance.
After reading from Genesis 24: It's saying Abraham lives amongst the Canaanites. But don't the Hebrews hate the Canaanites? Is this inconsistency or am I misinterpreting something?
The time Abraham lived predates the Hebrews existing as a people, so no, they didnt hate the Canaanitesyet. Sure, by the time Genesis was written, that enmity existed. But not yet at the time Abraham lived.
Genesis 24
***
And then, as the Bible seems to love to do, it takes a hard left turn into squick territory in verse 67 by implying Issac has a raging Oedipus complex.
:lol ??? What? I dont understand.
Genesis 25
The older serving the younger really jumps out at me. This seems to contradict how ancient cultures seem to work.
I think that is exactly the point.
What I don't understand is how Esau was so desperate for food that he gave up... well... everything.
People have certainly done dumber things. Its easy to facepalm as a Monday Morning QB.
Why didn't Issac tell Abimelech "I am the son of Abraham"?
Why has this narrative appeared for now a third time?
Why didn't God appear in Abimelech's head again and tell him "Look, I'm sorry my prophets are this stupid. I'm trying to make a point about how anyone can be valuable in my eyes, and that can be a bit rocky. But anyway, yeah, Rebekah is his wife. You need to convince your people to be less rapey."
I'm sure in the context of Hebrew culture this makes sense. But I'm not seeing it.
Keep in mind that Abimilech is a title, not a name. So it could simply be that we are not dealing with the same dude. Or maybe it is the same dude, and his propensities didnt change over time. I dont know.
What is interesting in the fact that this pattern occurs three times is that each time, as a result of the situation, Abraham and Isaac end up either gaining material wealth or at least political leverage. Remember that God is going to pronounce judgment on the people of the region, but they werent completely wicked enough to wipe out for a few more generations. Perhaps this is Gods way of utilizing the character flaws in Abraham and Isaac for a positive twofold purpose: (1) To pronounce a much smaller judgment on people he was pissed at; and (2) Bestowing blessings on Abraham and Isaac. At the very least, both of those are the result.
-
Seems like the wells were the place to be to pick up girls...I'll know right where to go if I ever get zapped back in time.
Keep in mind that Abimilech is a title, not a name.
I didn't know that. Great tidbit!
-
Seems like the wells were the place to be to pick up girls...I'll know right where to go if I ever get zapped back in time.
:lol
-
Keep in mind that Abimilech is a title, not a name.
I guess that's a possibility, but that certainly isn't made clear by the text. He is presented as "Abimelech, king of Gerar." It would appear that the man's name is Abimelech (as he is referred to throughout the text), and that his title is "king." I see no reason to assume that this is not his actual name. And in both the encounter with Abraham and the later encounter with Isaac, Abimelech's army commander is named Phicol. So it would seem to be the same individual(s).
Of course, another point of view on why the story is repeated is that the version with Abraham from chapters 20 & 21 is from the E source, whereas the version with Isaac from chapter 26 is from the J source. In other words, in J, Isaac is the one who had an encounter with Abimelech where he pretended his wife was his sister, but in E, the story featured Abraham, not Isaac. That explains why, in the encounter with Isaac, Abimelech doesn't mention the same thing happening years earlier with Abraham - because in the original text from which it was drawn, there had been no such prior encounter!
-
In yesterday's reading, Genesis 41-42, we get the story of Joseph's rise to power in Egypt, and the story of Joseph's brothers coming to Egypt for food because of the famine. It is a very interesting story about complicated family relationships.
In today's reading, 43-45, we get the return of the brothers to Egypt, the feast with Joseph, Joseph's final test of his brothers, the revelation of Joseph's identity, and the reconciliation of the brothers. Again, an interesting story.
BTW, this story is pieced together by accounts in both the J and E sources, with a dash of P for good measure.
-
I guess I'm the only one posting about the "daily" reading lol.
Today's reading is Genesis 46-47. Almost done with Genesis, yay!
In chapter 46, we get the story of Jacob's family moving to Egypt and settling in the land of Goshen. In chapter 47, we learn of Joseph's administration of the people of Egypt throughout the rest of the famine, as all of the people of Egypt became slaves and giving a reason for the practice "which is in effect to this day throughout the land of Egypt (verse 26)" that 1/5 of everything produced in Egypt belongs to Pharaoh. We also learn of the approaching death of Joseph's father Jacob, and his desire to be buried with his forefathers.
