Let's Read the Bible Once

[Kaitzilla]

So you already quit?

Nono, not done yet!

I mean long ago, at times I've read Genesis, skimmed Exodus, glazed over a bit, flipped to Job at random, read Matthew, a few pages of Revelations, a Psalm or two and that's it.

I'm trying to read the whole thing now as deeply as possible, no skimming, front to back


Ya, Job is pretty hard to read. Poor guy.

 

[peter grimes]

Why would Jesus refer to a myth as if it were history? Jesus compares his second coming to the events of the flood, like how it would come as if no one knew like in the days of Noah, in spite of plenty of warning they had. Matthew 24:37-39

Stop being intellectually dishonest

The smart question is "Why does this version of 'the bible' contain a passage that might be interpreted to mean that the character Jesus may have referred to an earlier story in the same text as if it were historical fact?"

That question becomes even more pertinent when we look at what a flood of Noachian scale would actually mean, considering all that we know in fact from geology, planetary dynamics, hydrology, thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, optics (rainbows - what do they mean?!?), naval architecture, woodworking, animal husbandry, biology, and not least of all, psychology.

Each one of these disciplines bears on an aspect of your fable, and each and every one say that the story as told is not compatible with the way this universe works. That's the simple problem with simple readings leaving no wiggle room for anything but literal meanings. You're left with a paradox. Either all these branches of science are fundamentally wrong, or the story didn't happen the way a 3000 year old oral fable claims. And the thing about the sciences, is that we know these are essentially solid.

So I guess, in the end, you're right to question whether or not your god was lying when he said these things were true.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Day 4 - Genesis Chapter 16 to 20

Looks like The Covenant, Abram, and Lot again: (Abram gets a name change! )

Spoiler :

Chapter 16 - Sarai gave her Egyptian handmaiden Hagar to Abram so that he could finally have children since Sarai was not able. (Got her on that sojourn to Egypt?)

Once Hagar became pregnant, the handmaiden began to look upon Sarai with contempt. (Felt she was equal of Saria because of being co-wife? or even better than Sarai because she was giving Abram an heir?)

Sarai confronted Abram about the ill feeling and was granted permission to deal with Hagar however she liked. She dealt with her harshly. Hagar fled into the wilderness.

An Angel of the Lord (1st angel!) found her by a fountain of water called Beerlahairoi? in the wilderness on the way to Shur (She was running where? Home to Egypt?)
He told her to return to her mistress Sarai. That she would bear a son named Ishmael and that he would be a warlord/outcast? who dwelled in the presence of all his brethren. (Maybe a war hall full of fighters? hmm)

She returned home and birthed Ishmael for Abram when Abram was 86 years old.


Chapter 17 - 13 years later, God tells Abram many things. First, that he will make A Covenant (not Halo) with him that will last forever. Woot!

Abram shall be the father of many nations! His name shall now be Abraham.

God will be the god of Abraham and his descendants forever and they shall have the land of Canaan forever.

As a token of The Covenant, every man child that is 8 days old who is born or boughteek shall have their foreskin circumcised.

Every man child who is uncircumcised shall have his soul cut off from his people.

Sarai will now be called Sarah. huh?

Sarah will be blessed and have a son for Abraham also.

He will be called Isaac, and The Covenant will be with him and his descendants.

Ishmael will also be blessed and be the father of a great nation and have 12 princes. (But not The Covenant)

Every male in Abraham's household from himself to the youngest was circumcised that day.


Chapter 18 - Now once on the plains of Mamre, Abraham was in his tent with Sarah and saw God and 2 other men walking by. He ran out and said wait! Let me get you some food and water. God said ok and Abraham brought it out after a while.

God asked where Sarah was and was told in the tent. He said that he'd be back and that Sarah would have a son.

Sarah was still amazed since she and Abraham were old (99 and 90) and that such an old woman could have a child, but God reassured her.
(Wait, what happened to the 900 year old humans? *Flips back to Chapter 12*
Noah - 950 years
Shem - 600 years
Arphaxad - 438 years
Salah - 433 years
Eber - 464 years
Peleg - 239 years
Reu - 239 years
Serug - 230 years
Nahor - 148 years
Terah - 70 years (Named one of his kids Nahor? Weird that Nahor elder outlived both Nahor(grandson) and Terah.)
Abram - ???
Ok, spirit of God isn't walking with mankind anymore and the 120 year limit is in place. Abram Abraham is down to his last 21 years then )

God and the 2 others (who could they be?) were walking towards Sodom and God ponders whether to tell Abraham what he is doing. He decides yes and says he is going to judge Sodom and Gomorrah for their grievous sins.

