solid_squid ([info]solid_squid) wrote in [info]antitheism,
So last week I was visiting family, and we ended up in a... "debate" on religion, where the family was pretty much split down the middle between athiest and theist (I'm lucky enough to have an open minded family on this subject) which was pretty much one side quoting Dawkins et al and the other disagreeing. While it was somewhat one sided, the arguement reminded me of something that had been bugging me: while I was happy to disagree with the Bible, I hadn't actually read the thing. As such, I've begun to address this lack of intellectual rigour by actually studying the Bible, keeping notes in the margin of questions and such(or the bottom of the page where I ran out of space)

Having now gotten up to Genesis 20 and deciding I'd had enough bible reading for today, I figured some people here might be interested and thought I'd write it up. Using the "Good News Bible" as my reference, but also using biblegateway.com to cross reference any passages that seem like they might be re-worded to check for major changes since KJV


Genesis 1:1 - Interestingly for those who try to match up the bible with science, there isn't actually any defined time frame before God creates light. In the literal sense this doesn't make any difference, but for those who see it as a metaphor it means that the earth could have existed for millenia before this (I've heard mention of volcanic ash filling the sky and blocking the sun as one explanation for this)

Genesis 1:7 - "So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it. He named the dome "sky". Obviously this is where some of the fundie claims of there being a "canopy" of sorts which held the water that became the flood.

Genesis 1:9 - "Let the water below the sky come together in one place so that the land will appear". According to continental drift theory, this completely tosses out the idea of a 6000 year old planet. After all, the only time when you could consider there being a single body of water is when pangaea existed, which was several million years ago. Also, this "single place" where water is kept is worth remembering for some of the later passages

Genesis 1:16 - "So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night". Interesting, since without a sun there could be no "days", yet we are already on to the fourth day according to the bible. Also the moon is a reflector, not a light source

Genesis 1:26/27 - "And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us" vs "So God created human beings, making them like himself". Interesting switch from the plural to the singular there in the pronouns. As I understand it this is because Judaism used to be polytheistic but lost the other deities over the years.

Genesis 2:6 - "But water would come up from beneath the surface and water the ground". This is the same water that was all moved to a single location on the earth earlier, but somehow is also underground. The underground and above ground water idea is confirmed during the account of the flood

Slightly out of sequence here. This is the point when there is the second account of creation that shows a different order, so it'll refer back to earlier passages

Genesis 2:5 - "There were no plants on the earth and no seeds had sprouted"
Genesis 2:7 - "The the Lord god took some soil from the ground and formed a man out of it"
Genesis 2:8 - "Then the Lord god planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he had formed"
Genesis 2:18 - "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him. So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them"

This is contrasting against the timeline earlier in Genesis

Genesis 1:11 - "The he commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit"
Genesis 1:24 - "Then God commanded "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life"
Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said "And now we will make human beings""

Now, this isn't a case of one being a summary and the other being the detail as some theists have claimed. While it's true that the second account of creation doesn't list the days when things happened, it does claim that the creation of animals was a response to the creation of humans, where as the first account has animals created on the fifth and sixth day, man being created last on the sixth day.

Genesis 2:10 - "A stream flowed through Eden and watered the garden; beyond Eden it devided into four rivers" But all water is in a single place, as that was what God commanded. Right.

Genesis 2:17 - "You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do you will die the same day" Interesting, so God is lying about what the tree will do to try and discourage Eve rather than just commanding it. This is worth remembering for later

Genesis 2:20 - "So the man named all the birds and all the animals; but not one of them was a suitable companion to help him" And we have our first case of God being fallible. He created the animals as a companion to Adam, but they weren't suitable for this purpose

Genesis 3:4 - "The snake replied, "That's not true; you will not die. God said that, because he knows that when you eat it you will be like God and know what is good and bad." So, the serpent that is so hated in Christian mythology is actually the one which is honest with Eve, not the "deceiver" as it is so often depicted. Also worth noting, the tree is, according to the bible, where mankind learned the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, not God. Worth pointing out if anyone claims athiests can't be moral without God.

Genesis 3:13 - "The Lord God asked the woman, "Why did you do this?" She replied, "The snake tricked me into eating it" Ah, so here is where the idea of the snake being a "deceiver" comes from. Despite her newly discovered knowledge of right and wrong Eve lies to God and, strangely, God doesn't even comment on it.

