Author Topic: Bible in a Year! v. February (Read 5786 times)

bosk1 · « **on:** February 01, 2011, 07:57:21 AM »

Since there isn't one yet...

Quote from: BrotherH on November 03, 2010, 04:13:16 AM

BrotherH
bösk1
El JoNNo
gmillerdrake
GuineaPig
hefdaddy
Jamesman
juice
Perpetual Change
Philawallafox
ReaperKK
Rina93
sneakyblueberry
yeshua4
02T

The reading plan we'll be following can be found here: https://www.ewordtoday.com/year/ There are multiple programs they have--just scroll down to your version and click "Beginning" in that row. We might do one of the other plans in years to come, but the plan from Genesis to Revelation is what we'll be sticking to this time.

GO!

bosk1 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:04:14 AM »

Free will offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings...in short, why the Hebrew people became masters of the bbq. Not much here that is applicable in modern times, but still interesting. Whenever I read this section I am struck by just the sheer number of animals that would have to die if the people were properly sacrificing as they were supposed to. I can't help but think that the ancient Jew had every reason to think to himself/herself, "The law is impossible for man to keep. There's got to be a better way."

Anyway, as I mentioned in the other thread, we are in a difficult patch of reading that can easily get boring. Try to stay with it. And if you fall behind and don't think you can catch up, my suggestion would be to just skip ahead so you can stay on track.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:23:10 AM »

Caught up tonight and I'll admit I'm now more like 'skimming' through the readings, though that'll change once we get to some things that are more interesting. What I find pretty ironic is how some preachers have honed in on certain sections of levitcus despite it's fairly obvious and specific context. Plenty of preachers will quote the kinds of laws we'll see later on, but few will recommend you bring a bull for sacrifice to congregation if you'd like to atone for your sins.

Anyway, soundtrack for your Leviticus 1 reading (or skimming): Iced Earth- Burnt Offerings

bosk1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2011, 08:28:07 AM »

Quote from: Perpetual Change on February 01, 2011, 08:23:10 AM

Caught up tonight and I'll admit I'm now more like 'skimming' through the readings, though that'll change once we get to some things that are more interesting. What I find pretty ironic is how some preachers have honed in on certain sections of levitcus despite it's fairly obvious and specific context. Plenty of preachers will quote the kinds of laws we'll see later on, but few will recommend you bring a bull for sacrifice to congregation if you'd like to atone for your sins.

I absolutely agree.

Quote from: Perpetual Change on February 01, 2011, 08:23:10 AM

Anyway, soundtrack for your Leviticus 1 reading (or skimming): Iced Earth- Burnt Offerings

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:18:32 PM »

Quote from: bösk1 on February 01, 2011, 08:04:14 AM

Whenever I read this section I am struck by just the sheer number of animals that would have to die if the people were properly sacrificing as they were supposed to.

I have read more than one cultural anthropologist that suggested that the basic Hebrew diet was vegetarian, and that they only ate meat if they did a sacrifice - they would eat the meat unused in the sacrifice.

Not sure whether or not it was true, but it seems like a possibility.

juice · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:40:42 PM »

Quote from: Perpetual Change on February 01, 2011, 08:23:10 AM

Anyway, soundtrack for your Leviticus 1 reading (or skimming): Iced Earth- Burnt Offerings

bosk1 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:52:40 PM »

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on February 01, 2011, 06:18:32 PM

Quote from: bösk1 on February 01, 2011, 08:04:14 AM
Whenever I read this section I am struck by just the sheer number of animals that would have to die if the people were properly sacrificing as they were supposed to.
I have read more than one cultural anthropologist that suggested that the basic Hebrew diet was vegetarian, and that they only ate meat if they did a sacrifice - they would eat the meat unused in the sacrifice.

Not sure whether or not it was true, but it seems like a possibility.

Interesting. I had never heard that either. Given precedent in Genesis about the patriarchs eating meat on various occasions, which would have been very familiar to the Hewbrews, and the fact that they had a ready source (lots of sheep and goats), I would think they wouldn't have a problem having meat as a regular part of their diet. But I suppose it's a possibility.

Ħ · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2011, 09:45:17 PM »

Oh I didn't realize you created this.

So. It's my thread versus yours. *taps foot*

...

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2011, 10:04:09 PM »

Oh brother.

bosk1 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:11:38 AM »

Ħ · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:21:31 AM »

bosk1 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:27:35 AM »

Well, since you labeled the first one as "January," I assumed you were planning on doing a new one each month so the thread wouldn't get too big and cluttered by the end of the year. Since I was the first on yesterday and wanted to post a bit about the reading, I started the new one for you.

Anyhow, as far as today:

We have the consecration of Aaron and his sons--the first time the Hebrew people had priests and a high priest. They are truly becoming a separate nation now.

Ħ · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:33:25 AM »

Yeah it's fine. I thought it would be really epic to have a +100 page thread, but this is cool too.

