(October 17, 2018 at 9:16 am)Shell B Wrote: I don’t care what Christians believe. The book is their scripture. They can change it all they want to suit what they actually want to believe, but the proof of its faults actually lies in that disconnect.

It's not so much that they change scripture, because they don't.  What they do is alter their perceptions to fit their delusions through apologetic interpretation.

(October 17, 2018 at 8:13 am)SteveII Wrote: I'm just saying that your "Bible Study" is really "let's just read it". Hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegesis be damned! No wonder there is such a disconnect between what most atheists think Christians believe and what they actually believe. I have to thank you for making that clear to me. 

Recently, I had a discussion with my born again father concerning the Bible. Having been properly spoon-fed much of the Bible in my Catholic upbringing, I was able to easily carry on this conversation with him. But we ran into problems when I postulated that a certain verse might be interpreted different ways or brought historical contexts to bear on our conversation. In his Baptist bible study class, he was told that only a "plain reading" is a correct one, and that my approach was some kind of denial of Biblical authority.

That's right, Steve. It's not just atheists, but also large numbers of Christians who say "Hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegesis be damned!" And in regards to atheists... not all atheists say that. Bart Ehrman is a good example of one who doesn't.

Adam and Eve
Genesis 2:4-25

This is the second account of creation in Genesis. For a brief scholarly take on this account and the previous account of creation, see this post and this post. Me personally, I'm not worrying too much about the scholarly stuff here, as I just want to focus on what I think and feel about these passages as I summarize them.

In this passage, it seems like we are zooming in on what was the sixth day of Creation in Genesis 1 ... and maybe a few days before that as well (if you are the inerrantist type who sees no contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, that is). We have a verse stating that no plants had sprung up yet because rain had yet to fall and man was not yet available to "work the ground". Nevertheless, God made some streams emerge from the ground to water its surface. I'm not sure what exactly is being explained here in this myth, but it seems to me like rain was not a thing until the Flood occurred later on. Thus, the streams to do the watering work.

Then God formed man out of the dust and breathed life into him, and man became alive. So man was now available to take care of the plants and trees. God had planted a garden in Eden (proving he can do anything on his own regardless), and that is where God sent man to take care of it. In this garden of Eden, among many tress and plants, there were two very special trees: the not-so-familiar tree of life, and the very familiar and ominous tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The next part describes a river flowing out of Eden, which splits into four main branches: the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the well-known Euphrates. It also mentions other interesting tidbits, such as: the Pishon winding through the land of Havilah (known for its gold, onyx, and aromatic resin), the Gihon winding through the land of Cush, and the Tigris running along the east side of Ashur. Based on this set of information, some interested parties have speculated that Eden would've been somewhere in or near modern-day Iraq. Most likely no such thing, but interesting stuff nevertheless.

Back to God and man, God tells man he can eat from any tree in the garden ... any of them, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lest he die. Taken literally, this would mean God was not being completely honest with the guy. However, I can see a secondary meaning to this, which is deeper. Actually, I can interpret this in various non-literalist ways.

Examples:
If you're willing to take on the cruelty and suffering that is inevitable in this world, then time to shed this strong sense of security.
If you're ready to take on moral responsibility, time to lose your innocence and be held accountable for your actions.
If you're ready to be more than an animal, time to lose your pure "animality".

Of course, if you're an inerrantist, you could say that God was telling the truth because so long as man did not eat from that forbidden tree, he would remain immortal and never end up dying. And to bolster the inerrantist position, you could then also interpret it symbolically by saying that the verse refers to spiritual death as well. Once man was ready to disobey God, he would die a spiritual death due to the taint of sin. So both literal and allegorical interpretations can be simultaneously applied here by an inerrantist.

Now I do have a question about how this whole lack of knowledge of good and evil could warrant a just punishment at all, but I'll dwell on that more when we discuss the next chapter.

Moving on ...
The LORD God (by the way, this is the first account in which we see God referred to as the LORD or YHWH/YHVH, whereas in the previous one he was referred to as the plural Elohim, correct me if mistaken) realizes that man needed a partner. After all, you were made to socialize and connect with others and to love them just as this God [supposedly] loves you and looks forward to connecting with you.

So God brings all the wild animals, livestock, and birds to man, to see if any of them were suitable for him as a partner (I guess God didn't mind man indulging in bestiality back then), but none of them were suitable for him. This of course could've just been a way to introduce all these animals to their new lord, but it could also have helped make man realize that mating with these animals was not an option. Anyhow, man gives each kind a name, reinforcing his authority over them, but as none of them were worthy of his partnership, God had to think up another plan.

And what better plan than to form someone out of the same flesh as him? Who would be more suitable a partner then?

So God does some divine anesthetics on man, and during his sleep, ribs off one of his ribs (see what I did there?). And out of this rib, a curious but pleasing to the sight creature is formed.

Man sees this creature, and lording himself over her, grants her a name similar to his ... "woman". And why not? After all, she was made from his bone.

The second to last verse then informs us that this is why man and woman are to leave their daddies and mommies and become one with each another. This is why we don't like same sex couples. Sorry, Derek, but no gay marriage for you.

