Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I certainly agree that if such a thing does happen it isn't something that could be done overnight, it would be a significant undertaking to be sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can't imagine why...
Created:
Posted in:
I'm going to start up a hangout tonight at 8-9 EST. I am interested in talking about these "MEEP proposals" but if nobody that shows up really cares about that then I am open to just devolving into the usual tirade of dick jokes, CAH, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I disagree that voting no on 3 deters the mods from proposing amendments to the CoC. Due to the fact that MEEP proposals are begun by executive rather than legislative means such proposals cannot ever come up in the first place unless the mods allow it, which I do not think is very likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No it shouldn't, instead the CoC should be changed to be more liberal if you believe the content isn't too offensive or disgusting to be left on-site.
I agree with this, however since we currently do not have a MEEP proposal relating to such a change voting no on 3 seems to be the next best thing.
(This is not an official vote by me yet, just a comment)
Created:
You are clearly critiquing the text by referencing and comparing to things outside of the text.
Mentioning texts other than the Bible? That is what you don't like? Have you no self-awareness whatsoever? Please go back and re-read some of your own posts and compare them to what you just said here.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
As the great [sic] Kent Hovind once said:
HoW cAN yOu cLaiM to kNow whAt haPPeNed MilLIons of yEARs agO?!?! WerE yoU THeRe?!?! HAHAHA PWNED!!!
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I asked why you, Mopac, described my commentary as being "critical". No priest of any church can answer that question. Only you can, because you are the one that did so and only you know why you did so.
Created:
I think the writers of Genesis had no interest in where the water came from or went to. From ch 1 v 1 the focus is on what yhWH does, not on how or why he does it. Those questions are nugatory because YHWH - it was supposed - is a god.
I think the what (genocide) and why (mankind becoming corrupt) are the main focus of the story, but the how (using waters from beyond the firmament and under the ground) is mentioned in passing as well, specifically in Genesis 7:11
You, keithprosser, are probably already familiar with the concept of firmament cosmology. For anyone reading this that is not however, a simple google image search of the word "firmament" and a reading of Genesis 1 should explain it sufficiently. A basic summary:
- Earth is relatively flat and held up on pillars in primordial waters
- Big transparent dome around the earth
- Huge body of water above this dome (explains why the sky is blue)
- Sun, moon, planets, etc. are relatively small and exist inside firmament dome
- Stars are attached to the underside of the dome.
So, using this cosmology outlined by the Bible (likely what the authors would have believed to be true) it is perfectly reasonable to think that a flood which could cover the whole world would be possible simply by taking in some more water.
Any lay Hebrew who had the balls to point out to the priests and scribes the logical flaws in their story would be asking for trouble! Deut 13:10 "thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God". Clearly it is not only Islam that commands death for apostasy!
Yes, that is true... I don't think it fully explains the situation though. They would be quite unlikely at first to point out the logical flaws of the story because they would not likely have seen the logical flaws. As time goes on and mankind's knowledge advances these flaws become more apparent, but in the beginning these people were largely ignorant of the world around them, not knowing that there was not enough water to cover the Earth because they believed in the firmament.
None of this of course is to say that I think the people of the time actually think that this happened, I have said on numerous occasions that I do not think these stories were intended to be read as historical documents, but it is internally consistent with their cosmology that such an event could have taken place physically.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Op claims to "just be readin" when really he's really making a critical commentary.
As I have said before, my reading is guided by the following principals:
1) I am not assuming the theology must be correct
2) I am not assuming the theology must be incorrect
3) I have no conclusion that I am trying to convince people of
None of this precludes me from making commentary on any of the stories.
I am curious as to why you call this specifically a "critical" commentary, however. So far the only moral judgement I recall making on any character was when I stated that Cain was "an asshole", something that I was under the impression that you agreed with me on. I have made no moral judgement on Noah or god in this OP, and have said nothing to indicate a dislike of the story itself.
Please explain the reason for your characterization of my commentary as "critical".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Christianity worships Lucifer. Jesus was Lucifer. Lucifer was not Satan. Satan is the god in the OT.
