Bible in a Year! v. February

[Ħ]

You mean...Santa isn't in the Bible???

[bosk1]

Not according to most reliable translations. 

[Ħ]

https://tinyurl.com/yfao5zp

[hefdaddy42]

Two things about the Documentary Hypothesis that I have a problem with:

1) It is just a theory.  It is based on internal rather than external evidence. There is no substantial manuscript evidence that demands that the DH must be true.  Rather, the reason scholars divide the Pentateuch like they do is based on their own method of categorization.  To a lesser degree, it is similar to a person claiming that Shakespeare couldn't have written both Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet, since one is comedic and the other is tragic.

2) There are so many apparent so-called contradictions that are close in proximity, such as the two creation accounts, and God's commandment to Noah in regard to what types of animals and how many he is to bring on the ark.  If the Documentary Hypothesis is true, the Redactor must have been either blind or extremely lax when he caught these mistakes.

I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis.  Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid.  And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.

bosky, I think that the recognition of different depictions of God is one of the best ways to get the most out of what the text actually says.  It's a discussion about what we're reading.  There's no reason that everyone has to agree with what anyone's viewpoint is on what we read.  In fact, I am not expecting much agreement on almost anything.  But the sharing of the different views is where the strength of the study lies, IMHO.  I mean, I've read the Bible before, many times.  I'm looking forward to sharing my views on various texts, and learning the views of others, whether I agree with them or not.  I may gain a new point of view which I may not have previously encountered.  Or, I might get some new laughs.  Either way, I am very excited about the possibilities.

Having said that, I share your opinion of the gap theory.

[Ħ]

I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis.  Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid.  And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.

What is it that I am misunderstanding in both thiese cases?

[bosk1]

And here we go...

[El JoNNo]

lol

It was bound to happen, I mean come on, it is the bible.

[juice]

Oh i almost forgot about this!  *reads today's amount*

[yeshaberto]

my daily bible is packed up, but I was in a bible bookstore so I grabbed one off the shelf and got caught up for a while 

[Ħ]

Just finished the reading.

Got a quick comment/question.  Gen 3:8 (ESV) says this:

8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

The syntax of the first clause is confusing.  Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God?  Depending on how you read it, it seems like you could interpret it either way.  But if it is God that is walking in the garden, that seems odd to me, since God the Father is an omniprescent being that (to my knowledge) always hangs out in heaven and doesn't manifest himself on Earth.  Although I have heard arguments that the personified God in the OT is actually Jesus, and I don't see too much of a problem with that.

Anyway, this verse has always been awkward for me.  

Thoughts?

[yeshaberto]

I've always understood the garden of Eden (prior to sin/fall) was where God had a real relationship with His people.  sin severed that relationship, hence heaven will be a return to the relationship of Eden

[GuineaPig]

Just finished the reading.

Got a quick comment/question.  Gen 2:8 (ESV) says this:

8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

The syntax of the first clause is confusing.  Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God?  Depending on how you read it, it seems like you could interpret it either way.  But if it is God that is walking in the garden, that seems odd to me, since God the Father is an omniprescent being that (to my knowledge) always hangs out in heaven and doesn't manifest himself on Earth.  Although I have heard arguments that the personified God in the OT is actually Jesus, and I don't see too much of a problem with that.

Anyway, this verse has always been awkward for me. 

Thoughts?

wut


I agree the syntax is odd, but I think the author meant Adam and Eve were walking.  Doesn't really make sense in any other context.

[Ħ]

Ok I just looked it up in the NIV which says

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

I don't completely trust the NIV because of its thought-for-thought translation style but so far it looks like it is God that is walking.

[Jamesman42]

Just read The Creation by Neal Morse, with God's take on it. No cool synth solos, though.

[Ħ]

No cool synth solos, though.

Wait a minute, is such a thing even possible?

[hefdaddy42]

I think your first point displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hypothesis.  Your Shakespeare comparison is completely invalid.  And your second point about the Redactor shows a misunderstanding about what he was trying to do.

