Bible in a Year! v. February

[ReaPsTA]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[ack44]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[ReaPsTA]

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.  I’m 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?

I’ve 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.

It’s what I grew up with.  I’ve 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, I’m 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 they’d tell you you’re wrong.  I believe that God’s law from their perspective is something that’s eternally existent and binding.

So when you’re trying to look at the text from that standpoint, and the text doesn’t 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 hasn’t 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 it’s 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 “I’m not an idiot, I swear!”  Hopefully beyond the id driven motivations though there’s a real point to be made.

The assumption of Christian fundamentalism is that if you don’t believe Jesus died for your sins, you go to hell.  The whole Bible is supposed to be the God’s word.

If God’s 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 it’s 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 doesn’t feel remotely like it’s 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 I’m 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 isn’t true” before having even finished Genesis.  That doesn’t feel fair.  And yet I’m 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.  I’m not sure I have the knowledge to just do that. But at the same time as I’m 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 man’s evil.  The flood wipes out humanity for its evil.  We see the immorality of Abram and Sarai.  The Tower of Babel story illustrates man’s hubris.

I see why the multi-author story is relevant.  Maybe it wasn’t intended for man’s evil or sin to be such a recurrent theme.  But it seems to be that way.

All that said, I’m fully open to the possibility that either I’m seeing this incorrectly or there’s something I’m not seeing at all.  It’s not like that hasn’t 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.

You’re 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 don’t think ancient Hebrew peoples is wrong, but that strikes me as unspecific.

Something else I’ve never thought about but realize I don’t understand, what’s 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 you’re drawing from?  A situational explanation of its details as we read is helpful, but I’m not sure it’s 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 didn’t understand the historical context of the religion.

I’m quickly noticing I don’t 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.  I’ll recount my bad thinking.

-   Text seems to indicate Canaan was cursed for disrespect to his father.  I can’t say this 100% because I’m not quite sure, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense
-   This seems like an unreasonable punishment, since this to me isn’t a fair depiction of disrespect for elders.  I project my feelings into the material and conclude that it can’t be about disrespect to elders.
-   Therefore I have no idea what’s going on.

I’d slam my head into a wall, but I don’t 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 it’s 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 don’t think it’s 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.

I’m 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 can’t shake though is the idea that God doesn’t 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 don’t think that’s the intention of the text.  Instead of insecurity maybe it’s 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 that’s 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 God’s 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 don’t 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.

I’ve heard it’s possible to engage in levels of thinking other than over-thinking and not thinking at all.  But until I’ve actually experienced it personally, I’m going to treat it as a rumor.

[hefdaddy42]

First thing I want to say Hef is thank you very much for taking the time to reply to all of this.  I’m 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.

It’s what I grew up with.  I’ve 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, I’m 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 they’d tell you you’re wrong.  I believe that God’s law from their perspective is something that’s eternally existent and binding.

So when you’re trying to look at the text from that standpoint, and the text doesn’t 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 don’t think ancient Hebrew peoples is wrong, but that strikes me as unspecific.

It is the ancient Hebrew people.  Sorry.

Something else I’ve never thought about but realize I don’t understand, what’s 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 you’re drawing from?  A situational explanation of its details as we read is helpful, but I’m not sure it’s 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.  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 can’t say this 100% because I’m not quite sure, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense
-   This seems like an unreasonable punishment, since this to me isn’t a fair depiction of disrespect for elders.  I project my feelings into the material and conclude that it can’t be about disrespect to elders.
-   Therefore I have no idea what’s going on.

I’d slam my head into a wall, but I don’t think it needs further damage.

Well, if you aren't confused, then you aren't reading it clearly. 

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 that’s 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 God’s 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 don’t 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.

I’ve heard it’s possible to engage in levels of thinking other than over-thinking and not thinking at all.  But until I’ve actually experienced it personally, I’m 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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Ħ]

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?

[GuineaPig]

Second cousins.

[ack44]

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.

[Ħ]

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?

[rumborak]

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

[Ħ]

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.

[juice]

I've been reading really late/early and in the mornings.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

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 

[hefdaddy42]

Why?

[hefdaddy42]

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. 

[bosk1]

As we'll see (and already are seeing), Israel's twelve sons certainly had their own personality flaws to deal with.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Ħ]

So far we've seen a number of angels/messengers.  I wonder if they are still being used today?

[bosk1]

Keep in mind that Genesis was written pre-Twitter.

[gmillerdrake]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

I would just like to point out that the phrase "angelic messenger" is redundant.

[bosk1]

  Correct.

[Ħ]

How would you like to have a wrestling match with the Lord?  Wonder how much he can bench...

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[ReaPsTA]

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.

[bosk1]

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 don’t 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, let’s not bring this guy out before we destroy the city.  He’s not much better than any of the others.”

- Foot washing seems to be a relevant part of Jewish culture.  Why?

From what I’ve read, it’s 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 you’re 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 here’s my take:  It wasn’t the physical looking back, but more a wanting to go back.  I could be wrong.  There’s 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 Lot’s 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 didn’t 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?

Hef’s theory aside, I’ll just say that I think it is here to show that Abraham, although a man who God favored, was flawed—so much so that he made the same mistake twice.  I think that’s the emphasis.  And as is a common theme throughout various books of the Bible, I think the point is that God doesn’t 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.  That’s 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, I’m 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 didn’t hate the Canaanites—yet.  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.

    What?  I don’t 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.  It’s 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 didn’t change over time.  I don’t 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 weren’t completely wicked enough to wipe out for a few more generations.  Perhaps this is God’s 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.

[Ħ]

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!

[bosk1]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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!  

[hefdaddy42]

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.