Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Foxaèr]

Theists aren't theists because they've read a book and thought critically about its contents, because let's be honest here: there has to be an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance taking place to ignore how scripture is utter bullshit, and I sincerely doubt anyone is that far gone. No, theists are simply theists because other theists believe the same thing. It's much easier to ignore the bullshit of the written word when a group of people stand together in unifying faith as though that alone is sufficient for the belief to be non-fiction. They want to believe in the fairy tale more than the truth, because it's unsettling for them to accept that there is no god. Theism is nothing more than satiating one's comfort from the realistic truth.

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Yup. Although I do think that individuals can adopt Christianity as a real value system, on large scales, the religion often becomes a rationalization for one's inherited lifestyle... to make it seem like there is some kind of value system in place where there really isn't one... only cultural norms with "divine justification."

But I'd like to reiterate that many people actually do treat Christianity as a genuine value system. It's just that they are the exception, not the rule. It has to be difficult for these individuals. On the one hand, they really believe in the stuff, so they want to be a part of it... on the other hand, the thing they want to be a part of is largely disingenuous. A distortion of real values often occurs the larger a cultural phenomenon a thing is. The same thing happened with the hippies. It became more about bell bottoms and reefer than peace, unity, and transcendence. There is no real way to fix this facet of Christianity except to make Christianity less popular.

[Minimalist]

Obfuscation is their stock-in-trade, Jorm.  Without it they'd have to face the fact that primitive fuckwits portrayed their god as a loathsome fucking tyrant.  It is why ultimately all religion is worthless.

[Drich]

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.

Here's the thing about the 'scholarly stuff most people don't get (even people in the church)
It describes Everythig taking place is the garden narritive. Remember creation was created by Elohim/God or God the Father it took 7 days. now apart from God the Father's work we have YHWH (John1 :1 "the word" because in the OT they knew this word to be the literal name of God and spelled it without vowels so as to never take it in vain, hence YHWH) or what scholars guesstimate to be "Yahweh" Which then translates to Jehovah/Jesus)
so the "word" was YHWH https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/2/1/t_conc_2004

However in the english the only denliation is Chapter one it translates GOD created, and chapter 2 it says THE LORD... but when you go back to the hebrew you see it was yahweh in charge of chapter 2 (which is referenced in the above link)

So chapter two is about Jesus' creation that took place after dry land but before there were plants because there was no rain yet. 
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

Meaning everything in chapter 2 is a separate narrative or the garden narrative. meaning chapter 2:4 forward is the story of the creation of the garden and everything in it, by Jesus Christ apart from the 7 day creation of the earth which is accredited to The Father.. So Jesus' work starts after mid day day   and mid day day 3 before chapter 11 where he calls fourth rain then plants on the rest of the earth. so basically in a day or so Jesus sets out creates Adam the first man which is apart from day 6 man who the Father created out side the garden. Jesus gave Adam a soul while man outside the garden was simply made in the image of God, which adam was a well we find out in later chapters as well, but chapter 2 we are told adam gets a living soul to pass on to his children while outside of the garden man (Evolved man/day six man created by the father) does not.

Back to God and man, God tells man he can eat from any tree in the garden

He tells adam and eve, the rest of humanity located outside the garden does not have access to any of those trees.

... 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.

Or we can say Literally Adam and eve Did indeed die. Before they were immortal pure beings like angels able to stand before God because of their purity and perfection as it is recorded God like to walk with adam in the garden in the cool of the day.. While moses great as he was had to be hide in a cleft of a rock and as God walked by he could only glimps his back side, and this aged him terribly and If I remember temporarily took his sight and turn his hair white. Meaning the being we are now would be consumed by the righteousness of God/proof we are different than adam and eve were in the garden.

So They ate (perfect humans)  of the fruit and died. then they were sent to earth which starts moses mortal life. When he died his life as an immortal Favored by God Created by Jesus was over. And his life in purgatory/This life this earth had just begun. 

This is the same thing that happens to us but in reverse. we are born here in this purgatory of sorts, and we seek redemption, we die and we enter heaven the type of being adam and eve were.

We know they were immortal as the tree of life was also in the garden and had permission to eat from that tree. Who would spent so much time in the garden (arguably about 2/3 of the united states) and hang around the one tree you can't eat from and next to it stands another you have not tasted?
Which is brings me to one of my favorite points in that there is no time line that tells us how long Adam and Eve were in Heaven! clearly chapter three did not happen right after chapter 2 as if it did the the fall of adam and eve would have happened day 5 of creation. no Adam and eve were in the garden a very very long time. being immortal they literally could have been in there for as long as science says evolution took. 

The only thing we know for sure is that the exodus of the garden happened about 6000 years ago. as that is how far we can count back the genealogies to Adam Meaning adam died about 5000 years ago but was literally created 2 day of the existence of the earth in a completely different environment and kept there for millions if not billions of years. while the rest of the world took shape.

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".

this is not only death but the hell like purgatory he was pushed to live in for 930 years.

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.

No Adam... died the immortal creation of God. God's favorite creation died. then was expelled from literal paradise and forced to live like a evolved monkey in the dirt and sand..

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.

You do not have to have knowledge of Good and evil to understand death. God said eat and this will kill you, he did and died for it. everything that he was.. was over all that was left was a primal husk of a almost defiable being.

