Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[donlor]

Would you care to discuss the Bible, starting from Genesis with me. I am a Biblical literalist. Perhaps we both could learn from each other. 
As I read Scripture I find it compelling. The Bible is coherent, comprehensive & complete enough. It deals with all the major questions of life - beginning with a literal six days of creation. All it asserts is truth. Whatever or wherever you would see fit to consider or go - this would be fine with me.
If this works for you it would be good to have just a few ground-rules.
1) You can use any & all sources you deem proper. I shall do the same. 
2) I will only respond to your posts so as to keep it focused. (Anybody else would be welcome to post their thoughts but I will not answer them. If you want an answer to what somebody else asked or made a point about - just put it in your post.)
3) It would be easier if questions on different topics are handled in separate posts. But, if there are multiple questions on any separate issue, these multiple questions can be incorporated in a post. 
4) I ask your indulgence in letting such a conversation take time. We both have other responsibilities, so an answer might take some time. But, if you agree, I would be diligent to hold up my part of the conversation as time & circumstances allow.

As for me, I am 70, having been a Christian for many years. I am reasonably well read, do my best to think logically, & try to write cogently. Age does not equate to either ignorance or wisdom.
As for accreditation - I am simply a high-school graduate, having been suspended from college (1966) in my first semester. The dean of students told me that I was being suspended instead of being expelled because she hoped for me to get drafted, sent to Vietnam, & to be killed there. Her hopes were based on - if you are suspended from a college no other accredited college is supposed to accept you, while if you are expelled from a college, then any other college can then accept you. It seems like her only acceptable outcome (since she chose not to personally kill me) would be for me to die in Vietnam. I am not sorry to have disappointed her.
Why would I engage with you. I found your comment about the Bible being “still beautiful and interesting, providing us with a window into the scientifically naive but creative thoughts of the ancient.” a statement showing you to be reasonable. 
My purpose is not to convert you as only God can do that. All I can try to do & be is found in 1 Peter 3:15 “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”
So, if you would care to, Isaiah 1:18  “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD,...” 
Donald

[GrandizerII]

Hi, we're going section by section through the whole of Genesis. Right now, we're up to the Binding of Isaac story, which I have personally already commented on. Perhaps you can start the discussion by responding to what I had to say about that? Or if you're really keen, go gradually through my prior posts in this thread and see which ones you'd like to reply to. I leave it up to you. Just keep in mind that I am naturally going to treat the Bible as a collection of books written by ordinary human beings with different theological beliefs over a span of a few thousand years, not divinely inspired by any actual God. While you are free to assume the Bible is internally consistent theologically and otherwise, I do not hold to that belief.

---

Nahor's Offspring
Genesis 22:20-24

Nothing much to see here. This passage lists the many sons of Nahor (Abraham's brother) through wife Milkah and concubine Reumah. The most important bit in this brief passage is that Nahor is the grandfather of Rebekah (later to be Isaac's wife).

[Bucky Ball]

Would you care to discuss the Bible, starting from Genesis with me. I am a Biblical literalist. Perhaps we both could learn from each other. 
As I read Scripture I find it compelling. The Bible is coherent, comprehensive & complete enough. It deals with all the major questions of life - beginning with a literal six days of creation. All it asserts is truth. Whatever or wherever you would see fit to consider or go - this would be fine with me.
If this works for you it would be good to have just a few ground-rules.
1) You can use any & all sources you deem proper. I shall do the same. 
2) I will only respond to your posts so as to keep it focused. (Anybody else would be welcome to post their thoughts but I will not answer them. If you want an answer to what somebody else asked or made a point about - just put it in your post.)
3) It would be easier if questions on different topics are handled in separate posts. But, if there are multiple questions on any separate issue, these multiple questions can be incorporated in a post. 
4) I ask your indulgence in letting such a conversation take time. We both have other responsibilities, so an answer might take some time. But, if you agree, I would be diligent to hold up my part of the conversation as time & circumstances allow.