The other 2 with God move on towards Sodom but Abraham stops God for a moment and begins to bargain with him and beg for forgiveness for his boldness.

God agrees to spare Sodom if there are 50 righteous men.
Then if there are 45 righteous men.
Then if there are 40.
Then if there are 30.
Then if there are 20.
Then if there are 10, the city will be spared.

Chapter 19 - 2 angels arrive at Sodom (Oh, the 2 men with God earlier yup)
Lot, Abraham's nephew who lives there still after being rescued from slavery, greets them at the gate.
He offers to house the angels for the night and they refuse, but he eventually persuades them to accept his hospitality.

After dinner, but before bedtime, a huge crowd forms outside and demands that Lot send out his guests so that the city can meet them.

Lot goes out and tells the crowd that he won't send the 2 men out because they are guests, but he will send out his 2 virgin daughters instead to do with as the crowd pleases. eek: What?!!)

The crowd declines (huh?) and tries to break into the house, but the angels pull Lot inside and blind the crowd so they can't find the door.

The angels tell Lot to get his family out of the city. Lot hurries to his 2 sons-in-law and tells them he is taking his wife and 2 daughters out of the city and they need to run because God is going to destroy Sodom. The 2 son-in-laws don't believe him.

Morning came and Lot and his 3 family members were told to get out now, but Lot lingered. The angels had mercy on him and deposited them outside the city directly.

They told him to flee the city and the plain it was on and head to the mountain to avoid destruction. And don't look back!

Lot convinced the angels that the mountain was too dangerous and instead fled to the tiny city of Zoar.

Sodom, Gomorrah, and the plain around them were destroyed by Brimstone and fire from heaven.

Lot's wife didn't make it. She turned around to watch Sodom and Gomorrah be destroyed and was turned into a pillar of salt.

Lot changed his mind about Zoar because it turned out to be dangerous after all and fled to a nearby cave in a mountain. (and yet he lived in Sodom all these years? Mr. almost a slave? Lot has terrible instincts!)

His daughters felt bad that Lot was old, a widower, and didn't have a male heir. They decided to get him drunk on wine and ...
ugh, they raped him while he was passed out!

It actually worked too 2 for 2
One daughter had a son named Moab who was the father of the Moabites
The other daughter had a son named Benammi who was the father of the Ammon.


Chapter 20 - Abraham sojourned south in Gerar between Kadesh and Shur (I think that Hagar fountain was near Kadesh and Shur. looked up, sojourn means short stay)

Once again Abraham said Sarah was his sister and the king of Gerar Abimelech took Sarah. (Why does he keep doing that?)

God visited Abimelech in a dream and said he was a dead man along with all his family if he didn't return Sarah to her husband the prophet Abraham.

Abimelech promptly summoned Abraham and demanded to know why the deception?

Abraham said that Sarah really was his sister. His father had fathered another child with a different woman than his mother. (So, half sister then )

He feared that those in Gerar didn't fear God and would kill him and take his wife. (Who must still be quite the looker even in old age ^.^)

Abimelech gave him back his wife and 1000 silver. God cured all the women in his family who had suddenly become barren/unable to have children anymore.

Sorry, not sure why these keep getting longer. "That's his lot in life" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[JollyRoger]

I hope we are keeping this book out of the hands of our children - some of the content is pretty twisted.

 

[Gucumatz]

Abimelech caught up in Abraham's deceits of course wouldn't be the only time when a 3rd party got caught up in fairly needless deceit. The fault on those, who were not at fault is always fascinating to read about in the OT

 

[El_Machinae]

Nono, not done yet!

I mean long ago, at times I've read Genesis, skimmed Exodus, glazed over a bit, flipped to Job at random, read Matthew, a few pages of Revelations, a Psalm or two and that's it.

I'm trying to read the whole thing now as deeply as possible, no skimming, front to back


Ya, Job is pretty hard to read. Poor guy.

I've tried to read Revelations a few times. Each time, I thought I would endeavour to maintain a coherent interpretation of what all the metaphors meant. It was hard

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ya, Job is pretty hard to read. Poor guy.

Job is hard to read, but it helps to realize it's a story instead of a historical account with a rather positive message. No matter how many hardships befall on the man, he stays true to his ideals and gets rewarded for it.

