Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Brian37]

Here's a good video that explains some of the origins and common elements from which the Torah of Moses came from.  

You know this kinda supports what is said in the bible.Not only that there is nothing inthe bible that God was only the God of the jews. Abraham's people all worshiped God before he was singled out and made the father of a new religion.. This would indicate everyone in the region would also have likly worship a FORM or variant of abraham's God which according to this video is exactly what happened.

Everyone in this region worship a form of God, but abraham was singled out and was given specifics the other where not privy too or had long since forgotten or even changed over time. so in an effort to reestablish a live connection with his people God gave one man the charge to start what ultimatly Jesus finished. Meaning a direct link between God and potentially every man who seek God out.

---

I hate where this narrator says, "While the bible is not mythology, it contains mythology".

UM NO, IT IS MYTHOLOGY.

How the hell can you spend this much time quoting the prior influences and not come to the conclusion that newer religions are merely products of competition of prior and surrounding mythologies?

How any sane person can listen to this an not equate this crap to Star Wars or Harry Potter is beyond me.

I also hate how he tries to make the claim that the newer religion was different because it was the first to be concerned with humans. Which is ironic considering that the first 4 commandments are all about kissing his ass.

or the parts cut from the orginal "El" religion are the mythos of God and what was kept was the truth.

This is what we are all called to do when building out houses on the sand or rock. when we build our faith on mythos God sends wind and rain to test out beliefs, and when they fail we know that part that failed is not apart of the truth of who God is.

Um no, they all worshiped "variants of" does not mean they are worshiping the same god under different names. It says humans compete, like Coke and Pepsi.

The religions of the early Hebrews were merely a form of competition that lead to a new religion. 

The Jewish God Yahweh was stolen from prior polytheism in which it was not the top god. It got elevated by the splinter sect to replace the old head God El to become, for the new sect the only God.

Not to mention claims of super natural creator beings are far older than Jews or Muslims or Christians.

[Bucky Ball]

Um no, they all worshiped "variants of" does not mean they are worshiping the same god under different names. It says humans compete, like Coke and Pepsi.

The religions of the early Hebrews were merely a form of competition that lead to a new religion. 

The Jewish God Yahweh was stolen from prior polytheism in which it was not the top god. It got elevated by the splinter sect to replace the old head God El to become, for the new sect the only God.

Not to mention claims of super natural creator beings are far older than Jews or Muslims or Christians.

Yes. They worshipped various gods from the region, including Egyptian mountain (volcano) gods, (probably where "Jehova" started out, from the south of Canaan), and many gods from the Babylonian pantheon, (where Yahweh came from .. the brother of "Sin" who became Allah in Arabia, and both were sons of El Elion). The Hebrews chose Yahweh as they wanted help with battles, and he was the god of the armies.... that was the "deal" they struck .. among the many gods they recognized, they agreed to worship only one, if he would assist them in battle. Monolateralist polytheism. Technically it wasn't a "new religion", as at that time (the specific) culture included the generally accepted deity .. it was not at all what it is today. One did not "believe" in a (specific) deity. It came as an unquestioned part of the cultural package.

[Alternatehistory95]

RE: the creation of plants and the sun- Plants were created before the sun yet plants need the sun for photosynthesis.... Yeah.... That makes perfect sense. /s

[GrandizerII]

A Good Lesson on How to Traumatize a Child
Genesis 22:1-19

This passage is one of those infamous ones in the Bible. Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham complies and is about to kill the poor kid, until God stops him and makes him realize it was just a test. Isaac is spared, and a ram is sacrificed instead (because God needs some killing after all). Abraham is further blessed for having such a virtuous character.

First time I read this as a kid, while I was really shocked that a supposedly loving God would do this to any parent, I was relieved that he stopped Abraham from going through with killing his own son. It was only later in life that I realized that what Isaac went through must have been really traumatizing and there was no way that him being spared would've eased the psychological trauma in any way. I know this is just a story, but imagine if this really happened, and you were in place of Isaac as a kid in that situation, would you have eventually gotten over the trauma of witnessing your own father trying to sacrifice you just to satisfy a bloodthirsty god? I think not. This is a passage that has disturbed many readers of the Bible, theists and atheists alike. Thankfully, a lot of Christians take this allegorically, and those who do take this literally generally do not believe that their god would ever tell them to go sacrifice their own child.