As for me, I am 70, having been a Christian for many years. I am reasonably well read, do my best to think logically, & try to write cogently. Age does not equate to either ignorance or wisdom.
As for accreditation - I am simply a high-school graduate, having been suspended from college (1966) in my first semester. The dean of students told me that I was being suspended instead of being expelled because she hoped for me to get drafted, sent to Vietnam, & to be killed there. Her hopes were based on - if you are suspended from a college no other accredited college is supposed to accept you, while if you are expelled from a college, then any other college can then accept you. It seems like her only acceptable outcome (since she chose not to personally kill me) would be for me to die in Vietnam. I am not sorry to have disappointed her.
Why would I engage with you. I found your comment about the Bible being “still beautiful and interesting, providing us with a window into the scientifically naive but creative thoughts of the ancient.” a statement showing you to be reasonable. 
My purpose is not to convert you as only God can do that. All I can try to do & be is found in 1 Peter 3:15 “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”
So, if you would care to, Isaiah 1:18  “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD,...” 
Donald

Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years. 
It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable. 
It's also ignorant of the forms of ancient Near Eastern literature, where "literalism" simply does not fit with the known forms of literature of the time. 
Literalism is a form of historical "presentism" and American Fundamentalism. 
There is no word in Archaic Hebrew for "history" and it was not a culturally accepted "concept" UNTIL it was needed to keep track of the succession of the kings.  
The very best conservative Christian Biblical scholars are not literalists. Scholarship has LONG ago has gone WAY beyond that (childish) position. 
You're welcome to comment in the thread as it progresses.

[The Grand Nudger]

My purpose is not to convert you as only God can do that. All I can try to do & be is found in 1 Peter 3:15 “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”

Welcome aboard.  If I were a christian..I would take that to heart, and in light of that, seek only to mount a defense of the defensible, rather than the indefensible..because, certainly, whatever is true of christianity..simply is true, and needs no argument against contrary fact to establish.

For example, a person can establish the unimpeachable veracity of the principle of reciprocity...without any requirement that the story in which that principle was uniquely elucidated for a specific audience that we now call "christian".. is factually true. To borrow from someone I don't particularly like..myths are "truer than the truth". There is no defensible room for biblical literalism. Literalism is a wholly manufactured dissonance between connotation and denotation in mythemical literature. OTOH, there are countless unspoiled acres of land for the defense of connotation, regardless of whether the fenced in borders of denotation are far to narrow to house anything of substance.

In short, did the demigod literally say x y and z? Well...no...but he meant to, because a demigod would have. If there were demigods, and they ever said anything. Which there aren't, and they don't...then the obligations of their positions as they refer to pronouncements would still be as real as the hands in front of our faces. This..in a nutshell..is why "do unto others" is good advice whether it let fall from the lips of a god, or just some random guy named Joe you met in a bar (who may or may not, in the mythemical literature...be God Himself, lol).

[Drich]

Would you care to discuss the Bible, starting from Genesis with me. I am a Biblical literalist. Perhaps we both could learn from each other. 
As I read Scripture I find it compelling. The Bible is coherent, comprehensive & complete enough. It deals with all the major questions of life - beginning with a literal six days of creation. All it asserts is truth. Whatever or wherever you would see fit to consider or go - this would be fine with me.
If this works for you it would be good to have just a few ground-rules.
1) You can use any & all sources you deem proper. I shall do the same. 
2) I will only respond to your posts so as to keep it focused. (Anybody else would be welcome to post their thoughts but I will not answer them. If you want an answer to what somebody else asked or made a point about - just put it in your post.)
3) It would be easier if questions on different topics are handled in separate posts. But, if there are multiple questions on any separate issue, these multiple questions can be incorporated in a post. 
4) I ask your indulgence in letting such a conversation take time. We both have other responsibilities, so an answer might take some time. But, if you agree, I would be diligent to hold up my part of the conversation as time & circumstances allow.