One right out of four is pretty bad, makes me think you only got the one out of pure chance.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Would you please be so kind as to provide all of the other stories for us as well. A list will do in the short term.
If you do want a simple list of ancient flood myths Wikipedia is a pretty good source:
Though I would recommend searching for other sites for a detailed account of any particular one due to the relatively small amount of information on the subject available on Wikipedia.
The more relevant of these tales in this case would be the ones that share the most similarities with the Genesis account and are located geographically near enough to the authors of said account that they would be likely to have encountered these stories such as the Gilgamesh flood myth of Mesopotamia, the Manu flood myth of India, etc.
Oh by the way - is it possible that there might have been an original flood story that has been copied by others?
That there was a single origin point for all the flood myths of the world seems unlikely due to the many differences in the stories and the geographical distances involved, though in the case of the stories that shared common themes, were recorded at roughly the same time (give or take just a few centuries) and were near enough geographically that the people of the cultures associated with said stories would have had contact with each other... Yes, in those cases what you describe seems quite likely.
Looking less specifically, such as the simple theme of flood in general, I think many flood myths may have had their beginnings with the fact that agriculture was so important to the people of those times and the effect that localized floods would have had on society as a result was drastic enough to inspire such stories. Furthermore, there is the idea that the fact that many early civilizations arose so soon after the end of the most recent ice age could have contributed to this. Global mass melting of huge amounts of ice would have raised sea levels significantly around the world.
Is there enough water on our planet to cover it? I honestly don't know.
In real life the answer is no, however as I will cover below in my reply to keithprosser such a thing is possible in the cosmology the Genesis authors would have thought to be true.
I am curious though as to whether you think the Genesis flood story was recorded as a literal account or a story created to convey a message.
Genocide is something that humans do. God gives and he takes away. Genocide is not something that can be attributed to an all knowing, all powerful God.
Sorry, that is objectively wrong. The simple definition of genocide is "kill lots of people". That is what happened in this story. It is a story of genocide.
Is it morally okay for God to commit genocide? that is a separate matter which I deliberately did not address in this OP. Notice how I did not once make any moral claims in the OP. That was very much intentional for a number of reasons.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
God could magic the water in and out of existence, but that would not be necessary in the cosmology of the firmament that the authors would have accepted as true.
More detail on this and other things in a few hours when I get off work.
Created:
It is an ancient tale told and retold in many mythologies for thousands of years. Mankind multiplies and spreads, mankind pisses off supernatural diety, supernatural diety saves a small portion of mankind while the rest get genocided by the primordial waters of creation and the world is made anew.
The biblical version of this story is the one we will be reading today, starting with Genesis 6 and 7. As always, please do read along. It is much more fun that way.
The story of Noah and the genocidal flood is another example of the popular culture versions of these stories differing from the story as told in the book itself. One example of this is the account of Noah being mocked by unbelievers over the course of the 100 years that it takes him to construct the ark. The Genesis account makes no mention of this or of any other human contact by Noah with anyone other than his family. However, we do know that this addition to the story is not a recent one due to the fact that it is found also in the Quran, making that addition to the story several hundreds of years old.
The biblical version of this story is the one we will be reading today, starting at Genesis 6. Mankind has existed for a long time now and according to the third verse they have grown far from god and their lives are limited to no longer than 120 years as a result. Therefore our story begins, with 500 year old Noah as the main character.
God notices that his creation is becoming corrupted and evil, not at all the way he hoped they would (I am not sure whether the authors of the Genesis account simply didn't realize how dumb that sounds given the idea of god as all-powerful and all-knowing, or whether they believed like the polytheists they stole the story from that their god was unimaginably super-powerful but not all-powerful) and decides that the best way to handle the situation is genocide. Noah is visited by god and given specific instructions on the construction of an ark to save his family and repopulate the world with after the genocide is complete.