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.[/quote] Good observation but elohim is translated as a generic term or it can indeed to mean God the Father. (like our term God and god)

Like now we do not have a name for the Father or the SPirit. the only Named deity we know as Christ/God the son. He too the YHWH=Yajovah=jahovah=Jesus. again different chapter, different narrative. This is about the garden started mid day 2 and completed before the shrubs and plants mid day three. 

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.

Important to know the Garden narrative is a complete picture of what life was like 6000 years ago as God Knew when the fall would happen and evolved man and evolved earth would have to be nsync if Adam's seed were to carry on to full fill the plan of salvation/Jesus and the cross.

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.

I read this and see nothing about mating. I see a man who needs everything a good wife bring to the table. we are build as 1/2 of a being. our counter parts full fill that other 1/2. Adam was whole but still lacked, so rather than push Adam to live out potentially billions of years by himself, Adam was removed from himself and made into two individuals.

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

Adam was a whole being who was miserable, so God took apart of him to flesh out what he was missing which plays directly in to we are now built as 1/2 of a being that is made whole when we are married. Ever been around an only child who has lived a little on the isolated side? most don't make 'real friends' easy. in fact lot of the times their parents would agree that they are their own best friend or that they make their own ideal play mate. Adam was the only one member of the species, like being an only child to the ninth degree, so what better source than himself to build the perfect partner from? plus why push adam to live in misery when you know an easy fix.

Why did God simply make a pair and have both together all along? then they would be brother and sister twins. meaning look at the example God makes here Adam leaves dad for his girl that comes along later, not girl whom you were born with. Plus I think ada needed to feel this initial loneliness to remind himself on the days she is driving him to hell (in a fruit basket) why he keeps her around!

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.

pleasing enough for adam.. Plus the symbolism of becoming 'one flesh' kinda has a orgins of two people becoming a single individual.

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.

actually if you FF to the exodus in God's punishment to eve God puts man in charge over woman because of her mistake saying this will be unnatural and unwanted role for her to take.. Which would indicate that eve was the boss of adam while in the garden which also explains why we was so willing to eat the fruit. And why he blamed eve for making him eat it. just a side thought.

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.

What you seem to be over looking here is not the prohibition but the allowance of unregulated sex. believe it or not sex at that time was one extreme or the other one side you had demons making babies with women, sodom and gomorrah, and Cats and dogs living together, Mass Hysteria! or you had sex for making babies only.. Here God give permission to do whatever nasty you want so long as it fits this first example.

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.

now remember between the end of this chapter (which would work out to maybe day 4 of the 7 day creation there is no time line given or stated by the bible between here and chapter 3.

[GrandizerII]

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.)

And you know what, I agree 100% with you, even on the intentionalist fallacy part (first time I hear this fallacy, btw). Just to be clear, I'm not trying to mind-read the original author's intent. I'm applying a default mode of interpretation ("plain reading") because that's the most convenient interpretation I can do given the intended nature of this thread (and given because we don't know exactly what the original author's intent was, if any). Otherwise, I won't have time to start anywhere with this thread!

[vulcanlogician]

And you know what, I agree 100% with you, even on the intentionalist fallacy part (first time I hear this fallacy, btw).

First time for me as well. I wonder about it though (maybe I need to research it more), because it seems that trying to get at an author's intention is a valid way (one way among many, that is) to decipher an ambiguous text.

[Foxaèr]

Regarding the bible, reason clearly dictates that little historical accuracy is to be found within its pages. What minute value can be gleaned from the book seems to have less to do with bettering one's character than quickening one's utter decent into delusion as well as inhumanity. The convolution of truth is the downfall of every theist due to the fact that claims of knowledge are absolutely unsubstantiated. True knowledge is recognizing the absurdity in a readily comforting answer based on mere personal subjectivity.

[GrandizerII]

Regarding the bible, reason clearly dictates that little historical accuracy is to be found within its pages.  What minute value can be gleaned from the book seems to have less to do with bettering one's character than quickening one's utter decent into delusion as well as inhumanity.  The convolution of truth is the downfall of every theist due to the fact that claims of knowledge are absolutely unsubstantiated.  True knowledge is recognizing the absurdity in a readily comforting answer based on mere personal subjectivity.

Well, Kit, you do make it seem far less complicated than it is. But the fact of the matter is you're really oversimplifying here. Your argument would be proper for fundamentalist types (and other types of theists who tend to pester us here), yes. But that's about it. Theism is not necessarily a weakness. It's just how some people (including very bright people) are wired. We all have our metaphysical views, and when there isn't enough evidence to go by anything definite, are going to have differing worldviews based on our varying intuitions.

[Minimalist]

Dripshit, you are getting more like MK every day.  Page after page of pointless drivel.

You should get fitted for a towel on your head.  You'd make a great muslim!

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

There really aren't any words to describe the ignorance behind your insults. How SteveII, Drich, C/L, and I approach scripture are not mutually exclusive. You have no excuse for ignoring what has been clearly taught for 800 years. That just reveals how dishonest and disturbed you remain.

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense [also] has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

A text can have meaning on multiple levels. It takes discernment and study to parse out those meanings. Holy Scripture will always be closed to ideological anti-Christian bigots....like you...and the rest of these...how did you say it "fucktards"...that have no other intention than to see the worst is what in sacred to others.

Good luck. Have a nice life.