Here's a nice scene from a Bible series that reasonably depicts the main event in this passage:

[Yonadav]

A Good Lesson on How to Traumatize a Child
Genesis 22:1-19

This passage is one of those infamous ones in the Bible. Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham complies and is about to kill the poor kid, until God stops him and makes him realize it was just a test. Isaac is spared, and a ram is sacrificed instead (because God needs some killing after all). Abraham is further blessed for having such a virtuous character.

First time I read this as a kid, while I was really shocked that a supposedly loving God would do this to any parent, I was relieved that he stopped Abraham from going through with killing his own son. It was only later in life that I realized that what Isaac went through must have been really traumatizing and there was no way that him being spared would've eased the psychological trauma in any way. I know this is just a story, but imagine if this really happened, and you were in place of Isaac as a kid in that situation, would you have eventually gotten over the trauma of witnessing your own father trying to sacrifice you just to satisfy a bloodthirsty god? I think not. This is a passage that has disturbed many readers of the Bible, theists and atheists alike. Thankfully, a lot of Christians take this allegorically, and those who do take this literally generally do not believe that their god would ever tell them to go sacrifice their own child.

Here's a nice scene from a Bible series that reasonably depicts the main event in this passage:

According to Jewish theology, it was Sarah who died from the trauma of learning that Abraham was sacrificing Isaac. That would have made Isaac something like 37 years old at the time (subtracting the age she died at from the age when she had Isaac). Isaac knew that he was to be sacrificed and could have refused. He went willingly.

Also, the point of theology is not comfort, despite popular misconceptions. The text is perplexing. The situations are perplexing. We are supposed to be perplexed. Explaining perplexing biblical situations in comforting ways sort of misses the point. In our struggle with perplexity, we encounter ourselves. We raise our children to be strong and brave and possibly even heroic. Mothers and fathers have proudly sent their sons off to war for all of human history. We raise them to answer when the king calls for them.

[GrandizerII]

According to Jewish theology, it was Sarah who died from the trauma of learning that Abraham was sacrificing Isaac. That would have made Isaac something like 37 years old at the time (subtracting the age she died at from the age when she had Isaac). Isaac knew that he was to be sacrificed and could have refused. He went willingly.

These are new facts to me. Thanks for the theology lesson. One thing that jumps to mind here, though, is that the passage itself doesn't seem to imply that Isaac had any idea he was going to be sacrificed until the moment of binding. Otherwise, why would he ask Abraham where the lamb was for the sacrifice? It's also not clear to me how it's been calculated that Isaac must have been around 37 years old at the time. I understand 37 is supposed to be the upper limit here, but he could've been way younger at the time.

Also, the point of theology is not comfort, despite popular misconceptions. The text is perplexing. The situations are perplexing. We are supposed to be perplexed. Explaining perplexing biblical situations in comforting ways sort of misses the point. In our struggle with perplexity, we encounter ourselves. We raise our children to be strong and brave and possibly even heroic. Mothers and fathers have proudly sent their sons off to war for all of human history. We raise them to answer when the king calls for them.

Thanks for providing this interesting perspective. I, at least partly, agree with this.

[Bucky Ball]

According to Jewish theology, it was Sarah who died from the trauma of learning that Abraham was sacrificing Isaac. That would have made Isaac something like 37 years old at the time (subtracting the age she died at from the age when she had Isaac). Isaac knew that he was to be sacrificed and could have refused. He went willingly.

Also, the point of theology is not comfort, despite popular misconceptions. The text is perplexing. The situations are perplexing. We are supposed to be perplexed. Explaining perplexing biblical situations in comforting ways sort of misses the point. In our struggle with perplexity, we encounter ourselves. We raise our children to be strong and brave and possibly even heroic. Mothers and fathers have proudly sent their sons off to war for all of human history. We raise them to answer when the king calls for them.

LOL

So there are versions of this story where Abraham does go ahead and kill Isaac.
In part, it reflects the fact, that the possibility even exists for this to be OK, that the culture did accept child sacrifice.
2 KIngs 16:3 "He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites." (Ahaz). There is another example where the king promises to sacrifice whatever is the first to come out his door, if something happens. In the Exodus story, the firstborn is marked for death.

