Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[GrandizerII]

I had to read a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh as a kid (it was part of a subject back in high school in my homecountry), and the flood narrative is indeed very, very similar to the account in Genesis.

---

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.

I'm not sure how any of that has to do with whether the first passages in Genesis should be taken "literally" or allegorically.

What you just said is how we get YEC.

Or OEC ... or theistic evolution ...

---

Vulcan, I'm ready to move on to the next passage soon. If you still want to do Genesis 1, you can still do that even after we've moved on to Genesis 2.

Belaqua and other interested parties, you can start anytime with your studying/analysis/commentary on Adam and Eve.

---

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.

Yeah, it's "vault" now ... which isn't too misleading, honestly. But I see what you mean, and I've taken that into account, of course.

[possibletarian]

Understood! Have fun y'all.

I was being facetious there. I'm interested in having a discussion about the text from all angles, really. Since the literalist interpretation is taken seriously by so many, I think it deserves to be addressed. But I think a good discussion could be had about the myth-value of stories like Adam and Eve. In some respects, the story might even be saying something pertinent about our predicament as moral agents: "Before we attained knowledge of good and evil, we were not 'cursed' to be morally responsible beings as we are now etc..."

As a theist I often wondered whether sin was an act on its own, or the knowledge that the same act was wrong.
For instance in the story it gives the impression Adam & Eve were blissfully naked, then they understood what nakedness was and covered up.

That is not to say that nakedness is a sin, but that the knowledge of it forced a reaction to it.
I agree, if taken as an analogy it does make an interesting talking point.

---

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.

Do you believe there was a solid dome, just out of interest ?

[Shell B]

When I want to shove a bible verse up some moron's ass I always use the KJV.  Piss-poor though it is all the morons swear by it!  Cuz, ya know, Jesus spoke 16th-17th century English!

The history of that version is so fucked up.

[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.

I'm not sure how any of that has to do with whether the first passages in Genesis should be taken "literally" or allegorically.

Wait, if the first chapter of Genesis 1 is a different genre (poetry) than the rest of Genesis; meant to be sung/chanted with nice, grand, metered verses that repeat phrases in a much older dialect of Hebrew; has similar elements to other religions--so may serve to distinguish between some of those; that does not affect anything? I really can't believe you just said that understanding the provenance of the text has nothing to do with the question of literal or allegorical. What is this thread for again?

[Shell B]

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?

[GrandizerII]

I'm not sure how any of that has to do with whether the first passages in Genesis should be taken "literally" or allegorically.

Wait, if the first chapter of Genesis 1 is a different genre (poetry) than the rest of Genesis; meant to be sung/chanted with nice, grand, metered verses that repeat phrases in a much older dialect of Hebrew; has similar elements to other religions--so may be a distinction to some of those; that does not affect anything? I really can't believe you just said that understanding the provenance of the text has nothing to do with the question of literal or allegorical. What is this thread for? You don't even understand what it is you are attempting. Anything that follows from a 5th grade reading of an English translation is meaningless.

Here we go with your mantra again. I don't understand anything, clearly.

Poetry is not the same as allegory. Poetry can still be taken literally.

And Genesis 2 (excluding the first 3 verses) is in prose form.

And I did not say (but expressed doubt) that a historical understanding of the origins of these passages had anything to say about whether it should be taken literally or not.

But do go on being the dramatic fruitcake that you are.

[Bahana]

I was being facetious there. I'm interested in having a discussion about the text from all angles, really. Since the literalist interpretation is taken seriously by so many, I think it deserves to be addressed. But I think a good discussion could be had about the myth-value of stories like Adam and Eve. In some respects, the story might even be saying something pertinent about our predicament as moral agents: "Before we attained knowledge of good and evil, we were not 'cursed' to be morally responsible beings as we are now etc..."

As a theist I often wondered whether sin was an act on its own, or the knowledge that the same act was wrong.
For instance in the story it gives the impression Adam & Eve were blissfully naked, then they understood what nakedness was and covered up.

That is not to say that nakedness is a sin, but that the knowledge of it forced a reaction to it.  
I agree, if taken as an analogy it does make an interesting talking point.

---

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.

Do you believe there was a solid dome, just out of interest ?

I'm an atheist that reads it like mythology. I'd like to get the original author's intent though, if possible.

[GrandizerII]

I'm an atheist that reads it like mythology. I'd like to get the original author's intent though, if possible.

For me, it's a bit simpler than that. I always go with the default mode of interpretation (i.e., literalism) unless evidence (and/or scholarly work) strongly suggests otherwise. It's not clear at all that the original author(s) intended these passages to be literal or allegorical, which is why I have chosen to interpret this literally. Other posters are free to interpret differently, of course. We're having a Bible study here, not some rigid scholarly work which even theists themselves don't generally do when they're doing a Bible study.

[Shell B]

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

How is the Earth empty if it has "waters?" Does this mean empty of life? Why was God only hovering over the Earth when he just made untold numbers of planets and stars (light be damned). I can understand the Earth being dark. Maybe God made a thick atmosphere.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Is this only on Earth or everywhere?

God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Okay, so maybe just on Earth?

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

What is this fucking gibberish? Did they think the sky is made of water?

I'm so bored.

[sdelsolray]

According to the story, water existed on the first day. Water contains oxygen. Oxygen is only formed in stars and only dispersed at the end life of some of those stars. According to the story, stars were not created until the fourth day. Therefore, no oxygen was available on days 1-3 to form water.