Noah is then given specific instructions to bring two pairs of each unclean and seven pairs of each clean animal onto the ark. The characteristics that differentiate clean from unclean animals are not given until later in the bible, but presumably Noah would have known what these characteristics are. One hundred years later Noah finishes building the ark and the flood begins. Note that while the time between Noah entering the ark and Noah leaving the ark was about one year, the phrase "forty days and forty nights" is used to describe how long the rain that contributed to the flood lasted. Because this phrase is used so often in the Bible it is useful to note that at the time these stories were put to paper this phrase was used to mean "a log time" in a similar way to how people in the modern day might say something like "a minute' to refer not necessarily to an actual minute but instead to mean "a short time"
The flood that begins is able to cover the entire planet, because as mentioned before ancient people didn't understand a lot about cosmology and thought that the sky was blue because there was actual water held in the sky that could come down onto the Earth. So, with the ark complete and the genocide begun Noah and his family take what they can onto the ark and start their year-long wait for the flood waters to subside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We're going to come across other examples of un-brotherly behaviour between Esau and Jacob in chapters 26 and 27... in about 3 months time at this rate!
And to think that Jacob is the good guy in that story!
Sorry about the slow-going on the writting of the threads. They only take a few hours to make but between work and school I do not always have a lot of time for DART. If you are interested in turning this into a collaborative effort it may quicken the pace a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oral tradition attached by the church, then. That actually does answer my question. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I will agree and I think it goes without saying that a holy book advocating for sacrifices would not want people to give a lesser sacrifice than what they should give, whether the reasoning is because God wants it to be so or the priests want it to be so doesn't enter into it, I don't think.
It is clear that Cains sacrifice was insufficient. The question I think is whether that was due to any factor within his control.
Maybe Cain didn't to take out the yeast (we all now know God hates that yeast shit) or held back the ripest fruit, maybe he didn't give as much as he should have... but the (logical and probably correct) assumption that he was expected to give as good a sacrifice as he was able does not seem to account in the story for why Cains sacrifice was looked upon poorly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You will probably avoid this question but I will ask it anyway on the off chance that you won't because I am genuinely curious and would like to know more about this subject... Is that interpretation based on oral tradition your church attaches to the story, or additional scriptures adding to it? Either way, if that message isn't written in the book that I just read then the church is teaching from a modified version of the story compared to the one I happen to be reading.
I will grant you that the modification is slight and that the two versions are equally valuable, but if it doesn't say that in the book then it is a modification nonetheless. Your particular church may have additional scripture I am not aware of that adds official information onto the story, of course.
The Quran, for example, explicitly states that Cains sacrifice was not accepted because he lacked piety, adding also some other details such as how a raven was sent by Allah to show Cain how to bury his brothers body after the murder was done as well as perhaps a few other details.
As it is in the versions I am going off of, however, no such conclusion can be reasonably drawn if one uses just the words on the page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That... doesn't answer my question. That doesn't answer my question at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think I was aware of the practice of eating the sin sacrifice and if I was I forgot at some point.
Just out of curiosity... To my (admittedly limited) understanding the sin sacrifice spoken about in those verses was one of meat, are there any other types of sacrifice which required the priests to eat it rather than just burn it? for those rites that do require the sacrifice of crops rather than meat, do you know what was done with those crops? I always figured all sacrifices, meat and crop alike, were simply burned then disposed of.
I probably should have done some research on the topic before asking these questions but I didn't so please correct any incorrect assumptions I may have made. Hebrew sacrificial rites are not a topic I would call myself an expert on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When I say The Truth, I am refering to The Word of God,
Yeah, that's my point. I am asking why you don't just say that instead of trying to confuse the issue by using a word that already has a meaning assigned to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The only thing I said in this OP that I could see as maybe being interpreted as somewhat smartass-like is my description of Cain as "an asshole"
I stand by that description of Cain. He is, as portrayed in the Bible, an asshole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There is an implication that Abel offered was of the best ('fat potions of the firstborn')but Cain's offering was not necessarily of the best ('some of'). That might be what displeased God rather than the difference between meat and veg.