I actually have a question about Aaron becoming the first high priest. In Genesis, there was another guy who was a high priest (or at least some kind of priest). Forgot the guy's name. I wonder how a pro-Israel priest could exist before the law was given. Any idea?

bosk1 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:42:28 AM »

You are probably referring to Melchezidek. He was (obviously, given the timing--Abramham met him and offered him a tithe) not a Hebrew. He is somewhat an enigma, being described as being of Salem and being a priest of the most high. But otherwise, there is virtually nothing said about him (although he is mentioned again later in the NT).

ReaperKK · « **Reply #14 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:51:25 AM »

Couple of days behind still but I'll play a little catchup tonight.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 02, 2011, 09:51:20 AM »

I wouldn't describe Melchizedek as pro-Israel, since there was no Israel during his time.

bosk1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 02, 2011, 10:00:20 AM »

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2011, 09:51:20 AM

I wouldn't describe Melchizedek as pro-Israel, since there was no Israel during his time.

Well, but the really odd thing that throws a lot of scolars off is that archaologists recently discovered a series of carvings with the inscription "Melchizedek, king of Salem," that depict a man wearing an official Isreal home team throwback jersey. The other really confusing part is that rather than go with the obvious all-star choice and have an Abrahmam jersey, he's wearing a Lot jersey. Weird. I mean, everyone knows Lot was traded midway through his first season for a yet-to-be-born first round draft pick. I don't get it...

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2011, 04:58:39 AM »

bosk1 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2011, 08:19:06 AM »

The first priesthood is consecrated. They are preparing the first official worship in that role, and...Nadab and Abihu blow it.

And God powerfully demontrates he does not approve of not following his very specific instructions. To me, this hearkens back to Cain and Abel. In the first story, we aren't specifically told there were specific instructions for the sacrifice, but apparently there were because God did not accept Cain's and Cain is told that God did not accept his sacrifice because he did not follow what was ordained. Very similar situation here in a lot of ways.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:39:16 AM »

Tomorrow, we get to the worst section of the entire Bible: the section which inspired my misguided Father to ban pork products from our house until I was in my late teens.

bosk1 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:41:38 AM »

Well, but if tomorrow's passage was the inspiration, surely he still let you eat grasshoppers, so it was a wash, right?

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:42:43 AM »

I have been reading, just not commenting.

bosk1 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:44:12 AM »

Off topic. We're talking about eating pigs and bugs. Bant!

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:46:27 AM »

Quote from: bösk1 on February 03, 2011, 09:41:38 AM

Well, but if tomorrow's passage was the inspiration, surely he still let you eat grasshoppers, so it was a wash, right?

Actually, I didn't understand it back then, but I think I figured it out a couple years ago.

For my dad, it was a way of being an inconvenience to his in-laws, who always prepare ham at religious gatherings. He doesn't always get along with them very well. In his defense, the last time we ever went and had ham there it was undercooked and there were worms in it.

But... Bacon...

Hey, at least things are all good now!

bosk1 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2011, 09:50:07 AM »

I should also say that while I've known some pretty strict Jewish families, I am not currently aware of any that specifically banned the rock hyrax from their tables. Hmmm...

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #25 on:** February 04, 2011, 06:27:45 AM »

...And there we have it. As of Today,

Lobster, King Crab, and Bacon:

Instead, try some locust or cricket

bosk1 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 04, 2011, 07:14:15 AM »

Don't knock it til you've tried it, bro.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:36:52 AM »

Cricket is an awful game.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2011, 08:17:39 PM »

It's interesting to see how the sexual mores of the ancient Hebrews are more or less the same that people follow today.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2011, 06:59:55 AM »

Today:

Holidays FTW

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:35:38 AM »

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2011, 07:54:26 AM »

Read today and tomorrow's reading because I was feeling extra patient today. And now I'm out of Leviticus!!! Woot!!!

I loved the Penalties of Disobedience. It's like, after all that skimming and barely paying attention you get to THAT part, and it's like, "Uhm, wait, what? What are the rules again? Suddenly I feel like I should have been paying more attention!"

Anyway, like I said, I'm done Leviticus now. I'm so happy about that.

And then I remembered we have Numbers next...

UGH

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:00:16 AM »

Nah, I'm psyched about Numbers. Because it isn't Leviticus.

Adami · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:10:30 AM »

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on February 09, 2011, 10:00:16 AM

I'm psyched about Numbers.

Be careful, I know someone who'd love to sig this.

bosk1 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:43:51 AM »

Yeah, there's a lot of good stuff about Numbers. And, yeah, one of the most significant events in the book is the one that also makes for the most tedious reading: teh numbering of hte people before they set out for the promised land. But aside from that, the book really should have been called "Complaints." You get all the complaints from the people that ultimately caused God to deny the first generation access to the promised land.

News: Track-by-track video for Paralyzed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd5TbGbalPs&feature=youtu.be

Author Topic: Bible in a Year! v. February (Read 5786 times)