As for me, I am 70, having been a Christian for many years. I am reasonably well read, do my best to think logically, & try to write cogently. Age does not equate to either ignorance or wisdom.
As for accreditation - I am simply a high-school graduate, having been suspended from college (1966) in my first semester. The dean of students told me that I was being suspended instead of being expelled because she hoped for me to get drafted, sent to Vietnam, & to be killed there. Her hopes were based on - if you are suspended from a college no other accredited college is supposed to accept you, while if you are expelled from a college, then any other college can then accept you. It seems like her only acceptable outcome (since she chose not to personally kill me) would be for me to die in Vietnam. I am not sorry to have disappointed her.
Why would I engage with you. I found your comment about the Bible being “still beautiful and interesting, providing us with a window into the scientifically naive but creative thoughts of the ancient.” a statement showing you to be reasonable. 
My purpose is not to convert you as only God can do that. All I can try to do & be is found in 1 Peter 3:15 “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”
So, if you would care to, Isaiah 1:18  “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD,...” 
Donald

Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years. 
It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable. 
It's also ignorant of the forms of ancient Near Eastern literature, where "literalism" simply does not fit with the known forms of literature of the time. 
Literalism is a form of historical "presentism" and American Fundamentalism. 
There is no word in Archaic Hebrew for "history" and it was not a culturally accepted "concept" UNTIL it was needed to keep track of the succession of the kings.  
The very best conservative Christian Biblical scholars are not literalists. Scholarship has LONG ago has gone WAY beyond that (childish) position. 
You're welcome to comment in the thread as it progresses.

says people wanting to dismiss the majority of Christianity and those who study a literalist position without actually having to refute any points. justa big failed attempt to sweep the whole of christianity under the rug.

Let me ask you this how have you fared against me arguments in this thread? or have you avoided them like most?

[Angrboda]

Literalism isn't "the whole of christianity [sic]" -- honestly, you're getting worse instead of better. Most people learn from experience. Not you.

[donlor]

Thanks for the largess all around. It makes it easier to discuss issues. 
Perhaps a little more about me & how I got here would be apropos. As I watched some creationism debates I reevaluated my thoughts about how important a book Genesis was. It is a vitally crucial part of the whole Christian message. This is shown by how much of what is Christian doctrine has it’s genesis here. 

Genesis 1 - 11 encompasses at a minimum
the story of creation
the origin & purpose of man
sin & it’s consequence
the hope of redemption
the flood - the first judgment on sinfulness
the origin of nationalities

Destroy the truthfulness of Genesis & you remove the foundation of everything the Bible teaches. 
That Genesis be shown to be true is a primary, vital bedrock issue - perhaps even the most vital of issues as far as believing the Bible goes. Genesis tells us why the Cross was necessary. SIN

Here is something that truly amazes - the consistency of the Bible from cover to cover. There are 66 books & 40 authors. These authors range from kings to tax collectors & fisherman. Yet, the message remains focused on this - man is a sinner who will reap eternity in one of two places - either separated from God or eternity in fellowship with God & communion with others. Scripture is not ambagious. There is also this that is most often overlooked about the Bible. It is filled with prophecy - no other religious work can say this. 

Is the Bible true in everything it affirms whether it be science, health & medical issues, relationships, history? I say yes. Scripture offers abundant evidences that just wait to be weighed in the scales of reason & logic. 
Donald

[donlor]

re post 523    
Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years. 
It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable. 
It's also ignorant of the forms of ancient Near Eastern literature, where "literalism" simply does not fit with the known forms of literature of the time. 
Literalism is a form of historical "presentism" and American Fundamentalism. 
There is no word in Archaic Hebrew for "history" and it was not a culturally accepted "concept" UNTIL it was needed to keep track of the succession of the kings.  
The very best conservative Christian Biblical scholars are not literalists. Scholarship has LONG ago has gone WAY beyond that (childish) position. 
You're welcome to comment in the thread as it progresses.


POINTY 1 - It is true that there has been an ungodly profusion of liberal “scholarship” on the Bible, theology, etc...  this is undisputed
but your claim “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.”    c’mon, are you for real? Is this the best you have?  
this is ridiculous.  there always have been great numbers of conservative commentators.  So, to say “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.” is kinda a very selective statement on your part proving absolutely nothing much.  
POINTY 2 - As for “It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.” 
Please tell - what have you established by this pompous statement - again, absolutely nothing. All you do is spout what you hope to be believed. Sorry, I am not that gullible. 
Why is what I hold to (according to your beliefs) an untenable position? How & where has the art of “form criticism, and textual criticism” proved anything? 
Maybe they (the form & text critics) have just enriched life - show me how we have improved as a species in the last 75 years through the elucidations of these such critics. Making a statement accounts to nothing. Please, send me some, as best as can be, empirical links to be considered.  
POINTY 3 -  “form criticism, and textual criticism” are liberalism at it’s deceptive best. It pretends sound exegesis while mainly offering straight up eisegesis. This is slight of mind, at it’s best.  
POINTY 4 - “Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.” 
Archeology has physical substance - here is something it might be better to focus on.  Tell me where & how archeology has NOT been found to support the Biblical accounts? 
POINTY 5 - No need for me to continue.