What is it that I am misunderstanding in both thiese cases?

Hmm, maybe bosk1 was right. lol

By the way, I think that this passage is talking about God walking, not Adam and Eve.  They heard him walking.  That's why they hid.  This is consistent with J's anthropomorphic depiction of God.  And the incongruity of the depictions of God throughout the Pentateuch is one of the lynchpins of the Documentary Hypothesis.

I think that any interpretation of this being Jesus is not treating the text with the respect it deserves.  The author didn't have any concept of Jesus.  BH, I also don't get your idea that God just hangs out in Heaven and never manifests himself on Earth.  The Bible (especially the OT) is replete with depictions of God's interactions with humans.

IMHO

[hefdaddy42]

Today's reading, Genesis 4-7, is another rich literary expression of the ancient Israelites.  I will continue to look at it from the viewpoint of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Chapter 4 is all from the J source, and features the story of Cain and Abel (again showing God taking a personal and individual interest in the characters of the story) and the beginnings of civilization.

Most scholars feel that chapter 5 isn't from J, E, P, or D, but rather is part of a hypothetical document called by some the Book of Generations that the Redactor used to unify the different texts he used in formulating the book of Genesis.

With chapter 6, we get an interesting bit involving the sons of God and the daughters of men, who produced the Nephilim.  This leads to God's grief over the increasing wickedness of humanity, and God's regret in creating them in the first place, and his resolve to destroy what he had created.  All of this, from verses 1-8, are from the J source.  This is followed by the rest of chapter 6, drawn from the P source, which is an account of God's revelation to Noah and his disclosure of his plan to Noah.

Beginning in chapter 7, we get a real taste of the Redactor's artistry, as this entire chapter, along with chapter 8 in tomorrow's reading (the entire depiction of the Flood story), feature him weaving bits of J and P, two separate accounts of the Flood, together into a rich and vibrant tapestry.

At any rate, we see in today's reading that God can become angry, yet remain compassionate (Cain), and is capable of regret, which is a strange quality in a being who is normally depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing.

[El JoNNo]

Spoiler: Adam really knows Eve hard.

[GuineaPig]

Know her?  I barely...

Wait a second.

[El JoNNo]

That's right, you saw what I did there.


On a serious note... I have a few questions for y'all. Why do Adam,  Eve (aka A&E) and the rest of the family even bother to worship this God. There really is no point; they have been kicked out of paradise, never too return. When they work hard and give offerings, God seems to care more about the animal sacrifice and not the hard work put into the sacrifice. On top of all this he is all about cursing them for life when they do minor things not including the murder. Plus hell doesn't exist for mortals yet as far as the story is concerned.

Any thoughts?   

[Ħ]

Reading for January 2 is Genesis 4-7. (sorry to steal your thunder hef, I just like to feel official  )

On a serious note... I have a few questions for y'all. Why do Adam,  Eve (aka A&E) and the rest of the family even bother to worship this God. There really is no point; they have been kicked out of paradise, never too return. When they work hard and give offerings, God seems to care more about the animal sacrifice and not the hard work put into the sacrifice. On top of all this he is all about cursing them for life when they do minor things not including the murder. Plus hell doesn't exist for mortals yet as far as the story is concerned.

The way I take it is that there is a hierarchy between the creatures and the man.  The purpose of God creating man is to have dominion over all the earth and the rest of earth's creatures (Gen 1:26).  We can see a manifestation of this purpose when God allows Adam to name the animals (Gen 2:19).  There are other cross references form other books that support this concept but I can't remember any.

When Adam and Eve are kicked out, the earth falls under the curse, and they lose that dominion, so I think they experience both 1) the desire to get on top like they once were, and 2) fear of more punishment if they continue to be rebellious.
 