Job always has been for me a nice example how reading the Bible literally completely misses the point of the Bible. If you read the story as an historical event, there is no way to judge God as anything else but a childish little deity who is easily taunted and feels the need to prove himself at great expense of those he cares little about (in other words: us)

If you read it as intended, the simple message is: perseverance of noble ideals in the face of great hardship paying off.

 

[El_Machinae]

It contributes to the metaphysical theory in Christianity, too. In the OT, rewards from God were material. In the NT, rewards from God were spiritual. A sign of God's blessing in the OT was wealth, but not in the NT, where poverty was basically encouraged.

 

[timtofly]

Job is hard to read, but it helps to realize it's a story instead of a historical account with a rather positive message. No matter how many hardships befall on the man, he stays true to his ideals and gets rewarded for it.

Job always has been for me a nice example how reading the Bible literally completely misses the point of the Bible. If you read the story as an historical event, there is no way to judge God as anything else but a childish little deity who is easily taunted and feels the need to prove himself at great expense of those he cares little about (in other words: us)

If you read it as intended, the simple message is: perseverance of noble ideals in the face of great hardship paying off.

There is the slight problem that the pretend instigator still appears childish. It does not matter if it happened in real life or was just a story.

There is the point that God would condescend enough to even personalize how he interacts with humanity. The whole story may be inspirational, but how noble is one who believes in that which does not exist? There have been many who have never recovered after loosing things over and over and they remained true to their ideals. Where is the inspiration in that? There are stories of men who have rebuilt their lives just to end it all via suicide. Taking God totally out of the picture, just because he appears childish, does not make sense. Job's ideal was to trust God no matter what, even if God never gave him back that which was lost. Job was not trusting in his own ideals, since those are a dime a dozen, and there is really no historical example that human ideals are satisfactory and long lasting.

I am not trying to judge, but perahps humans should not judge God. We should just accept and move on. I am not ruling out that humans are unable to affect change, but there are some laws and aspects of existence that may not be changeable.

@ El_Machinae

I don't think that there is a real difference at all. The bottom line is to trust God for all material benefits. Job made it clear that only God gives us what we have. That God takes it away does not change. God did not ask job to give it up. In the NT he did ask people to give things up, but perhaps, people of the day had lost the concept that God gives us what we have. Most people were raised to keep the law of moses and pay tithes and offerings to the temple. Did the rich people of that day get rich because God gave them their riches or did they steal and cheat to get them? The rich young man was grieved to part with his riches. Job was not grieved, but acknowledged that God took them away. Saying that poverty was encouraged is missing out on the whole point of both Job and any follower of God.

 

[Tarquelne]

If you read the story as an historical event, there is no way to judge God as anything else but a childish little deity who is easily taunted and feels the need to prove himself at great expense of those he cares little about (in other words: us)

If you read it as an historical event that strongly implies - perhaps even requires - that the basic tools of historical analysis should apply. And *then* you get stuff like Satan being God's chief minister, not the Opposition.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is the slight problem that the pretend instigator still appears childish. It does not matter if it happened in real life or was just a story.

Of course it does.

As a story conveying a sentiment the fact that Satan is able to challenge God into a dare with one of his loyal followers and his friends and families' lives becomes irrelevant. As an historical event you cannot gloss over that as easily. Then you have to conclude that the only reason for God to ruin Job's live and slaughter so many of his friends and family is to show off to Satan.

Tell me, what difference does it make that Satan doesn't believe Job would be as pious if everything he loves would be taken away?

If you read it as an historical event that strongly implies - perhaps even requires - that the basic tools of historical analysis should apply. And *then* you get stuff like Satan being God's chief minister, not the Opposition.

Indeed. And a very powerful one at that.

 

[JollyRoger]

Job trusted God? It seems he spent a good deal of the book issuing sarcastic one liners. He was pretty bitter and God had to issue a bit of a smackdown to get Job back in line.

 

[peter grimes]

Job trusted God? It seems he spent a good deal of the book issuing sarcastic one liners. He was pretty bitter and God had to issue a bit of a smackdown to get Job back in line.

God as Mod?

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't think He is quite as vengeful and petty as that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Job always has been for me a nice example how reading the Bible literally completely misses the point of the Bible. If you read the story as an historical event, there is no way to judge God as anything else but a childish little deity who is easily taunted and feels the need to prove himself at great expense of those he cares little about (in other words: us)

If you read it as intended, the simple message is: perseverance of noble ideals in the face of great hardship paying off.

