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.
April 19 2009, 07:43:57 UTC 3 years ago
April 19 2009, 08:14:18 UTC 3 years ago
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
April 19 2009, 08:27:17 UTC 3 years ago
April 19 2009, 09:45:11 UTC 3 years ago
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.
April 19 2009, 10:41:01 UTC 3 years ago
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.
April 19 2009, 11:13:36 UTC 3 years ago
I'm also not saying this has to make sense mind you. It's just the way it's been interpreted.
April 19 2009, 13:58:16 UTC 3 years ago
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?
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
April 19 2009, 09:32:56 UTC 3 years ago
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.
April 19 2009, 10:46:18 UTC 3 years ago
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)
April 19 2009, 13:14:33 UTC 3 years ago
April 19 2009, 11:56:33 UTC 3 years ago
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The forums have a good x-ian apologist on them
April 22 2009, 13:38:49 UTC 3 years ago
April 19 2009, 15:18:20 UTC 3 years ago
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.
April 19 2009, 20:07:18 UTC 3 years ago
April 19 2009, 22:30:29 UTC 3 years ago
April 20 2009, 02:14:34 UTC 3 years ago
April 20 2009, 05:47:13 UTC 3 years ago
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.
April 20 2009, 04:33:57 UTC 3 years ago
April 20 2009, 15:16:54 UTC 3 years ago
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.)
April 22 2009, 13:45:29 UTC 3 years ago
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.
September 11 2009, 03:36:43 UTC 2 years ago
I added this to Sidetrackedery, the linkspam thing I do at my personal LJ. :)