And regarding God being super anal about cursing man for seemingly little things, remember that God doesn't view any sin as "little" or "big" (as I have heard from the Catholic Church).  Mat 5:28 says that being mentally lustful is just as bad as actually committing adultery.  Jam 2:10 says that whoever is guilty of one sin is guilty of all.  So even though something might seem minor and insignificant to us or Adam and Eve, remember that in the Bible, God is the final judge on matters and it really doesn't matter how man sees it.

[Adami]

Where do you get the idea that the earth fell under a curse after they were expelled from the garden?

[Ħ]

You don't get that by reading only Genesis.  I believe it talks about that in Romans.

EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23

[Adami]

You don't get that by reading only Genesis.  I believe it talks about that in Romans.

Oh, Paul. Nevermind then, carry on.

[rumborak]

Just finished the reading.

Got a quick comment/question.  Gen 3:8 (ESV) says this:

8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool[c] of the day, and the man and his wife(H) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

The syntax of the first clause is confusing.  Who was "walking in the garden"--Adam and Eve, or God?

I must say I am confused by that you think the syntax is confusing. I mean, if your point was that the translation is faulty I could see it in some way, but the passage, to me at least, is crystal-clear. God walks in the garden, Adam and Eve hear it, they hide because they hear Him.
And I'm not in the least confused by that either. The Jewish god is a very heavy-handed and often vengeful guy; somebody you better not get in the way of.

rumborak

[Ħ]

An interesting thing I recently read about the genealogy of Genesis 5, when you translate those names from Hebrew to English.
 
Adam -> Man
Seth -> Appointed
Enosh -> Mortal
Kenan -> Sorrow
Mahalalel -> The Blessed God
Jared -> Shall come down
Enoch -> Teaching
Methuselah  -> His death shall bring
Lamech -> The despairing
Noah -> Rest, or comfort

Potential evidence of design?

[Global Laziness]

Whoa...

[yeshaberto]

Whoa...

[sonatafanica]

You mean...Santa isn't in the Bible???

Oh man, I read that "Santa" as "Sonata"

and I was like

Yeah I'm in there. But they call me stuff like God or Him or He and stuff.

[hefdaddy42]

You don't get that by reading only Genesis.  I believe it talks about that in Romans.

EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23

If we are reading this in order, shouldn't we not cloud what we read by later interpretations of things?  If it doesn't say it in Genesis, then we shouldn't bring it in yet. 

[GuineaPig]

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

[Ħ]

Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).

*threat neutralized*

You don't get that by reading only Genesis.  I believe it talks about that in Romans.

EDIT: compare Gen 3:17-19 and Rom 8:20-23

If we are reading this in order, shouldn't we not cloud what we read by later interpretations of things?  If it doesn't say it in Genesis, then we shouldn't bring it in yet. 

You're right.  One more reason for spoiler tags. 

[GuineaPig]

Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).

*threat neutralized*

Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth.  It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.

[Ħ]

Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).

*threat neutralized*

Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth.  It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.

But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth.  The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to).  I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born.  Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.

But it seems like you've made up your mind.

[GuineaPig]

Reading for January 3 is Genesis 8-11.

One plot hole that always bugged me: Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel.  They are the only four humans on Earth.  Then Cain kills Abel, and moves to Nod.  Then: bam! In Genesis 4:17, all of a sudden he has a wife.  Where did she come from? 

Gen 5:4 says that Adam had sons and daughters...so yes, Cain married a sister (or perhaps a niece).

*threat neutralized*

Actually, it says he had other sons and daughters after Seth.  It's far from clear whether or not it says Adam and Eve had daughters beforehand.

But at the same time it isn't a far cry by any stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Adam had other children before Seth.  The Bible doesn't mention every single child of every single character (nor does it have to).  I imagine Abel's murder occured at least 16 years or so after they were born.  Back then the women pumped out babies left and right and I don't think A&E would have waited so long to have Seth.

But it seems like you've made up your mind.

Nah, I'm just nitpicking.  It was something that jumped out at me the first time I read it, and it still does.  Besides, it's much easier to point out and discuss these little things than the big issues.