Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Bucky Ball]

Under the Premise that this is a Bible study of Genesis,, what exactly are the assumptions here?

I thought we were discussing Jewish belief in an afterlife and a soul. I'm really done going over basic Jewish belief with you so you can watch this very simple description

The Hebrews, in the pre-Apoacalyptic period, did not believe in souls or individual immortality. 
There have been NO academic references provided about THAT PERIOD. I have provided a number of references from recognized scholars of THAT TIME, that demonstrate that.
Unfortunately for you, you are in no position to educate me about anything. I have an advanced degree in a related field.  
I know more about the Bible than any religionist. As Ehrnan says in the beginning chapter of "Jesus Interrupted", if the public actually knew what was taught in the academic centers and mainline seminaries about the Bible, they would be shocked, and what people in the ministry actually learn there, can't be repeated in the churches .. as they'd be tossed out.

YOU were actually arguing about Paul in this thread, thus YOU yourself went off topic.
The question is not what Paul or Peter thought about sin, but what the ANCIENT HEBREWS thought about sin, and where the concepts came from. They did not come from the Bible.
There WAS NO Bible then. The Bible was never the central organizing factor in Hebrew life and culture.

You were referencing Peter "2 Peter's author makes assumptions that Lot died forgiven because he knew of the forgiveness of Jesus and understood the time before the Law. There is no contradiction. If you see one please be specific. As it says in Romans All have sinned and fall short." ... and then you bitch at ME about not staying on topic.

In the topics that are related to Genesis, was the archaic Hebrew notions of "shades". They did not buy into the dualism of souls THEN, and you have provided no references to support that they DID. What they think NOW, is irrelevant to a study of Genesis.

A couple pages, is not pages after pages. Unlike you, I actually know what i'm talking about, and have the references to back it up.
Longfellow is totally irrelevant to the archaic Hebrew concept of "shade"

The ridiculous nonsense about "can a living thing die" ... "no", is SO preposterously obviously WRONG, and ALL OF SCIENCE proves that wrong.
ALL living things die. Period. The end. What Friedman's (obviously wrong) OPINION is NOW, has NOTHING to do with the Archaic Hebrew ideas, THEN.

I'm happy to move on to the next topic. It's pretty obvious what were're dealing with here.