Ok, that's not totally true. Joseph and his super fabulous gay technicolor dreamcoat is a pretty good story. It's actually written somewhat well. I guess that's why it got a Broadway musical and Lot having sex with his daughters didn't.
But I digress. Here's what I think about Genesis other than that it should be prescribed in place of Ambien.
(For clarification's sake, I'm reading the ESV Bible. The links for the verses are to biblegateway.com.)
I'm going to ignore most of the obvious inconsistencies (like God creating everything and then creating man in chapter 1 only to turn around and make man BEFORE making the plants and animals in chapter 2) and just focus on the things that bothered me that I had never really heard before.
GE 1:26 God creates man and he says, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." (emphasis mine) Who is he talking to!? The angels? They haven't been introduced yet. Either that's the lamest use of foreshadowing or there's something we're not being told. My theory? This was written at a time when people were henotheistic.
GE 2:16-17 God tells Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil but, as we all know, he eats from it anyway. If God is all-knowing, he would know Adam would disobey him. So why did God give Adam a command he knew he wouldn't follow? (I've actually heard this complaint before. Here's a video of a pastor or something responding to this very question. It's hilarious!)
GE 3:6 I've always understood that the blame for eating the fruit lay with Eve. Now I understand she did eat it first but, according to this verse, Adam was there with her the whole time. He should have heard the snake tell Eve to eat the fruit. He could have stopped her. So it looks like they share the blame. Take that, misogynists!
GE 3:9, 3:11, 3:13, 4:6-7, 4:9-10, 18:13 For an all-knowing God, he sure does ask a lot of questions.
GE 6:19-20, 7:2-3 God tells Noah to take two of every kind onto the ark. Ok. So far so good. But then he tells him to take seven of the clean animals, "a pair of" the unclean animals, and seven pairs of the birds. Er....what? I read somewhere (coincidently after reading this for the first time) that the second group of animals is supposed to be for an offering after the flood. But no where does it say that! Unless I missed it. That's possible. I was falling asleep.
GE 10:5 "From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, and their nations." (emphasis mine) But then!! GE 11:1 "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." Stop messing with my head, God!!!
GE 18:23-33 If God can see fit to consider sparing Sodom if even 10 righteous people live there, then people need to stop blaming natural disasters on wickedness. Unless 10 is actually some type of quota. If your city has only 9 righteous people, GET THE F*CK OUT NOW!!!!!!
GE 21:33 God is called "the Everlasting God" here. This could just be an adjective, I admit, but it seems odd to me to qualify God with a word like that unless you wish to set him apart from other gods.
GE 26:6-9 Apparently it was uncommon for people to laugh with their sisters. If you laugh with a woman, that is a dead giveaway that she's not your sister! Do not take your sister to a comedy club. Everyone will think you're married. Gross!
GE 26:23 I just want to say that Beersheba sounds like an AWESOME place.
GE 27:22-23 Seriously? I'm supposed to believe that Esau is as hairy as a goat? Or at least his hands are. And presumably his neck. Isaac never checks Jacob (disguised as Esau) there but Rebekah makes sure to put goat skin on his neck just in case. This can only mean one of three things; A) Esau is slightly hairier than Robin Williams, B) Isaac is a moron, C) This book is folklore!! (hint: C)
GE 28:2 Isaac tells Jacob to marry his cousin. Oooook. Maybe B was correct.
GE 29:16-25 How is it possible to sleep with someone and not know it's a different woman than the woman you've deeply loved for seven years until the next morning? That's not beer goggles, that's beer blindfolds and beer mittens and beer fifty-five condoms!!!
GE 30:22 "Then God remembered Rachel..." Then God remembered Rachel? What part of all-knowing doesn't God understand?
GE 31:19 Just more evidence, IMO, of henotheism going on. I understand in some versions "household gods" is actually "teraphims" but later in GE 31:30 they are clearly called gods. Now, I suppose it could be argued that these were false idols, but going with the earlier examples I give, I think it's more likely this is a sign of the beliefs people had back then.
GE 32:22-32 Jacob wrestles with a man that is apparently God and this man tells Jacob his new name is Israel. So of course, in the next chapter, he's still called Jacob.
But wait! GE 35:9-10 God comes back and tells Jacob again, "Dude! Your name is Israel!! Get it right!" And Jacob is all, "You got it, Chief!"
GE 35:14 "And Jacob set up a pillar..." AARRRGGGHHH!!! From here on out he is called Jacob or Israel interchangeably and without notice. What's up with that? No. Seriously. What's up with that!?
GE 49:7 "...I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel." See!!?!?! That doesn't even make sense.
Those are pretty much all the main points that struck me as odd or interesting. Overall, while reading Genesis, I was struck by just how false all of it felt. I can't fathom how anyone could take this as literal. The descriptions and dialogue and situations all feel more like folklore than history. The stories of the interactions of all these people and the cities they build and the lineages they create remind me of Romulus and Remus or Gilgamesh. It reads like a way for people to have an origin story that makes them feel special. So, I wouldn't be surprised if aspects of Genesis are true (mainly the names of cities and peoples) but outside of that I just see a boring, confusing, and unbelievable mash-up of myths.
Granted, a lot of Christians do consider it to be metaphorical or allegorical, but then how do they not take the logical step of applying that to the rest of the book? I guess I'll understand more as I read the rest of the Bible. Or not. We'll see.