Why can't you get both out of it while not taking the Bible seriously, much less literally?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why can't you get both out of it while not taking the Bible seriously, much less literally?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[classical_hero]

Stop being intellectually dishonest

The smart question is "Why does this version of 'the bible' contain a passage that might be interpreted to mean that the character Jesus may have referred to an earlier story in the same text as if it were historical fact?"

That question becomes even more pertinent when we look at what a flood of Noachian scale would actually mean, considering all that we know in fact from geology, planetary dynamics, hydrology, thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, optics (rainbows - what do they mean?!?), naval architecture, woodworking, animal husbandry, biology, and not least of all, psychology.

Each one of these disciplines bears on an aspect of your fable, and each and every one say that the story as told is not compatible with the way this universe works. That's the simple problem with simple readings leaving no wiggle room for anything but literal meanings. You're left with a paradox. Either all these branches of science are fundamentally wrong, or the story didn't happen the way a 3000 year old oral fable claims. And the thing about the sciences, is that we know these are essentially solid.

So I guess, in the end, you're right to question whether or not your god was lying when he said these things were true.

It is pretty simple, when Jesus refers back to a person that is mentioned in the OT, then that person is real.

I will ask you what do you know about the Beijing anomaly?

 

[timtofly]

If you read it as an historical event that strongly implies - perhaps even requires - that the basic tools of historical analysis should apply. And *then* you get stuff like Satan being God's chief minister, not the Opposition.

Satan was created as God's CEO. If one takes satan as a literal being, he still is the most "powerful" created entity. There is nothing in the Bible that seems to contradict that point. Satan chose to be in opposition to God and God has allowed that.

Of course it does.

As a story conveying a sentiment the fact that Satan is able to challenge God into a dare with one of his loyal followers and his friends and families' lives becomes irrelevant. As an historical event you cannot gloss over that as easily. Then you have to conclude that the only reason for God to ruin Job's live and slaughter so many of his friends and family is to show off to Satan.

Tell me, what difference does it make that Satan doesn't believe Job would be as pious if everything he loves would be taken away?
Indeed. And a very powerful one at that.

If Job had cursed God and died, it would have been a non-story.

Job trusted God? It seems he spent a good deal of the book issuing sarcastic one liners. He was pretty bitter and God had to issue a bit of a smackdown to get Job back in line.

Trust is not obedience. Trust is just acknowledging God. One can acknowledge there is a God and be sarcastic, bitter, and even evil to a length. Even satan has to acknowledge God, but he does not have to do anything else. He can only oppose God to the point God allows, and being a created being, will never replace God. Trust is not even faith. One can have trust and no faith. Faith is obedience in action. One cannot even be obedient if one does not acknowledge God. If one does not acknowledge God, how would one know what to obey. Without God, the Bible would be just another book of inspirational or miserable stories. Now that may be just my opinion, since no one else seems to agree. Not that I am looking for agreement, my trust is not based on any other human, even my own thoughts on the matter, if that is possible. I choose to trust God, despite my own doubts.

 

[peter grimes]

It is pretty simple, when Jesus refers back to a person that is mentioned in the OT, then that person is real.

I will ask you what do you know about the Beijing anomaly?

No, I will ask YOU what you know about the Beijing anomaly - and what that might mean in relation to world oceanic volume.

Claiming that an amount of water roughly equal to the volume of the arctic ocean (~20,000,000 km^3) might raise global sea levels such that they cover mountains is COMPLETELY ABSURD.

The volume of the Pacific ocean - nearly 45% of earth's surface - is 660,000,000 km^3. The volume of your sweetheart is 1/300th of that. Do you even maths, bro?

You're proposing that a locally major but globally insignificant feature is responsible for what should be the most geologically important event since the formation of the entire planet, and it's is utterly dwarfed by the current volume of a static ocean.

Your theory, good sir, is garbage


Go back and do your homework.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is pretty simple, when Jesus refers back to a person that is mentioned in the OT, then that person is real.

Jesus is only quoted as having said something. Jesus is not like Paul. With Paul, we have (copies of) his original writings. With Jesus, it's secondhand, and we're not actually sure how secondhand. We do know that the authors of the gospels report on events that they could not have witnessed personally.

But, I agree with you. It's reasonable to assume that Jesus's knowledge of history is as credible as his insight into God.