I think that is grasping a bit for a number of reasons. Even in that translation it seems rather thin - just based on the placement of a single word 'some' in the story - but also not all translations use that precise wording. Most do not in fact, and the YLT (Young's Literal Translation, which translates word for word without adjusting the grammar or syntax to make more sense in English) gives no indication that Cain was at all stingy with his sacrifices.(1)
After looking around for a bit, the word 'some' seems to appear in only in about half of the English versions (2)
Also before you mention it, yes I do realize the potential irony of my bringing up other versions after my stated stance on the subject last thread. However like I said even just saying that the use of the words 'some of' in that context indicates a stinginess in Cains offerings seems like reading into it a bit too much to me considering there is no other indication in the story that any difference existed between the offerings besides one being of meat and the other of plants. I do not think there is reason to draw that conclusion even if the word some appeared in all versions or we looked only at a version where it does.
Also Cain's worry that he might be killed is interesting - who is worried about?
The same thing occurred to me as I read it. Just seems to confirm what I have always thought, the stories of the Bible were never meant to be taken as literal history even by those that wrote them - at least not the stories of the old testament. I have never read cover to cover on the new testament so can't say for sure on those. Cains stated worry about revenge being taken on him is probably just a literary excuse for god to give him the Mark of Cain.
As for the wives, presumably Adam and Eve had a few daughters whose names were not worth recording due to them being female and all.
It seems to me the writers tacitly acknowledge a belief that other gods and other people existed. However as the scribes were writing a patriotic 'history' of the Hebrew they studiously and deliberately avoided mentioning them!
That is definitely something that will come up one day if I actually do keep doing these threads for long enough. Still not sure how I feel about it personally but I have heard that from a lot of people that have put a lot more time into studying this than I have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As I said several times before, I'm just just reading and talking about the Bible. I am not trying to prove any point.
Is that difficult for people to understand, or simply difficult for them to believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Clearly the words "Truth" and "truth" (yes, capital letters are the only difference, not a typo.) as you use them do not mean the same thing and are meant to represent two separate concepts, so why do you choose to confuse the matter by using the word "Truth" rather than something that more closely resembles what you actually mean?
Created:
Posted in:
The previous thread read Genesis 2-3, where we learned why snakes eat dirt, among other things. This thread will read Genesis 4-5, a heart-warming story about socioeconomic inequality and temptation. As before reading along is recommended, reading the stories themselves will probably take less time than reading this OP and finding a Bible online is not difficult at all.
In the beginning of the next story we meet the two main characters Cain and Abel, sons of Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel both work difficult labor to survive as part of gods curse punishing Adam in the previous chapter, Cain is described as a farmer and Abel a shepherd. The stories main conflict begins when the brothers both bring sacrifices to honor god. Being a farmer, Cain has only his crops to sacrifice and Abel has only his livestock, and both make offerings out of what they have. It is never stated what portion of their labors is given, so it can be assumed to be either roughly equal or not relevant to the story. Cains offerings are not found to be to gods liking, but Abels offerings are accepted.
Remember, the only difference between the two sacrifices is that one is of plant food and the other is of animal parts. The idea is that animal meat is simply better/more desirable than crops. Realizing this, the story starts to come together. The two brothers were born into their positions of farmer and shepherd, neither had any choice over that aspect of their lives. The two were not born equal because Abels position as shepherd is considered better. Cains natural response of anger and jealousy is something that I am sure many people that are not born rich in the modern day can relate to. God picks up on this right away and cautions Cain not to give in to his anger.
Cain however, being an asshole, does not take these words to heart. Instead he allows his jealousy to get the better of him and lures Abel into a field to be murdered. His punishment from God is to be banished, and he leaves to form the first city, the city Enoch in the land of Nod. I do not know if the people that made these stories originally intended it, but it makes a lot of sense that the first city would be founded by the descendants of the first agricultural specialist given how important the invention of agriculture was to actual founding of permanent settlements in the real world. I personally do not think that this is a coincidence, the original story tellers probably intended for that to be considered in the reading of the story, but it plays such an insignificant part of the narrative that I can't say for sure that is the case and it doesn't seem too relevant even if it is.