-
I guess I'm the only one posting about the "daily" reading lol.
I go in massive spurts. Not sure if it's smart or not, but eh.
-
I'm still doing my daily reading. I'm a little behind because I was on vacation at the start of the year so I'm doing 2 readings a day although I'm going in chronological order.
-
Bosk: I did read your post and appreciate it. I couldn't muster whatever I need inside of me to post a reply though. Sorry about that.
Genesis 27
I guess Rebekah isn't an awful person because God specifically commanded Jacob be the one who gets everything, but wow. And I have no idea why Issac couldn't have said "Oh, I thought your brother was you, so really the blessing was meaningless."
The sensibilities of the time this was written in are so totally incongruous with my own.
Genesis 28
Esau marrying Ishmael's daughter is funny.
Genesis 29
I like how the language is rendered as "water the sheep" in this version.
I don't even know how to process the rest of this chapter.
Here's I guess the question I want to ask. Why is Christian entertainment so sanitized? The Bible doesn't have any swearing so far, I'll grant you that, but it is filled with hardcore violence, sexual relations more perverted than most pornos, and just the dirty horribleness of humanity. Why can't Left Behind the movie feature the anti-christ's harem of lesbian twin sisters?
I still can't even think straight. Why is this story in a religious text? I don't get it. I don't have any theories as to why.
Genesis 30
I seriously feel that tightness in my throat that happens when I'm on the verge of puking. All this stuff is just so depraved.
I normally like to read more at a time, but I'm going to just stop at the end of this chapter. Once again, I'm clearly not understanding something. Right now I just feel like I'm reading a divine version of the Aristocrats, where it gets worse and worse in an attempt to see if it can crack me. I think the Bible is winning.
If I sound like a disrespectful prick, I swear I'm not trying. But my ability to process things is being stretched to its limit.
-
It's not "just" a religious text. It's a cultural text. These are the stories of the formation of Israel's culture. And it's awesome.
I don't understand your inability to process what you're reading. What's the problem?
-
That's so far been my biggest hindrance in reading the OT more than just a few chapters. It's about random people who seem to have no significance in the grander scheme of thing, in a cultural setting I eventually don't connect with.
rumborak
-
It's not "just" a religious text. It's a cultural text. These are the stories of the formation of Israel's culture. And it's awesome.
I don't understand your inability to process what you're reading. What's the problem?
I'm sure in actuality this comparison is off base, but it reflects my feelings on reading it - I feel like I'm watching Saw or the Human Centipede. From my perspective it feels like the authors were thinking "Okay, so earlier in the book, Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him. How can we do something more ridiculous? Oh, okay, this time we'll have Jacob's wives compete for his affections by trying to bear him more children, and they'll even use their maids as Jacob's sex toys to conceive children in their place since they're unable." I feel overwhelmed by this sense that the text is trying to plumb the depths of human depravity for a purpose I can't discern.
I'm sure to some degree this reflects behaviors that were more normative at the time and my sensibilities now are somewhat naturally incompatible. Okay, fine.
But at some point it's hard to even see the text as internally consistent. How much less sinful are these people than the ones God burned with sulfur in Sodom? And yet they're the ones who will spawn the nation of Israel? What does this say about ancient Hebrew culture?
Maybe I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to get out of this. I'm really hoping there's some kind of religious enlightenment (for lack of a better word) present here. So far I'm turning up no results.
-
I think you're reading the OT with the wrong expectations, Reapsta. The OT is a collective memory of a people, stories they accumulated over centuries and wrote down. There is no grand design or plot to the whole thing; sure, God appears frequently in the texts, but there is no grand illumination to be expected, I think.
rumborak
-
Shoot, ive gotta catch up by about a week.
Any good audio bibles that people use? Sometimes my attention span just dies and I need to read it aloud or have it read aloud to me.
-
sorry I haven't posted in here much, but I am keeping up. actually a bit ahead.
-
What does this say about ancient Hebrew culture?
It says that they were no better than we are. Things just as crazy happen today.
-
Finally I'm all caught up. I should be posting more regularly from now, which is good since we just finished Genesis.
