Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Minimalist]

But regarding the quote you provided, sure. It's clear in the texts that the two accounts of Creation don't perfectly complement one another.

Nor were they meant to.  They were different takes on a similar idea which were crammed together out of political necessity.   Robert Price does a nice job explaining how the J ( Yahwist ) and E (Elohim)  sources  of the OT were merged into one document in order to accommodate the mythology that the mass of refugees from the northern kingdom brought with them when they fled to Judah after the Assyrians kicked the ever-loving shit out of them in the late 8th century.
The book is called "Holy Fable, Vol. I" and you can bet that none of our religitard clowns will go near it with a 10 foot pole.

In such ways can they avoid learning anything!

[Belacqua]

I'm a big fan of using stories like this. Here's the advice I like, even though it's kind of old:

I have a soft spot for Plato. Nice post.

I find it extremely interesting that you would suggest such an interpretive mode. As I take it, you propose a self-reflective reading of the Bible.

We're not even talking rank and file believers here--it is rare to find even Christians who mine the text so deeply for meaning. (A forum of atheists seems out of the question.) Right out of the gate, we can say that none of those who take the Bible literally go that deep. After all, to them, the Bible is simply a recounting of historical events. No need for serious introspection of any kind when reading Genesis. Why would you reflect so deeply on that? Even those who take an allegorical approach often do not go as deep as you recommend. To them, the allegory refers to a standard religious symbology. Nothing more. C.G. Jung is not a regular contributor here. I don't know many forum users interested in reading the Bible for self-reflection.

If you have anything to contribute along this vein, I'd be interested in hearing it. As for myself, I think I will weigh in on the myth value of certain stories. But you gotta understand: most atheists here don't have a problem with religion because its adherents reflect deeply on the symbolic meaning of religious texts. We have a problem because people take it literally. A great number of people make claims like "we have school shootings because people don't take the Bible literally anymore"... they vote and support politicians based on this literalist interpretation... we have a congressman who said "there is no need to worry about global warming because God promised Noah he wouldn't flood the earth again"

Many of us (including myself) would like to read the text with a literalist interpretation in mind, so that we might criticize it on that account. But, also, I'm interested to hear it if you want to interpret the text as Socrates recommends in Phaedrus. 

********

Grandizer, I'll probably have something to add on Genesis 1 tonight or tomorrow.

Agreed, as long as some believers are using Genesis as true facts, analysis of that is warranted for sure. I honestly don't know how many Christians in history have used it that way. Some of the early smart guys were happy enough to read it as a spiritual lesson. So I'd say that a full-spectrum analysis would have to look at different ways to read it. The varieties could make this a fun thread. 

I have lots of opinions about Adam and Eve, so I'll wait for that chapter to come around in the progression of the thread.

[The Valkyrie]

And god gaveth Moses two tablets upon which were written the Ten Commandments of the Lord.

And Moses didst read them and said unto the Lord, "Three of these Commandments are about you, oh Lord. Where is the commandment against rape and slavery?"

And the Lord did ponder this question for a moment and then speaketh unto Moses, "Shut the fuck up, Moses!"

[Minimalist]

I know where they went.

[Jehanne]

More good information here:

Noah's flood

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[28] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[29] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[30] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

Wikipedia -- Epic of Gilgamesh

[SteveII]

There are many ways to study writings, including textual criticism and sharing one's personal thoughts on what they just read.

I disagree. If you do not know where the text comes from, who wrote it, when, the type of literature and that it is different then the rest of the book of Genesis, you can't possible just read it and think you can understand it. What you just said is how we get YEC.

[Jehanne]

There are many ways to study writings, including textual criticism and sharing one's personal thoughts on what they just read.

I disagree. If you do not know where the text comes from, who wrote it, when, the type of literature and that it is different then the rest of the book of Genesis, you can't possible just read it and think you can understand it. What you just said is how we get YEC.

Genesis was written by multiple authors:

The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of three models used to explain the origins and composition of the first five books of the Bible,[Note 1] called collectively the Torah or Pentateuch. The other two theories are the supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis.[1][2]

All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors").[3] Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.[4]

Wikipedia -- Documentary Hypothesis

[SteveII]

I disagree. If you do not know where the text comes from, who wrote it, when, the type of literature and that it is different then the rest of the book of Genesis, you can't possible just read it and think you can understand it. What you just said is how we get YEC.

Genesis was written by multiple authors:

The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of three models used to explain the origins and composition of the first five books of the Bible,[Note 1] called collectively the Torah or Pentateuch. The other two theories are the supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis.[1][2]

All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors").[3] Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.[4]

Wikipedia -- Documentary Hypothesis

My point is that Grand wants to just read through the verses and pontificate on what they could mean. You cannot do that without FIRST looking at the text critically and identifying things like you brought up.

[Minimalist]

There are many ways to study writings, including textual criticism and sharing one's personal thoughts on what they just read.

I disagree. If you do not know where the text comes from, who wrote it, when, the type of literature and that it is different then the rest of the book of Genesis, you can't possible just read it and think you can understand it. What you just said is how we get YEC.

Oh, Stevie, you poor dope.  You don't know who wrote your gospels, you don't know where the text came from and you don't understand what type of literature they were.  I guess now you'll throw them on the trash heap, huh?

[Bahana]

I do not trust the NIV. I've heard from Biblical scholars that the NIV translators were evangelically biased and used some funny business to cover up the difficult verses. In older versions of the NIV on Genesis 1:14 they used the word expanse when firmament may be more accurate. In ancient Mesopotamia the sky was viewed as a solid dome that held back water. I just checked and they changed it to "vault" in the current version. I admit it's easy to read but I no longer trust it based on what several scholars have said.