Chapter five is just a partial family tree. I did read it myself and do a little bit of research on the internet regarding it and apparently there are a lot of inconsistencies within when compared to other parts of the Bible, but as I have stated several times I am not really interested in talking about Bible contradictions because I don't think it is really fair to expect a bunch of bronze age nomads to keep their stories straight over the span of so many generations anyway. So, considering that and how boring chapter five is I am not going to cover it in detail. It just tells us how we get Noah from Adam, for any weirdo that happens to be a biblical literalist.
That is all for this OP, next thread will cover Noahs flood. Lots to talk about there, might even be a two-parter.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You are correct of course, which is the reason I was careful to specifically refer to a different concept of Satan from what the authors would have believed at the time, in this case I was referring to the concept of Satan as an independent entity who is an enemy of God. That is the concept of Satan that I was referring to in the OP:
the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan
As well as in post 51:
The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist.
You are correct about Satan being a concept that did exist at that time, albeit in a vastly different form from the Christian version. That is not the interpretation I was talking about (nor do I think it is what tradesecret meant based on context clues in his post), however looking back now I can certainly see how that may not be entirely clear since I devoted only a few words in each post to making the distinction so any misunderstandings as a result are naturally my fault and I apologize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No, that's... that's the point. It's not slipping, because it isn't something that anyone should give a damn either way about.
Created:
God takes a break from creating - not from working. How is it a contradiction?
I don't recall saying this was any sort of 'contradiction'... It was more of a literary critique, my exact words were...
"This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions"
The idea of this being Satan was drawn not from popular thinking but from the context of the rest of the bible as it was written and handed down over the years. I dare say that in its initial reading - the Hebrews probably knew no more about it than someone today reading it for the first time.
The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist. That is the reason it is not recorded as being Satan who tricked the first woman, it it is not because Genesis is placed in the same collection of stories that later mention Satan and people were expected to connect the dots. It is because the stories of Genesis existed for hundreds of years before the stories of Satan.
If your position is that the bible contains elements of language found in other books - then I agree with you. In other words, all cultures have stories and therefore it is not unusual to see the bible containing stories which have similar elements then we agree. If your point is that the bible has derived its stories from other cultures or that this similarity of language and elements somehow detract from its unique message and authority then I will need to you make your case.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am simply reading a book.
Anyone that wants to assume that it is fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.
Anyone that wants to assume that it is non-fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.
If reading the book from a non-presuppositionalist point of view leads to different conclusions than reading it from a presuppositionalist point of view that is not my problem. That is a problem for the presuppositionalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I guess I can't comment on that since I am a racist, misogynist, and literally genocidal, and who wants to listen to someone like that? I mean, I have been accused of such things over the years on DDO and here on DART anyway so it all must be true.
Created:
Posted in:
So Sam simply wasn't able to "offer a substantive defense"?
Yeah, let's not involve concepts like burden of proof...
On a debate site of all things...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I couldn't give less of a shit what hand you want to hear it through, speak to me that way one more time and you will learn to respect me.
AHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHA! Holy shit dude. I was worried that logging on to DART tonight would be a waste of time but that comment just made my fucking week. Thanks for the laugh man, God knows I needed it XD.
Who the hell even are you? XD.
Created:
Posted in:
It didn't. It was one tiny thing adding to it and was used to insult and refer to something that Zarro wants kept in the past.
If Wylteds story is accurate (I have heard the same exact narrative from multiple other sources btw) then it should not have been a thing at all. Sam did not doxx anyone. Period.
I am opposing him and saying 'no here is what Sam did'.
Besides vague and non-specific references to alleged 'calculated and directed abuse' you have not actually said anything that Sam did wrong at all. Where do I go to get a mods explanation for why this ban occurred rather than a random DART members opinion? I would like to hear this from the horses mouth rather than second or third hand through you.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Basically he tried to play the victim card by conflating me with past persecution in order to support his previous claims that you and I would be in favor of genociding people that disagree with us (see post 13, this thread) and I called him out on it. Now he is trying to backtrack without withdrawing the statements that I quoted in post 13.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Just to be clear, the part of my post that you quoted was me summarizing my interpretation of Mopacs position. I do not agree with the conclusion nor do I neccesisarily agree or disagree with the individual premises.