And the last verse is very interesting. Both Adam (hey, this name just popped up out of nowhere) and his wife were naked ... and they did not feel any shame. Just like the other animals.

Nice chapter, and a nice buildup for what's to come. Over to you, guys.

---

(October 17, 2018 at 9:25 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: That's right, Steve. It's not just atheists, but also large numbers of Christians who say "Hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegesis be damned!" And in regards to atheists... not all atheists say that. Bart Ehrman is a good example of one who doesn't.

Neither do I, by the way. Steve's just being a party pooper.

Steve, how about you provide us your analysis of the passage? Let's hear it.

(October 17, 2018 at 9:21 am)Kit Wrote:

(October 17, 2018 at 9:16 am)Shell B Wrote: I don’t care what Christians believe. The book is their scripture. They can change it all they want to suit what they actually want to believe, but the proof of its faults actually lies in that disconnect.

It's not so much that they change scripture, because they don't.  What they do is alter their perceptions to fit their delusions through apologetic interpretation.

That's what I meant. They perceive it any way that suits their already-established lifestyles.

(October 17, 2018 at 8:13 am)SteveII Wrote: I'm just saying that your "Bible Study" is really "let's just read it".

Exactly what so many Christians do.

Quote:Hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegesis be damned!

That's not what I ever said!

Quote:No wonder there is such a disconnect between what most atheists think Christians believe and what they actually believe. I have to thank you for making that clear to me.

Dude, I used to be an Evangelical Christian. I know a lot of Evangelical (and Protestant) Christians IRL. I know very well how they interpret Genesis. This is NOT an atheist thing.

And actually, I never ever argued I was against allegorical interpretations as being reasonable. This is just you mischaracterizing my position in order to serve your "atheists can't know anything about the bible if they disagree with me" narrative.

Quote:You didn't even discuss who might have written it and when.

It's a Bible study thread, that's all. Have you not ever been to a Bible study before?

Quote:How can you come to any conclusions whatsoever as to the meaning--BECAUSE in 100% of all cases of something written, the meaning the author intended and the context he which it was written is the most two most important pieces of the puzzle.

Exactly. How do allegorical interpretations account for that exactly? And what rules out literal interpretations of Genesis then? Don't say because Genesis 1 is poetry/hymn, it must therefore be allegory ... because that is terrible exegesis. Since you want a debate instead of just a fun relaxing Bible study thread, let's hear what you have to say.

(October 16, 2018 at 4:29 pm)Shell B Wrote: I got caught up on the very first line.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In doing so, he would have had to create the Sun. Well, then why isn't there any light until two lines later?

Heavens is not heaven/God's city. Heavens= everything in the sky
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...8064&t=KJV

(October 17, 2018 at 9:55 am)Shell B Wrote:

(October 17, 2018 at 9:21 am)Kit Wrote: It's not so much that they change scripture, because they don't.  What they do is alter their perceptions to fit their delusions through apologetic interpretation.

That's what I meant. They perceive it any way that suits their already-established lifestyles.

Fundie jesus.

Steve complains that we're not reading deeply enough into the background of the text. When we do, Drich comes along and complains we're ignoring the plain meaning of the text. And then when we do, along come Neo and Catholic Lady to tell us it's all symbolic and we should ignore the plain meaning of the text. You just can't win with these fuckheads.

I'm being somewhat facetious here, but only somewhat. If people needed to read the entire corpus of higher criticism prior to sitting down with the bible, the book would never get read. There is a place for moderation, as well as allowing that one doesn't have to be an expert in higher criticism to make valid observations about the text. Indeed, doing the former is something of an error in itself as much of the criticism that fundamentalists and evangelicals want to bring to examination of the bible itself rests upon assumptions and traditions which themselves are not necessarily rational or reasonable. In particular here we find an example of the intentionalist fallacy in that our reading of a text should be governed by some hypothetical mind reading of the original author, ignoring that many of these texts aren't the result of such authorial intention, and even where they were, they may not reflect the intentions of the actual author, God himself. So I agree that one should approach these texts with some intelligence if one wants to get the most they can out of the reading, but I disagree that there is anything wrong with a naive and plain meaning reading of the text. In sum, methinks the lady doth protest too much.

(I'd also add that, in practice, much of higher criticism is applied dogmatically without any real appreciation of the philosophical issues at play. So it's often the case that when people do attempt to bring higher criticism to the table, they do so in a way which undermines the usefulness of their doing so because they lack the philosophical acumen to place things in their proper context.)

(October 17, 2018 at 9:55 am)Shell B Wrote:

(October 17, 2018 at 9:21 am)Kit Wrote: It's not so much that they change scripture, because they don't.  What they do is alter their perceptions to fit their delusions through apologetic interpretation.

That's what I meant. They perceive it any way that suits their already-established lifestyles.

This. It pretty much sums up all of Christianity in one sentence.

(October 17, 2018 at 10:34 am)Drich Wrote:

(October 16, 2018 at 4:29 pm)Shell B Wrote: I got caught up on the very first line.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In doing so, he would have had to create the Sun. Well, then why isn't there any light until two lines later?

Heavens is not heaven/God's city. Heavens= everything in the sky
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...8064&t=KJV

Yeah, so my criticism stands.