Genesis 3:16 - "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth" So much for pain in childbirth being a punishment for disobeying, that was already there, he just increased it. Interestingly this suggests a design flaw, which again suggests a certain lack of the perfection God is usually thought to have

Genesis 3:18 - "and you will have to eat wild plants" until your son, Cain, invents farming that is

Genesis 3:22 - "The the Lord God said, "Now the man has become like one of us and has knowledge of what is good and what is bad. He must not be allowed to take fruit from the tree that gives life, eat it and live for ever. So the Lord God sent him out of Eden" Ah, here we have it, the reason for the expulsion from Eden. Not disobeying, that was outlined in Genesis 3:14-3:21. Rather, he sends them away because they have attained one of God's abilities, and either he is too jealous or too afraid of what they might become

Skipping ahead a little, I'm going to finish with the tower of Babylon as it provides some clarification on which of these it might have been

Genesis 11:6 - "Now then, these are all one people and they speak one language; this is just the beginning of what they are going to do. Soon they will be able to do anything they want! Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand one another" Interesting. So we have another example of God seeing humanity's potential and doing what he can to thwart it. Not exactly a father figure, is it? Rather, he seems like someone who is afraid of this group of humans being too united, as they could match or even surpass God.

Not surprising, I suppose, when you consider they were doing this in spite of God having cut their lifespan by a fifth already because he felt they were too close to being immortal (Genesis 6:3). Handicaps are supposed to be something that limits what you can do, but this shows how humanity pushes on boundaries on what they cannot do and, in fact, often aims to surpass the most difficult of goals first (moon landing anyone?)

I'm going to finish there, as this is getting long enough and leaving Eden is a good point to break off. It's definately not the end of the issues with the bible though, far from it.
 

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 23 comments

[info]dr_rendevous

April 19 2009, 07:43:57 UTC 3 years ago

Interesting choice on using the Good news Bible. It got a caught a lot of flack when it was introduced in the mid 60's for being a "watered down translation." remember when reading the creation account to always picture a flat earth, because that's what the Hebrew authors did. This helps when trying to conceptualize the Old Testament relationship between water and land. Genesis 11:6 is one of my all time favorite passages for the reasons you stated. The image of a god threatened with obsolescence mere paragraphs after creating mankind is just priceless. I've yet to hear a Christian do a decent job of explaining it.

[info]solid_squid

April 19 2009, 08:14:18 UTC 3 years ago

I did notice that when I read the part about Noah (saw his father naked instead of saw his father's nakedness). I mainly picked it because it was pocket sized and didn't cost >£20, since I'm planning on scribbling throughout it. Like I said though, when something seems like it's been overly modernized I use the net to check an earlier interpretation.

For now I'm going to look at a literal interpretation of the bible itself, an academic analysis of it's history and influences can be something for future consideration. Thanks for the reminder of the flat earth thing though, I'll also need to remember to consider the firament and see where that crops up

[info]solid_squid

April 19 2009, 08:27:17 UTC 3 years ago

Oh, and you're right, it is very amusing. In fact, if you read it from a certain point of view it's almost a comedy. It's like someone who is trying to chase mice out of their kitchen (leave eden, shorten lifespan, wipe em out, tower of babel), but every time they turn around the mice have gotten closer to the pantry

[info]i_am_lane

April 19 2009, 09:45:11 UTC 3 years ago

I've yet to hear a Christian do a decent job of explaining it.

I'm not a Christian, but...

There are actually two trees in the Garden which God forbids Adam and Eve to eat from. One is the tree of life, which grants immortality, and the other is the tree of wisdom, which grants knowledge of good and evil. Satan tempts Eve to eat from the latter, and God, speaking now to the angels/elohim, says that he must cast humans forth from the Garden lest they also eat from the tree of life and be given immortality akin to that of the spiritual beings. It's not that God fears obsolescence, but rather that man will not live his appointed years and die now that his nature has become corrupt.

[info]solid_squid

April 19 2009, 10:41:01 UTC 3 years ago

Actually no, it's only the fruit of knowledge God forbids, the fruit of life is only mentioned in passing. This is the one the serpent (not Satan) tempts Eve into eating by telling her the truth rather than lying and telling her it will kill her. So the issue can't be immortality, as that wasn't forbidden.

There also isn't any mention of corruption, it just says that Adam and Eve have "become like one of us" in that they know about good and evil. If there isn't a mention of corruption, and immortality wasn't originally forbidden, the only possibility left is that he doesn't want to have others who are on the same level as him for whatever reason.

[info]i_am_lane

April 19 2009, 11:13:36 UTC 3 years ago

I'm not saying the issue is immorality, or that there is any mention in the Bible of corruption. I'm talking about original sin. When man first sinned, he brought with himself death into the world, and through that, corruption of his soul. Eating the second fruit wouldn't give Man God's power; it would make Man immortal and thus his corruption (sin) could not pass from the earth.

