Bible in a Year! v. February

[yeshaberto]

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.

 

[hefdaddy42]

-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, which treats the Midrashic tradition of Isaac's actual sacrifice.

[bosk1]

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.

[bosk1]

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

[hefdaddy42]

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

Well, that is certainly one way to interpret it.  Whatever works. 

Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? 

[bosk1]

Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? 

I'll certainly pray for you every day when we get to the last half of Exodus and through Leviticus.

[ack44]

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, which treats the Midrashic tradition of Isaac's actual sacrifice.

 So there possibly was an entirely different patriarch between Abraham and Jacob 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.

[hefdaddy42]

Is it bad that I'm already getting tired of Genesis? 

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.

[Ħ]

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?

[bosk1]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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).

[Ħ]

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).

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Ħ]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Ħ]

because I wanted to precursor it to my question about Isaac

[bosk1]

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...

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Jamesman42]

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

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Jamesman42]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Jamesman42]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, you're right.  There is no death mentioned before he fell and burst.  That's what I'm saying, James.

[Jamesman42]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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?

[Jamesman42]

Confused because what you posted is what I addressed, and scared because I feel the heat from your incoming wrath on my soul.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Ħ]

(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.

[hefdaddy42]

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).

[ReaPsTA]

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? 

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[ack44]

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.

[ReaPsTA]

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 person’s 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 father’s 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.

[yeshaberto]

in regard to your 120 year question, reap, the reference is not to how long men would live but how long until the flood.