Weird. Reading Genesis has totally been a flashback of all those days we read it aloud in school. Some of these stories I remember feeling MUCH longer. Others, not quite as long. It was interesting to see Babel's treatment. Man, I could have sworn that there was much more about Babel in there.
I also didn't remember that Genesis ends on Joseph in Egypt. That has always been one of my favorite stories. And next time we see the descendants of Jacob, they'll be enslaved, right? That is always something which confused me. Joseph is like 2nd in command over Egypt, yet in the next book all the Hebrews are enslaved.
-
Looks like I answered my own question as soon as I did today's reading.
Though I still find the tribes' slavery to be kind of weird. I mean, if I were Joseph, the 2nd guy in charge next to the Pharaoh, my people would have already completely taken over all the jobs in the Egypt bureaucracy.
-
Yay, Genesis is over! Now on to Exodus!
Today's reading, Exodus 1-3, we get the blessings of God to the Hebrews while in bondage, the attempted murder of the Hebrew sons by Pharaoh, the birth of the deliverer Moses, and Moses murdering an Egyptian and fleeing to Midian, where he spent much time and started his family. We also have God remembering his people and calling Moses to his service. Now we're getting to some good stuff. Everything prior to here was just to give a sense of history and place the Hebrew people in Egypt.
-
SLAVES! Hebrews born to serve to the Pharaoh! :metal
-
Best Metallica song. It's definitely a metal story :metal
-
So I recently bought a center-column reference Bible on Amazon and it came today....
I don't wanna miss any references, so I'm heading back to square one. But I'll catch up.
-
Keep in mind that while those can be helpful, not all references are good references.
-
How so? I thought you said comparing scripture with scripture was an OK way to go.
-
Well, of course, but those references were put there after the fact because an editor, in his opinion, thought certain passages might have something to do with each other. In some cases, the person's opinion may be wrong and the passages may have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
-
Ah ok. Well, thank you for the warning. I'll watch out for that.
-
Just finished Exodus 1-3. Looking forward to tomorrow's. This is obviously one of those biblical stories that everyone knows.
-
I have a week and a half to catch up on tonight, kicking myself for that. >:(
-
Got to the plagues today. Crazy stuff. Part of me does wonder why God didn't decide just to soften Pharaoh's heart instead of harden it-- but this is OT God we're talking. I guess part of what'll make the New Testament and the new Covenant with Jesus so special is that we'll eventually be liberated from this vengeful, wrathful (but at the same time pretty damn badass) God.
Tomorrow, we get to the really fun plagues.
(And I do believe, thanks to my time-zone, I'm at least a half-a-day ahead of everyone. So if I do my reading at 10 am, it's 10 PM the day before for you ESTers. If that's an issue just let me know, and I'll save my readings for the night.)
-
...And now we're on to the even crazier plagues.
I do find the ancient Hebrews' obsession with circumcision to be pretty funny. "God just spread disease, hail, famine, and death over an entire nation to set you free! You guys BETTER do what he says and make sure all of you are circumcised!!!"
-
Well, it was required to be in a covenant relationship with God, so...
-
Whether it was by God's hand or the hand of an anonymous ancient Hebrew author, it's equally inexplicable and, to me anyway, equally amusing.
-
For the first time, I have gotten a couple of days behind. I will catch up this weekend.
-
Me too, but only by a little. But I'm thinking even if my schedule doesn't loosen up, my 35-minute commute and my audio Bible will be my friend.
-
Today we get the parting of the red sea. Awesome.
-
Finally caught up with my reading. All the way from Moses being called by God, to the confrontations with Pharaoh, the ten plagues, the deliverance from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, and the defeat of Pharaoh's army, culminating in the Song of the Sea. Whew!
-
In today's reading, Exodus 16-18, we get the stories of the provision of manna, water at Massa and Meribah, the victory over the Amalekites, and Jethro's advice to Moses. Strange days indeed. But wow, you have to feel for Moses.
-
Almost forgot to do today's readings. Anyway, as I read this I my 2nd grade teacher was trying to explain to us the whole 'water-from-the-rock" thing. Tomorrow, we'll be halfway done Exodus. And then, Leviticus. I really wonder what that will do to the level of activity in this discussion since we've finished Genesis. :lol
-
I, for one, am NOT looking forward to Leviticus. Uggh.
I'm looking forward to getting past the Pentateuch altogether.
-
I just can't wait 'til Judges.
-
The only way having food rained down on you could be awesome is if it was bacon instead.
-
I just can't wait 'til Judges.
I agree, Judges is great stuff.
-
Just finished up the Ten Commandments and all the other, less-important laws. I wonder what's up with all that stuff about the Ox. Were Oxes that 'accidentally' killed people they didn't belong to a problem for Ancient Hebrews?
Anyway, this reading was pretty much just a small preview of the next book :biggrin:
-
The only way having food rained down on you could be awesome is if it was bacon instead.
I see your point. However, given that they were Jews, it probably would have been slightly less awesome for them if it went down that way.
And Jethro's advice to Moses (paraphase: "Dude, I know you're a control freak, and that's cool and all, but you have to learn to delegate so you don't get burned out") should be mandatory reading for Mike Portnoy. Just saying...
-
Just finished up the Ten Commandments
I give you these 15
*drop*
*crash*
These 10 Commandments.
-
it never ceases to amaze me how much Moses put up with in leading the people....they were so whiny and ungrateful and fickle.
-
Kinda like DTF, but in the desert.
-
Kinda like DTF, but in the desert.
bosks version of Never Enough coming up next
-
Working on it. Moses has committed to laying down the bass lines (stick actually; he's more comfortable with that instrument given that stick and staff aren't really that different). Problem is, Portnoy hasn't returned my emails about doing drums. Still, I'm optimistic, and actually looking forward to performing with two such renowned Jews.
-
For today's reading: any in favor for bosk remodeling the ToS based on Hebrew law? I mean I could totally see this:
Users who violate the rules will be warned at most three times before action is taken against them. The actions taken are largely at the moderators' discretion and will be scaled with the severity of the infraction. If you have a question about a rule or the punishment you received for breaking a rule, PM or e-mail a moderator. Please don't start threads about individual cases of moderation.
Becoming something like this:
If it is found that any among you have violated the Laws, bosk shall warn you thrice and then wrath shall layeth upon you, and you shall be subject to the moderators tribunal. And then you may make personal sacrifice and find respite, but only through the good grace of the moderators or bosk himself, for our bosk is a just bosk. You shall not employ other means to reach those ends, and you shall not hold prayer or give birth to new threads in the public forum for the sake of your own justice, for then you will only incur additional wrath.
-
lol
-
For today's reading: any in favor for bosk remodeling the ToS based on Hebrew law? I mean I could totally see this:
Users who violate the rules will be warned at most three times before action is taken against them. The actions taken are largely at the moderators' discretion and will be scaled with the severity of the infraction. If you have a question about a rule or the punishment you received for breaking a rule, PM or e-mail a moderator. Please don't start threads about individual cases of moderation.
Becoming something like this:
If it is found that any among you have violated the Laws, bosk shall warn you thrice and then wrath shall layeth upon you, and you shall be subject to the moderators tribunal. And then you may make personal sacrifice and find respite, but only through the good grace of the moderators or bosk himself, for our bosk is a just bosk. You shall not employ other means to reach those ends, and you shall not hold prayer or give birth to new threads in the public forum for the sake of your own justice, for then you will only incur additional wrath.
:rollin :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :rollin
Priceless. You, my friend, are awarded one free Internet.
***EVERYBODY PLEASE READ THIS***
Today's reading starts a fairly grueling stretch where we do get more interesting narrative, but also get very LARGE chunks of laws, rules for festivals and holy days, and detailed instructions for the Jews about building the tabernacle and how they were to conduct their worship. This is a part of the Bible where a lot of people who are trying to read the whole thing get bored, get behind, and give up. I can understand that. Most of that sort of thing is very foreign to us and the majority of it is really specific to the ancient Jews only and is not even applicable in modern times, so it can be hard to stay interested. I want to encourage everyone who is participating to give it your best shot and to know that it gets more interesting again. And if you fall behind, here is some advice to consider: I don't want to step on BrotherH's toes, since he started the thread, but if you fall far behind and don't think you can catch up, rather than giving up, skip ahead to what the daily reading is. If you have time later, go back and catch up. But otherwise, just jump back in on schedule so you can keep up and (1) participate in the discussion, if any, and (2) you can still make it to the end and have read most of it. Remember that the Bible is not put together in such a way that you have to read it from start to finish, beginning to end, to understand it. It was never meant to be read that way, so if you miss a few chapters in the middle, you're probably still fine in terms of getting the big picture. Hope that helps.
-
The laws are no trouble--I just use an audio Bible as I'm falling asleep. That counts, right?
-
The laws are no trouble--I just use an audio Bible as I'm falling asleep. That counts, right?
No.
-
Eh, I find reading these kinds of early laws to be fun in its own way.
Now, I can't really say the same about lineages....
-
...And today we finally see the covenant outlined in physical form. It makes for dry reading, but it's a special moment.
I guess I'm listening to Neal Morse's "?" today :biggrin:
-
Just finished up the Ten Commandments
I give you these 15
*drop*
*crash*
These 10 Commandments.
:rollin
I haven't been posting much because I've been trying to stay outta P/R. Some days I get behind on reading, but I catch up. I'll try to post more.
-
Yeah, it'd be cool if you did. And Brother. And everyone else who was posting originally.
-
lol I need to catch up. Probably be back up in about a week.
-
I'm actually a little ahead because I know I'll be out of commission on drugs with my surgery later this week. Anyhow, interesting readings now. If anything, what I take from these detailed descriptions about how to make the priestly garb and the tabernacle is that God notices and cares about the details and thinks we should as well (even though those specific details do not apply to me in this day and age).
-
yeah, I am ahead too because I will be out of town next week. reading through the deutero-laws. the way my daily bible is formatted, I haven't got to Leviticus yet - phew!
I love the section in Deut 8 about how God blesses a nation and then they begin to think they got there by their own strength and forget God. Sure sounds familiar.
-
I suppose not much by way of discussion for today's reading. I do find Aaron's role interesting, as I didn't remember him particularly well and it does seem that God has called him and his family to do much more than I initially remembered.
If anything, what I take from these detailed descriptions about how to make the priestly garb and the tabernacle is that God notices and cares about the details and thinks we should as well (even though those specific details do not apply to me in this day and age).
:tup :tup :tup
-
So, I'd remembered the incident with the calf but I'd forgotten about the massacre which takes place after it. Geez. I have no words, no explanation, for why Moses commands the sons of Levi to kill their brothers and their companions.
-
Because he is a complete badass, that's why.
-
I haven't caught up yet...is this where it says that they were all dancing? If so, I think this is one of the reasons some churches do hymns because there is little to no rythym (and therefore no dancing) associated with them.
-
I haven't caught up yet...is this where it says that they were all dancing? If so, I think this is one of the reasons some churches do hymns because there is little to no rythym (and therefore no dancing) associated with them.
??? What?
-
I don't know about the hymns thing, but yes it's the part where they're dancing.
-
Because he is a complete badass, that's why.
You don' by any chance have glowing skin onna your face, do you? I haf spen' alla' my life looking for the glow face-d man. An' when I fin' him, I will say, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
-
I haven't caught up yet...is this where it says that they were all dancing? If so, I think this is one of the reasons some churches do hymns because there is little to no rythym (and therefore no dancing) associated with them.
??? What?
Er...well, one of the reasons. I don't wanna get into an argument over "proper worship songs," and I'm not too sure myself but...melody is stressed a lot more than rythym because it focuses on the words said (Spirit-driven) over feeling (flesh-driven). This is just one of the verses that equates rythmic dancing with being bad. But I'm not too sure, that's just what I've heard.
-
I haven't caught up yet...is this where it says that they were all dancing? If so, I think this is one of the reasons some churches do hymns because there is little to no rythym (and therefore no dancing) associated with them.
??? What?
Er...well, one of the reasons. I don't wanna get into an argument over "proper worship songs," and I'm not too sure myself but...melody is stressed a lot more than rythym because it focuses on the words said (Spirit-driven) over feeling (flesh-driven). This is just one of the verses that equates rythmic dancing with being bad. But I'm not too sure, that's just what I've heard.
What?
-
I don't wanna get into an argument over "proper worship songs,"
I don't either. But I've never heard that as a reason for why we have hymns. I think we have hymns because there is NT authority for having hymns. And while rythm is not the focus, all (or at least most) of the hymns I have heard definitely have rythm. Hence my confusion.