I do not think he was saying that I (a secularist) would support the creation of the modern state of Israel because it is a bad thing to do. I think he was saying that I (a secularist) would support the creation of the modern state of Israel and it is a bad thing to do, or at the very least that there were bad things done in the name of that goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Broadly speaking, religious people would stand for creationism
Objectively false, citation needed.
Created:
Though there have been and are governments that have adopted Orthodoxy as a state religion, the church has always, even in this situations, maintained that church and state should not be the same entity.
Okay... You made the claim in post 14 that I, Discipulus_Didicit, would be against that and that I would be in favor of the creation of the modern state of Israel. Nowhere in post 14 or 16 to you back that claim up.
I will once again request that you...
- back that claim up OR
- Withdraw it.
I am making my posts short and easy to read so that they will be easy for you to respond to. There is no need to dance around this point or any other.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think I follow this to a certain point. The creation of the modern state of Israel - half a century before I was even born - by people that were intimately familiar with modern interpretations of Biblical end-times prophecy and pushed for such interpretations to be a part of national foreign policy is something that is a very bad thing for a variety of reasons as well as something that I and other secularists would obviously support, therefore I would potentially be in favor of doing such a bad thing again.
I guess the only missing links are:
- Actual evidence that I would or should actually be in favor of religious beliefs having such a strong influence, or any influence at all in fact, on any sort of national policy.
- How this relates to me reading the Bible.
Please cite your sources on both points at your earliest convenience.
Created:
Just send us to the gas chambers, look the other way.
Whatever justifies you consenting to the genocide of my people.
Justifying in the minds of those who take us Christians as a disease that our beliefs need to be eradicated.
Umm... citation needed? How did a thread about reading the Bible turn into genociding Christians? I know that evangelical Christians tend to suffer from at least moderate persecution complex but this is a bit over the top even by what I am used to hearing, and I am used to hearing some really insane shit.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If you aren't trying to understand the faith, you are wasting your time.
This is debateart.com. Presuppositionalism is boring and runs completely counter to the spirit of the site's purpose. Please try to bring yourself to actually have a reasonable conversation.
Created:
This is not an attempt by you to understand the faith, it is simply a way for you to make pretense that you know better.
I am not trying to understand the faith OR prove any point (both of which have been stated previously). I am reading the book. Respond to the actual points on what I am saying about the book and we might have a useful conversation.
Created:
This is a follow-up to the previous thread with a similar title. In that thread the most contentious topic seemed to be what version of the Bible I should be reading. Specifically the KJV and NKJV were claimed to be objectively superior to the NIV. I have decided that we should all take this opportunity to perform a small experiment. Instead of stating which version I am now using, I'll simply say that it was randomly chosen from the three above (via rolling a six sided dice).
If I am right and the stories are essentially the same then my interpretation and commentary on the version I am reading should be indistinguishable from commentary on any other version I might read, in other words it will be hard to tell which version I am talking about unless I paste a direct quote from the text or some other dead giveaway. If I am wrong then the message from the different versions is different enough from each other that commentary on one cannot necessarily be applied to commentary on another and it will eventually become clear which version I am using as a source. I wouldn't expect it to be obvious right away even if they are different, but it should eventually. If I am wrong.
With that hopefully out of the way, we continue. Previously I read the first chapter of Genesis. God created the universe and everything in it in a suspiciously similar way to the creation stories existing in several other much older mythologies, all within six days. For this thread I will be reading Genesis 2-3.
The first thing in chapter two is Gods famous weekend break on the seventh day. Based on this the chapter seems to be a continuation of the story in the first chapter, but the very next thing that happens is the creation of all plant life, which of course happened already during the last chapter. If this is a retelling of the same story then I am curious as to why the first three verses of chapter two were not put instead at the end of chapter one. This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions and I would like if it was more clear in the book itself whether this is a review, a retelling, a continuation, or what. Today we can use the internet to instantly get information like that directly from people that spent their entire lifetimes studying this book, but it is not at all clear just from a basic reading of the actual text.