I'm also not saying this has to make sense mind you. It's just the way it's been interpreted.

[info]dr_rendevous

April 19 2009, 13:58:16 UTC 3 years ago

But when you read the passages about the Tower of Babel, what, if not obsolescence, is God afraid of? There's no mention of sin, corruption or disobedience, only that people are working together and accomplishing things without relying on divine assistance. God admits as much to the angels (or whoever), "...Then, nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." The fact that this happens six pages after the creation account (NIV) shows (if you interpret literally like most fundamentalists do) what a disconnect God had with his creation and how quickly it all went south on him. This is why I say that Christianity has more trouble explaining these texts than Judaism. Because, to them, Christ is presumably around somewhere during all these Old Testament shenanigans. And if, 11 chapters into the Bible, mankind has outgrown the need for God, then presumably they won't need salvation later on.

[info]quakehead

April 19 2009, 07:45:39 UTC 3 years ago

Genesis 3:14

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.


All punishments fit for a snake, not Satan.

Also, the serpent/snake didn't go on his belly prior to this. Ain't that a thing?

[info]solid_squid

April 19 2009, 08:20:09 UTC 3 years ago

Re: Genesis 3:14

Damnit, you had to bring up the punishment of the serpent. After posting I realised I'd missed out the comment on 3:15

"Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring's heel"

But I like snakes! :(

Oh, and there's also spitting cobras which spray venom rather than injecting it and the entire family of boas which crush and choke instead of biting

[info]i_am_lane

April 19 2009, 09:32:56 UTC 3 years ago

Don't use GNB or the KJV. Go get a Revised Standard Version or the Anchor Bible.

Second, there are actually two contradictory "creation stories" in Genesis, one in chapter 1 and the other in Chapter 2.

Third, the evangelical Christian interpretation, especially as you see it in Protestant churches in the United States, is horribly theologically retarded. Catholics and most educated people in mainline denominations understand that Genesis is a codification of the oral history and mythology of the early Hebrew people. Yes, the Hebrews were... well, if not polytheistic, they certainly believed in a whole host of spiritual beings. The Old Testament and many of the non-canonical books of the Bible, as well as the Jewish commentaries, gnostic texts, and mystic texts follow up on these lines that didn't make it into orthodox Judaism and later Christianity.

The Hebrews also weren't something novel for the region. I think the mythologizing that a lot of evangelicals do confuses them on this point. It wasn't that these nifty little Hebrews were a single monotheistic tribe among a bunch of pagans. No, all of the religions in the Levant bear structural and linguistic similarities to Babylonian and Sumerian religions, which in turn resemble in certain ways Egyptian religions. This makes sense, anthropologically, as we expect to see some division between language groups and greater division as groups become culturally isolated. The emerging Hebrew religion thus formed and reformed in opposition to many of these other religions as well.

The long and short of it is that you're not going to find a document very unified in structure, style, theme or message when looking at the Bible.

[info]solid_squid

April 19 2009, 10:46:18 UTC 3 years ago

What's special about those two over other bibles? Is there really that much of a difference in interpretation?

Yes, I commented on both in the post. One lists animals as being created before man, the other as a response to the creation of man

As I said to dr_rendevous, I'm first going to study the book first and the outlaying texts and academic research afterwards. The Bible is usually described as being the basis of Christianity, so if this is true then studying it should be able to give me a more in depth idea of the faith (or not, which is in itself something learned)

[info]dr_rendevous

April 19 2009, 13:14:33 UTC 3 years ago

Actually, for the kind of analysis you're doing, the Good News is perfectly accessible. It's sort of a "safe for young minds" translation, especially when it gets around to describing gory sacrifices and sexual debaucheries, which the Old Testament has plenty of. Also, brace yourself for a lot of tedious genealogy and obsession to detail. God was apparently anal about how things were built, Hygiene, sacrificial rights, etc. And, oh those nutty prophets! I look forward to your insights.

[info]greymalkini

April 19 2009, 11:56:33 UTC 3 years ago

A place to help:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The forums have a good x-ian apologist on them

[info]hatter23

April 22 2009, 13:38:49 UTC 3 years ago

I think you evaluation of the word "good" being before "x-ain apologist" is a bit of a stretch.