-
I been working so hard
Keep punching my card
Eight hours, for what?
Oh, tell me what I got
-
I don't wanna get into an argument over "proper worship songs,"
I don't either. But I've never heard that as a reason for why we have hymns. I think we have hymns because there is NT authority for having hymns. And while rythm is not the focus, all (or at least most) of the hymns I have heard definitely have rythm. Hence my confusion.
My confusion comes from the fact that story isn't about melody or rhythm, or dancing. It's about worshiping a golden calf instead of the Living God.
-
I think the exact same verse in the NT that you (bosk1) are referring to emphasizes melody in music (I can't recall the verse).
-
I think the exact same verse in the NT that you (bosk1) are referring to emphasizes melody in music (I can't recall the verse).
Even if it does...this doesn't.
-
I think the exact same verse in the NT that you (bosk1) are referring to emphasizes melody in music (I can't recall the verse).
Even if it does...this doesn't.
I'm acting on the assumption that you can interpret some passages in light of others.
-
I think the exact same verse in the NT that you (bosk1) are referring to emphasizes melody in music (I can't recall the verse).
Even if it does...this doesn't.
I'm acting on the assumption that you can interpret some passages in light of others.
But why these? Since what you are arguing simply isn't the point of the story?
You appear to be inventing connections where there are none.
-
I think the exact same verse in the NT that you (bosk1) are referring to emphasizes melody in music (I can't recall the verse).
Even if it does...this doesn't.
I'm acting on the assumption that you can interpret some passages in light of others.
But why these? Since what you are arguing simply isn't the point of the story?
You appear to be inventing connections where there are none.
I understand it's not the primary point of the story, but it's an interesting connection that makes you think. When you look at what the whole Bible has to say about music, this verse shouldn't be discarded.
-
Yes it should, because this passage isn't saying anything about music. It's saying something about idolatry.
-
Primarily yeah. But music is involved. From this passage we can glean the truth that music can be used for evil purposes.
-
Primarily yeah. But music is involved. From this passage we can glean the truth that music can be used for evil purposes.
From this passage we can glean the truth that music is an essential part of worship. But worship should be reserved for God alone.
-
Exactly. See how the truths just keep rollin' on in.
-
But the passage has NOTHING to do with what are the proper KINDS of music.
-
:lol
The truths are rollin' in.
rumborak
-
I am officially in Lev....eeek!
-
'grats.
Finishing up Genesis today...I've been getting in about 8 ch per day but I'll be able to get thru Exodus this weekend.
-
Hymns have more "rhythm" than all modern worship songs, although that really doesn't make any sense as ALL songs have rhythm. Besides, they wouldn't have been singing hymns then as the Psalms weren't written until years later and modern hymns as we know them today weren't written until at least the 1700's.
-
Back to the daily reading...
In today's selection, we get Moses speaking further with the Lord, and his request to see the Lord's glory, with the Lord acquiescing to a back view. We then get the new tablets of the covenant, and more instruction from God, and the radiant face of Moses. We then get more Sabbath regulations, and then an account of willing workers and artisans performing the tasks which had been laid out by the Lord.
-
And in today's reading, 36-38, we get still more detail about the Tabernacle etc.
BTW, whereas much of Exodus has seen the various documents of J, E, and P really interwoven by the Redactor (with a heavy dose of E), this entire ending section of the book is entirely P (which makes sense).
Exodus is almost done! But Leviticus awaits...
-
Bah, got behind this weekend.
Will be able to catch up this weekend.
-
I am a bit behind due to lots of stuff and reading other portions of the Bible. Sorry! Will be caught up soon, probably tomorrow! :)
-
I am a bit behind due to lots of stuff and reading other portions of the Bible. Sorry! Will be caught up soon, probably tomorrow! :)
yeah, me too. I'll probably be a little behind until we hit the really short chapters in...uh...Psalms. :|
-
January went by in a flash. Lots of interesting stuff. On to February!
-
Read about 30 chapters today. About halfway through Exodus. Almost caught up. But for some reason Exodus is a much faster and interesting read than Genesis (at least up until Sinai).
-
So, I guess I will lock this.