One of the interesting things is the story pulls in the "ram in the thicket" piece, from Babylonian mythology.
http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/prehisto...hicket.htm

[Yonadav]

According to Jewish theology, it was Sarah who died from the trauma of learning that Abraham was sacrificing Isaac. That would have made Isaac something like 37 years old at the time (subtracting the age she died at from the age when she had Isaac). Isaac knew that he was to be sacrificed and could have refused. He went willingly.

These are new facts to me. Thanks for the theology lesson. One thing that jumps to mind here, though, is that the passage itself doesn't seem to imply that Isaac had any idea he was going to be sacrificed until the moment of binding. Otherwise, why would he ask Abraham where the lamb was for the sacrifice? It's also not clear to me how it's been calculated that Isaac must have been around 37 years old at the time. I understand 37 is supposed to be the upper limit here, but he could've been way younger at the time.

Also, the point of theology is not comfort, despite popular misconceptions. The text is perplexing. The situations are perplexing. We are supposed to be perplexed. Explaining perplexing biblical situations in comforting ways sort of misses the point. In our struggle with perplexity, we encounter ourselves. We raise our children to be strong and brave and possibly even heroic. Mothers and fathers have proudly sent their sons off to war for all of human history. We raise them to answer when the king calls for them.

Thanks for providing this interesting perspective. I, at least partly, agree with this.

It has been a long time since I studied the Akeida (the binding of Isaac). I remember that there were several answers to your question about what Isaac was asking when he asked where the lamb was. But I do not remember them. I'm sorry about that. I have books that would answer this question, but they are in storage in Chicago.

Sarah is said to have died at the time of the Akeida because she dies immediately after the telling of the Akeida, and the verse says something like, "and Abraham came and mourned her." Where did he come from? He came from the mountain where he had bound Isaac. So if Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born and she died at 127, and her death was at the time of the Akeida, then Isaac would have been 37.

[GrandizerII]

Sarah is said to have died at the time of the Akeida because she dies immediately after the telling of the Akeida, and the verse says something like, "and Abraham came and mourned her." Where did he come from? He came from the mountain where he had bound Isaac.

Or it could be he was out in the fields taking care of the sheep or something, and then he went to the tent to check up on what had happened. An account appearing immediately after another account in Genesis does not mean there isn't an implied significant gap in time between the two accounts. Additionally, the start of the next passage clearly states that some time had passed anyway, so Abraham would've already been back home by the time of his wife's death.

And as Bucky said, the OT doesn't shy away from sanctioning child sacrifice. I also think there is something weak (from a storytelling point of view) about having an adult Isaac being sacrificed in the Binding story instead of a helpless and vulnerable child/adolescent. So I don't think your interpretation of the passage is reasonable much.

---

Oh and before a Christian jumps on me to say that this story is meant to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice of Christ (represented by the ram here), I am totally aware of this interpretation. As an atheist, I just don't buy it as the original intended interpretation.

[Yonadav]

Sarah is said to have died at the time of the Akeida because she dies immediately after the telling of the Akeida, and the verse says something like, "and Abraham came and mourned her." Where did he come from? He came from the mountain where he had bound Isaac.

Or it could be he was out in the fields taking care of the sheep or something, and then he went to the tent to check up on what had happened. An account appearing immediately after another account in Genesis does not mean there isn't an implied significant gap in time between the two accounts. Additionally, the start of the next passage clearly states that some time had passed anyway, so Abraham would've already been back home by the time of his wife's death.

And as Bucky said, the OT doesn't shy away from sanctioning child sacrifice. I also think there is something weak (from a storytelling point of view) about having an adult Isaac being sacrificed in the Binding story instead of a helpless and vulnerable child/adolescent. So I don't think your interpretation of the passage is reasonable much.

---

Oh and before a Christian jumps on me to say that this story is meant to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice of Christ (represented by the ram here), I am totally aware of this interpretation. As an atheist, I just don't buy it as the original intended interpretation.

 
I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything. I was just telling you some things about the Jewish tradition in regard to the Akeida.