Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[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.

That a little deep for bronze age goat herders, man.

Yes, of course the human authors of Genesis did not know about this.  Nevertheless, reality demonstrates that at least this portion of the Genesis story is factually incorrect.

[Belacqua]

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.

That a little deep for bronze age goat herders, man.

Genesis was not written by goat herders, and was written several centuries after the Bronze Age.

I know this is a standard insult, but nobody should believe it. Atheists like to use non-literal metaphors also.

[Jehanne]

That a little deep for bronze age goat herders, man.

Genesis was not written by goat herders, and was written several centuries after the Bronze Age.

I know this is a standard insult, but nobody should believe it. Atheists like to use non-literal metaphors also.

No scholar believes that Genesis is the oldest literary document.  That honor likely belongs to The Epic of Gilgamesh; however, the Sumerians had invented writing in the 4th-mellinium BCE, over 1,000 years prior to the Gilgamesh epic.

[Minimalist]

That a little deep for bronze age goat herders, man.

Genesis was not written by goat herders, and was written several centuries after the Bronze Age.

I know this is a standard insult, but nobody should believe it. Atheists like to use non-literal metaphors also.

But if you ask any of the fundie morons around here they think their yhwh shit pre-dates Sumeria. 

Facts roll off them like water off a ducks' ass.

[Angrboda]

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.

You'll find that sort of evangelical/apologetic redaction in many translations. My understanding is that the NASB and the ESV are the best for a literate yet largely literal translation.

[Belacqua]

Genesis was not written by goat herders, and was written several centuries after the Bronze Age.

I know this is a standard insult, but nobody should believe it. Atheists like to use non-literal metaphors also.

No scholar believes that Genesis is the oldest literary document.  That honor likely belongs to The Epic of Gilgamesh; however, the Sumerians had invented writing in the 4th-mellinium BCE, over 1,000 years prior to the Gilgamesh epic.

Yes, very much so.

This is why I think that we should try to be accurate in our sentences. If we say obviously false things -- like Genesis was written by Bronze Age goat herders -- we are ignoring facts. 

We are supposed to be the ones who value truth.

[Minimalist]

That honor likely belongs to The Epic of Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh was derived from the earlier myths of Atrahasis and Ziusudra.  Sadly, the bible is, at best, 5th century BC horseshit cobbled together in the aftermath of the Persian conquest of Babylon.

But we have much other early Sumerian writing.  The jews were johnny-come-lateleys!  Curiously, Herodotus toured the area and never fucking heard of them.  Guess they weren't so important after all.

[SteveII]

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.

I'm just saying that your "Bible Study" is really "let's just read it". Hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegesis be damned! No wonder there is such a disconnect between what most atheists think Christians believe and what they actually believe. I have to thank you for making that clear to me. 

You didn't even discuss who might have written it and when. How can you come to any conclusions whatsoever as to the meaning--BECAUSE in 100% of all cases of something written, the meaning the author intended and the context he which it was written is the most two most important pieces of the puzzle.

[Foxaèr]

Knowing who precisely wrote a fictional story and when doesn't make it any less fictional.

Studying and interpreting a fictional story doesn't make it any less fictional.

[Shell B]

I don’t care what Christians believe. The book is their scripture. They can change it all they want to suit what they actually want to believe, but the proof of its faults actually lies in that disconnect.