Anyway, God makes man out of some dust picked up from the ground and a rough geography lesson in regards to the location of the garden of Eden is given (bookmark this section for if we ever get a biblical literalist in here, they have a lot of explaining to do). Some foreshadowing of the fall is also included in verses 9 and 17 of chapter 2. I remember from the last time I read the Bible (and did not make it all the way through) that the authors do include lots of foreshadowing in many of their stories. In this case I think they did a pretty good job of it. They made it feel natural by working the creation of the trees of knowledge of good and evil and of life into the creation of the worlds overall vegetation so props to them on that. Someone just needs to teach them how chapters work.
I now think that we should take some time to talk about common understanding of the Bible and its stories. Regarding the story of the fall, the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan despite a plain reading of the text not lending any credibility to this interpretation. There are numerous examples of technically 'incorrect' elements in Bible stories being believed to be part of the narrative that actually aren't which I will point out as we get to them in this series. It is important to acknowledge these inconsistencies in a study of the book itself despite these ideas not coming directly from the book because this book is the basis of many beliefs, and a cursory understanding of the beliefs based around the book can help to understand the greater context of some of the later parts of the book.
The last thing I will touch on, because this OP is way too long already, is the way in which the stories resemble fables such as those used in some other mythologies, the basic summary of many of which being "Because ______ happened, that is why we now have ______." Compare for example the Native American fable explaining why bears have short tails and make groaning noises (http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/the-legend-of-how-the-bear-lost-his-tail/) to the various things that this story claims to explain, including:
- Modern agriculture (God created us for the purpose of maintaining vegetation)
- Why animal species have names (Adam named them)
- Why men and women leave their parents to get married and become "one flesh" (woman was created from mans flesh)
- Why people wear clothes (Adam and at-the-time nameless woman realize nudity is inherently bad after eating of the tree of good and evil)
- Why men perform physical labor to survive (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why childbirth is painful (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- Why serpents don't have legs (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
- etc.
Like I said this OP is getting way too long. I am going to close it here. Let the discussion begin.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, just spent several hours putting together the OP for part 2 only to lose everything I wrote just as I was almost done. Guess part 2 is going to have to wait for tonight or tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like the phrase "your truth", it reduces truth to something arbitrary.
I was simply referencing your quote from earlier:
"We don't mistake knowledge for truth."
Edit: the most commonly accepted definition of knowledge is "justified and true belief"... just in case there wasn't enough irony here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you are not really speaking from a position of knowledge.
Be careful not to let knowledge stand in the way of your truth. You taught me that earlier in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
https://hangouts.google.com/call/t2sSdazdF9UHko4PRRL8AEEE I guess. Hangouts is really dumb in the was they format their crap so it took a lot longer to figure that out than it should have.
Created:
Posted in:
idk how to start a hangouts call, only how to join.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think there is any good reason to believe the Lilith explanation, yeah. I don't believe it was ever a part of Genesis.
There is a distinction between the Genesis story and the Genesis book. The stories existed in oral tradition long before as well as alongside the various written versions of Genesis.
But like you say, in your denomination of the religion your scriptures are the canon and all you are concerned with. That is fine, I am actually pretty sure that is the case for most if not all denominations and their respective scriptures and I am not aware of any modern version where the Lilith story is canonized.
I am also fully aware of your objections to using any Protestant version and I think I have given adequate reason for why I am choosing to do so anyway. You consider your text to be more inspired and they consider theirs to be more inspired. I consider them to both be equally uninspired of course, but between the Protestants and the Orthodoxy the group with more influence over my daily life are the Protestants simply due to where on the planet I happen to have been born. Were I to live in an Orthodox majority country my default version would be to read Orthodox texts, but that isn't the case. All that being said I will take your suggestion as to which Protestant text to read under advisement going forward.
It would probably be better to assume that it was intended to be this way.
I think simply assuming something because it matches with your previous convictions is absurd and I think that under any context other than religion you would agree with me, but a more detailed conversation about reconciling the two Biblical narratives for creation can wait for my next Reading the Bible thread.
Created: