A skeptic's Bible study - IMPORTANT UPDATE! See first post.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

Please stop making multiple posts in my thread. I ask also that you stop addressing Genesis 1, as it has already been a week. Read my rules, or I will put you on ignore. You are more than welcome to offer your input after I post up Genesis 2 on the first page.

question

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

question

You posted three times, all in separate posts. Please post all of your thoughts in a single post. In my first post, I said after a week has passed, any discussion on that chapter will cease. It has been a week already and I'm currently writing my thoughts on Genesis 2. You can participate if you want. You can challenge my comments if you want, too. Everyone is permitted to post, but for now, please wait until I get this second chapter up. It will be on the first post of the first page.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

question

You posted three times, all in separate posts. Please post all of your thoughts in a single post. In my first post, I said after a week has passed, any discussion on that chapter will cease. It has been a week already and I'm currently writing my thoughts on Genesis 2. You can participate if you want. You can challenge my comments if you want, too. Everyone is permitted to post, but for now, please wait until I get this second chapter up. It will be on the first post of the first page.

will you make it an attempt to actually make biblical sense, or are you just going to continue to ramble without thought of how to actually read the bible?

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

will you make it an attempt to actually make biblical sense, or are you just going to continue to ramble without thought of how to actually read the bible?

Let's see. I've read the entire Bible four times, spent countless hours in an eight year span of studying Christian theology with a bit of Jewish theology and the ancient Near East. If you want to make personal attacks, feel free. Just don't be surprised when you're placed on my ignore list.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

will you make it an attempt to actually make biblical sense, or are you just going to continue to ramble without thought of how to actually read the bible?

Let's see. I've read the entire Bible four times, spent countless hours in an eight year span of studying Christian theology with a bit of Jewish theology and the ancient Near East. If you want to make personal attacks, feel free. Just don't be surprised when you're placed on my ignore list.

Cross References, cross references, cross references.

You have none.

The bible is a living book. Most everything has a direct correlation to the gospel. Lots of things in the old testament are answered with the new testament. Lots of things don't make sense in the old testament without the new; and vise-versa.

You are in the extended discussion, and you are refusing to answer the biblical answers to questions that you never even knew were the answers, because you are saying that you're supposed to have some link to chapter two that you don't have? Brother, that's embarassing and cowardly. You put me on an ignore list, and you'll be even more of a coward.

[Ariel Yardena Davidson]

In regards to the tree of knowledge, one could readily look at myths like Prometheus who brought the knowledge that the gods felt belonged exclusively to them. It may be that the mentality of Yahweh/God being a particularly possessive type persisted even into the early stages of the stories that evolved into the Bible - possessive even of the secret knowledge that indicates things like sciences, morality, and such.

However, that might be going a little much into the 3rd chapter so I'll wait until next week.

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

I'm going to try and answer some misconceptions.

The question of Light (in Genesis 1:3) is answered in (the first five verses of) John chapter 1.

Jesus, the son of God, who is God, was the light. There is no source of light at the time other than Jesus.

...which would make sense, if not for the fact that the two texts in question were written centuries apart from one another, by members of entirely different cultures and beliefs. Hells, John reads as though its author had separate beliefs from the other Gospel authors in and of itself, but I digress.

Assuming that the Priestly authors of Genesis 1 were talking about Jesus when he hadn't even been conceptualized yet is a case of shoehorning him into the material at best, and stubborn cognitive dissonance at worst. Either way, when you look at the history of how and when the Bible was written, it doesn't make sense to suggest that this is the case.

LoveLoud837

The idea (in Genesis 1:2) is that God is creating energy. The moving is well translated as 'vibrating,' God is manually moving, and vibrating, and creating the energy for the entire Universe.

...More like it's a convenient translation, and one that's not strictly accurate to boot. The word (merahepet) is only found in the verse in question, and refers to movement - specifically the soaring or floating kind.

There are two other instances of words with the same root (rahap) in the Bible. One (yerahap) is found in Deuteronomy 32:11, which speaks of an eagle spreading its wings and hovering over the hatchlings in its nest. (Here we see a very similar use to what we have in Genesis 1:2.)

The other (rahapu) is Jeremiah 23:9 which speaks of the bones of prophet Jeremiah's bones trembling in sorrow (as well as his heart breaking and generally feeling sick). The latter is the source of the Creation Science assertion that the word means 'to vibrate', but they ignore the prefixes and suffixes that define what the word actually means in doing so. It's basically their definitional apologetics method put to a different task.

LoveLoud837

(Genesis 1:6-8 ) is referring to a 'water veil' that contained the surrounded the Earth until the flood of Noah ... The water veil's existence is supported by science --

Yeah, no. I'm just going to stop you right there, because it most certainly is not supported by science.

You're actually right about such a canopy creating more pressure on Earth, but you have grievously understated how much it would have had to be. If a canopy of more than 40 feet of water were suspended above Earth, atmospheric pressure would skyrocket to 64 times the norm; nitrogen and oxygen would reach toxic levels, causing worldwide DCS.

You were also right in saying that the Earth would have been warmer, but once again you fall far short of understanding how much. The only conditions under which such a massive amount of vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't condense and fall as rain would require a minimum surface temperature of 212°F/100°C at sea level. Combine this with the aforementioned air pressure and we'd have Noah et al living in a 13,000psi pressure cooker.

Fortunately for all those doomed people, though, the mandatory thickness of this theoretical canopy would have blocked a great deal of sunlight, meaning that the Earth's surface temperature would have been significantly lower, precluding such temperatures from being reached. This however, is rather bad for the theory of course, since its debunked by itself yet again, showing that the Canopy Theory... wait for it... doesn't hold water.

LoveLoud837

It gives an explanation to cave drawings of dinosaurs...

To my knowledge there have never been cave paintings featuring dinosaurs... which makes a lot of sense considering that they lived 65 million years ago, and proto-humans first appeared some 59 million years after that.

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

Cross References, cross references, cross references.
You have none.

The bible is a living book. Most everything has a direct correlation to the gospel. Lots of things in the old testament are answered with the new testament. Lots of things don't make sense in the old testament without the new; and vise-versa.

You are in the extended discussion, and you are refusing to answer the biblical answers to questions that you never even knew were the answers, because you are saying that you're supposed to have some link to chapter two that you don't have? Brother, that's embarassing and cowardly. You put me on an ignore list, and you'll be even more of a coward.

If by cross reference you mean citing other verses in the Bible pertinent to the one being spoken of, I have, actually. However, I have not introduced things like John 1:1 to Gen. 1:1 because that's a later interpretation only accepted by certain Jews of that time and by Christians of today.

I also do not think the Bible is a living book like you do. It's simply an anthology and I will treat it like how I would treat Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Myth of Etana, &c. I don't buy into the idea that the Tanakh doesn't make sense without the New Testament.

You didn't present any questions to me that I should feel the need to answer them. However, I have a guideline that I'd like for everyone to follow. That includes you. If you think that ignoring you for not following the guideline I set up makes me a coward, so be it. Please remain on topic and address my content if you want. I am on Gen. 2 for this week. Gen. 1 is no longer the topic of discussion and Gen. 3 will be a week from now.

In other words, STAY ON TOPIC AND DON'T DIVERT FROM GEN. 2. If you want to cross reference the New Testament, go ahead. Don't be surprised if anyone points on why that is incorrect.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

Cross References, cross references, cross references.
You have none.

The bible is a living book. Most everything has a direct correlation to the gospel. Lots of things in the old testament are answered with the new testament. Lots of things don't make sense in the old testament without the new; and vise-versa.

You are in the extended discussion, and you are refusing to answer the biblical answers to questions that you never even knew were the answers, because you are saying that you're supposed to have some link to chapter two that you don't have? Brother, that's embarassing and cowardly. You put me on an ignore list, and you'll be even more of a coward.

If by cross reference you mean citing other verses in the Bible pertinent to the one being spoken of, I have, actually. However, I have not introduced things like John 1:1 to Gen. 1:1 because that's a later interpretation only accepted by certain Jews of that time and by Christians of today.

I also do not think the Bible is a living book like you do. It's simply an anthology and I will treat it like how I would treat Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Myth of Etana, &c. I don't buy into the idea that the Tanakh doesn't make sense without the New Testament.

You didn't present any questions to me that I should feel the need to answer them. However, I have a guideline that I'd like for everyone to follow. That includes you. If you think that ignoring you for not following the guideline I set up makes me a coward, so be it. Please remain on topic and address my content if you want. I am on Gen. 2 for this week. Gen. 1 is no longer the topic of discussion and Gen. 3 will be a week from now.

In other words, STAY ON TOPIC AND DON'T DIVERT FROM GEN. 2. If you want to cross reference the New Testament, go ahead. Don't be surprised if anyone points on why that is incorrect.

WHERE IS GENESIS 2?!?!? You wanna say I made rules for this forum, then YOU FOLLOW THEM AND POST YOUR CRAP.