[Bucky Ball]

Ancient Near Easter literature is a specific field of study, and not for amateurs. Without a specific education in it, it's like other things, you wouldn't actually know much about it.
There are countless Bible amateurs who have little to no actual education in the field. They can neither read Greek nor Hebrew. They know next to nothing of the culture which produced the texts. They actually know nothing of the history of the period ... but oh yeah ... they can do their Bible quotes. Doing "Bible Study" doesn't actually count. Without the education they actually have no way of knowing what scholars say, or even who they are.

From a previous post of mine : 

One finds, when one actually studies the Bible in the recognized main-line (non-Fundamentalist) centers of academic Biblical Studies, that scholars do not take the combined mythic traditions which ended up in the Bible, literally, (any longer)  The (ignorant) meme "so they are not *real*" if not literally true, is a common Fundamentalist view of ancient Near Eastern literature, not shared by actual scholars. The *in order for them to be "real" that have to be "literally" true* thing, actually went out at least 75 years ago, if not longer, as textual criticism, and form criticism, and archaeology revealed what it did. 

In his well know seminal work, "Jesus Christ and Mythology", the well-known Christian scholar Rudolph Bultmann writes about the power of mythology in ancient cultures. .... not with the ("presentist") common misunderstanding of "oh that's just a myth", but how for ancient writers, mythology was an authentic and powerful method the ancients tried to transmit what they thought was "truth". 
In ancient Near Eastern literature, many literary forms were used: poetry, allegory, symbolic writing, and various forms of narrative writing. The ignorant presentist idea that the truth of a text rests in its literal truth long ago (actually was never totally) went out as accepted by academics, and the liberal traditions of Biblical Scholarship. 

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars. 

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

The Biblical texts contain (which can be seen as changing even from verse to verse) a number of sources. For example the Documentary Hypothesis (https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/JapanVol.pdf ) 
has worked out line by line, which source was drawn upon, by editors/compilers of the texts. Also in work cited above, every verse is examined by multiple scholars as to their origins and meaning. One of the huge contributions to scholarship in the past 150 years, was the advances in understanding of origins as archaeological excavations in the Near East found so many important sources, (for example when the Royal Library at Ashurbanipal was excavated (at Nineveh) in the late 1800's), the source material was compared to what was in the Bible. Even the god "Yahweh Sabaoth", came to be understood as one of the sons of El Elyon, (his father-god) from the Babylonian pantheon, and brother of the god "Sin" who was the antecedent-precursor of the Arabian god "Allah". Yahweh had a consort/wife, whose name was "Ashera" .. who is briefly mentioned in the Bible. 

The Babylonian mythic origins (a paper on which I will post at some point) include :
poisonous plants, life-giving ribs, Eve, death by eating plants, "bread of heaven", water of life, plants which offer immortality, and snakes which bring about death, and most important, Chaos and Order. As was pointed out above, Martin Buber, well-known Hebrew scholar, in "Good and Evil" Part2, masterfully demonstrates how the Babylonian concept of chaos and order forms the foundation of the "Garden myth" (Adam and Eve). 

Here is a start on what archaeology has debunked. 
These two are recognized as the best of the Israeli archeologists, and as such have the MOST to gain in finding comfirmation of the texts. They can't, and they don't.
There was no Abraham, no flood, no Adam, no Eve, and no Exodus.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree, genesis is vitally important to establishing an abrahamic theology...but it's not even remotely important that the contents be literally true.  Never was, and it wasn't treated as such by it's authors or originating culture.