[info]theonides

April 19 2009, 15:18:20 UTC 3 years ago

I have been doing something similar on long trips for a couple years making audio notes on my cell phone listening to the bible on CD. I've gotten up to Chronicles now. Listening on CD has advantages. I can listen to it on long trips instead of trying vainly to avoid country music radio stations, for one thing. On the other hand, I can only refer to "that part where so-and-so did such-and-such" rather than specific verses. I still have notes to add from my last trip. I've been posting my thoughts at [info]inafoxhole. Probably clicking on the "bible" tag would call them up.

One day something that might be amusing is to retranslate one book of the Bible from Greek. I did the first couple lines of John a year or so ago for a debate my brother was having and I decided I didn't like the standard translation at all. It was sloppy to say the least and unsophisticated. For instance, "logos" can mean many more things besides "Word", and "Word" makes no sense in sentence. Reason or purpose make more sense. But to do the whole thing would take up far too much of my time if I wasn't getting paid for it.

[info]atroposmorta

April 19 2009, 20:07:18 UTC 3 years ago

You should read Asimov's Guide to the Bible.

[info]tualha

April 19 2009, 22:30:29 UTC 3 years ago

But why the Bible in particular? Don't you also disagree with the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Dao De Jing, the Avesta, Dianetics, etc. etc.? Seems you'd have an awful lot of reading to do.

[info]solid_squid

April 20 2009, 02:14:34 UTC 3 years ago

True enough, there's no way I could learn about all religions in the world. I guess I'm going with the Bible mainly because it's the belief system I actively decided *against* following, having been brought up Catholic. Long term I would like to read up on others, but I've decided the Bible was a good starting point

[info]satyrich

April 20 2009, 05:47:13 UTC 3 years ago

I choose the Bible as my primary source for reading and skepticism, too. Not only was it also the basis of the religion I was raised in, but it is the text that is cited by most of the religious folks in the US when they're trying to impose their morality on the society in which I live. Being able to quote the Bible back to them and undermine their arguments is generally more effective than just saying I don't believe in the Bible. for that reason, it always made more sense to me to focus on the Bible.

The Bible is also the source for Creationism, which is a direct threat to the educational system, environmentalism, etc.

Also, aside from the Qur'an, the Bible is the source of more bigotry, misogyny, and violence than any of the other texts you mention. Even though I realize that Hindus and other faiths have negative attributes--toward women, especially--I don't think they rely as heavily on their texts to justify those positions.

[info]gnomeyhead

April 20 2009, 04:33:57 UTC 3 years ago

Zomg this is awesome As I am planning on reading the entire bible soon, this is very helpful! Thanks for taking the time to write it up.

[info]rdmiller3

April 20 2009, 15:16:54 UTC 3 years ago

Although knowing some of the scriptures helps to point out the hypocrisy which is inevitable in scripture-based religion, it's not good for much else... and true believers will ignore the fact that you have pulled the rug out from under them.

My own father, an otherwise intelligent and reasonable man, came to the point where he asserted that if the scripture said so, then a king of Israel must have been 22 years old and 42 years old at the same time.* When confronted with blatant proof that the scripture is mathematically and logically inconsistent, he leapt off the deep end and claimed that divine logic is higher than worldly logic and can't be understood by our limited minds.

So confronting a believer with evidence to the contrary is often futile. They've already decided to believe and they've been told that it's a virtue to ignore their own doubts.

Don't bother reading scriptures in hopes of winning any debates. If you end up trying to show the flaws in their fairy tale, you have already been defeated because you're not talking about reality any more.

If you want to read scripture just to see what's in it, go ahead. But don't bother trying to use it against believers. Stick with reality instead. Everyone believes in reality. Even in times of crisis, most believers prefer the realities medicine and science over any scriptural promises.

-----------
*(King James Version and many manuscripts; King Ahaziah, 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2. Most scholars agree that "42" was a scribal error because that would place Ahaziah's birth two years earlier than the birth of his own father. This is a serious "mystery" for the KJV literalists.)

[info]hatter23

April 22 2009, 13:45:29 UTC 3 years ago

If you end up trying to show the flaws in their fairy tale, you have already been defeated because you're not talking about reality any more.

I disagree with this. When you are talking about the unprovable, yes you are right but when you are talking about thing like the different ways Judas died, and then draw parrells to the variations in Grimms Faire tales...the 1812 edition having different endings to "little Red Riding hood" I very much think you've won the debate. When collections of fairie tales will have contradictory version of the same story...and so does the bible, it reinforces how little validity the Bible has as a description of reality.

[info]orbitaldiamonds

September 11 2009, 03:36:43 UTC 2 years ago

Well done!

I added this to Sidetrackedery, the linkspam thing I do at my personal LJ. :)
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…