[Ariel Yardena Davidson]

LoveLoud837

WHERE IS GENESIS 2?!?!? You wanna say I made rules for this forum, then YOU FOLLOW THEM AND POST YOUR CRAP.

Dude.

First post.

Chillax your bajongas.

[Arcoon Effox]

LoveLoud837

Cross References, cross references, cross references.

You have none.

Actually he does; remember when he was talking about the Firmament, and referenced the Babel story? Or how this week he references 1 Kings?

Anyway, as I said before, different books of the Bible were written by different cultures, each with different interpretations of God. For instance, the version of Genesis you're familiar with is composed of works from something like four different sources. Google it.

LoveLoud837

The bible is a living book.

Like the Monster Book of Monsters?

LoveLoud837

Most everything has a direct correlation to the gospel. Lots of things in the old testament are answered with the new testament. Lots of things don't make sense in the old testament without the new; and vise-versa.

Only from an Evangelical point of view, and most of that is just shoehorning. (Remember that talk we had about prophecies in your thread about Cyrus...?)

Jews still read the Tanakh without the OT, and they don't think that their holy book is "missing" anything, or doesn't make sense. Furthermore, don't Mormons make the same claim - that without the Book of Mormon, the Bible is incomplete or corrupted, and doesn't make sense?

LoveLoud837

You are in the extended discussion, and you are refusing to answer the biblical answers to questions that you never even knew were the answers, because you are saying that you're supposed to have some link to chapter two that you don't have?

Check the first post, dipshit.

LoveLoud837

Brother, that's embarassing and cowardly. You put me on an ignore list, and you'll be even more of a coward.

...but no matter what you say, your baseless assertions will still be founded in cognitive dissonance.

[Arcoon Effox]

Keep up the good work, Mea, and don't let the idiots get you down.

Do you plan to talk about the histories of Genesis 1 & 2 (specifically about the differences between the Elohist and Jahwist philosophies on God, and how they were written hundreds of years apart) and how Genesis 2 is actually the older account, or are you just focusing on a verse-by-verse analysis & commentary?

[Ariel Yardena Davidson]

I think it'd be more accurate to say Genesis 1-3 (or about half of chapter 3) for the "histories," and you are right to say that the second creation story is actually the older take (it's more anthropomorphic than the qualities given to God in chapter 1).

That there are two creation stories, however, kinda irks me now that I think of it.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Arcoon Effox

Keep up the good work, Mea, and don't let the idiots get you down.
Do you plan to talk about the histories of Genesis 1 & 2 (specifically about the differences between the Elohist and Jahwist philosophies on God, and how they were written hundreds of years apart) and how Genesis 2 is actually the older account, or are you just focusing on a verse-by-verse analysis & commentary?

I'm not sure about the Elohist and Jahwist differences and redactions. To be honest, I'm not all that familiar with it. In fact, you seem pretty knowledgeable about these things more than me. I didn't become aware of the documentary hypothesis (DH) up until I was nearing my removal from the Christian faith.

I know there are criticisms of DH, but even with these criticisms to support the idea that there was one author, Moses, I find myself disagreeing with this as well and settling for the idea that there were redactions. I'm not certain how to approach it. I apologize if my comments on verses for each chapter aren't as fulfilling as one might hope. I suppose this is why I offer differing views and discussion.

[Arcoon Effox]

Mea quidem sententia

I apologize if my comments on verses for each chapter aren't as fulfilling as one might hope.

Oh, no no no, it's nothing like that! I was just curious...

In any case, if you or anyone else is interested, the jist of it is that the Torah/Pentateuch is most likely derived from four sources, and differences between them are of stylistic, philosophical, and even spiritual nature.

Yahwist (J): hypothetically written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
Elohist (E): hypothetically written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
Deuteronomist (D): hypothetically written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
Priestly (P): hypothetically written c. 500 BCE by Jewish priests in exile in Babylon.

While the hypothesis has been critiqued and challenged by other models, especially in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the composite nature and origins of the Torah and Bible compilation in general.

Concerning the verses at hand: Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by the Priestly Source, and chronologically were written last. Starting with the next verse and going into chapter 3, it switches into the Yahwist Source, which partially explains the contradictions with chapter 1 involving when plants and Man were made, and shows us a God interacting physically with his creation instead of just 'poofing' things into existence. There's a good article about this here.

BTW, about that whole "Moses wrote the first 5 books" thing: I disagree with it, too, simply because Deut 34 has Moses dying, being buried, and Joshua taking over. I've never really understood how people think he wrote the books. I mean, what, did he write about his own mourning period in advance, or something...?