-Nikko
**LATE EDITION** (Added 2/27 at 2:36 PM CT) For an interesting interpretation of the Adam and Eve story I highly recommend reading "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It's pretty fascinating.
There is a website called Bible Gateway
ReplyDelete(http://www.biblegateway.com/)
You could probably link those verses to us so we can get your jokes. I don't keep my KJV Bible on me as this Twilight shit has me spooked, so I keep my Bible nailed to my front door to ward off vampires.
Interesting read, and your conclusion really sums it up for me. There is just no logical way to take any of Genesis (or many other books) as "fact." You can call it religious truth and I won't argue, but it's certainly not historic fact. Half of it doesn't make SENSE as fact (just like many of the Greek myths don't really mesh well).
ReplyDeleteBut, to answer your question in the last paragraph, if I were Christian I would make this argument: Many of the earliest books of the Bible - maybe even the entire Old Testament - is prehistory. It's all based on verbal tradition and stories designed to keep people in line. Some of these allegories contain important messages about how to live life (I actually believe the Bible does, at times, give some pretty good advice on how to be a decent person). But when it comes to the New Testament, that wasn't that long ago. The record here is of a real person and real events and it was written just a few decades (I think this is accurate) after the death of Jesus. While every single detail might not be exactly right, it's more than likely these things did happen. There were just too many people who could've called "bullshit" on the whole thing otherwise.
That, to me, would be the best argument. But here's something you've gotta learn: the hardcore religious NEVER make the best arguments.
Ok, that's not totally true. Joseph and his super fabulous gay technicolor dreamcoat is a pretty good story.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that the "good story" didn't translate to the stage version, where Joseph is just a colossal entitled dick, and the playwrights didn't quite get the basic premise of drama (i.e., telling a story through dialogue and action as opposed to narration).
As a BA in Religions (with a obvious larger focus on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths) and I quasi-identify myself as an ELCA Lutheran, which is not a BibleIsAlwaysTrue denomination/synod. Other Lutherans are, even some ELCA Lutherans are, but it's not a do or die topic. I am very very much in concurrence with a lot of things you said here. And, I for one, as a believing "christian" (if i have to really check a box off. and i do do christain holidays), don't understand how my fellows can Bible Thump this way or the highway all is 100%. And really the debates that I've had with people of that line of thought just make me want to scream. "It's a faith thing" cannot be used that many times as an argument. I get it on the resurrection of Christ, cause that tends to be an essential bit of the religion for most folks, but on two creation stories? Really? The two creation stories were written in totally different eras. There are hundreds and hundreds of years between them. And it's not like Genesis was written down by one person in the order it is currently in. Not like the Hebrews broke it up into chapters. There have been many forms and debates and councils to put the Bible together as it is today. AND Catholics still have more books in their Bible than the Protestants do. SO how do you rationalize that. And how do you rationalize the books that were left out? Factoids, I suppose the average believer doesn't know, but the fault of that lays in their education. I ALSO do not believe for a second that MOSES (same one) wrote the first five books himself. It makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteHenotheism was part of being a Hebrew back before they identified as being Hebrew. They very much just believed that Yahweh was the greatest of all the gods. In fact, Nikko, you'll meet Lady Wisdom eventually. Provided you make it that far. There are also a few other thoughts that you brought up that I and classmates and scholars alike have had. And shared, and laughed at.
The average person out of my classes, if they weren't before, my professor would have at least beaten into them that the Bible, and especially the early Pentateuch (first five books) are to be taken as stories to lead us in the right direction. Cause clearly we can all agree that when it comes to Cain and Abel - you shouldn't kill your brother (provided you have one, I'm certain it applies to my sisters). The base truths are what SHOULD be important, don't bother to sweat the details.
And, @JD - you're correct when it comes to the dating and age of when the NT was written. However, things people tend not to remember/realize- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - NEITHER of the four actually knew Jesus who is to be the Christ. And it's yeaaaaaaaars afterward, Mark, the earliest of gospels was written in approx 50 AD. John, which is the latest of the four, was written in approx 90 AD. Paul who wrote most of the letters in the NT apparently meets Christ in a vision, but that's post-resurrection-post-beginningofpersecution. The only two authors in the entire NT that knew Christ were James and Peter. Who wrote James and 1 and 2 Peter respectively. Three books out of the entire thing.
okay. that's enough for now. Any questions?
@Matthew - Fixed. You're welcome.
ReplyDelete@JD - I might be able to buy into the idea that the NT was written much closer to his death and therefore it's more accurate, except that A) there are no useful, extra-biblical accounts of Jesus, B) it's written more like fiction of the time period than historical accounts (historical writings usually don't include things like emotion), and C) what Allison said. Speaking of which, this is from about.com so take it as you will but, "Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE."
@Tom - I've never seen the musical. There was a made for TV movie in the past 15 years (don't remember when and I don't care enough to Google it) that I saw that was really good. At least that's how I remember it.
@Allison - Awesome! I hope you continue to add your input as this blog develops. Your comments will definitely be a welcome addition any time.
GE 21:33 God is called "the Everlasting God" here. This could just be an adjective, I admit, but it seems odd to me to qualify God with a word like that unless you wish to set him apart from other gods.
ReplyDeleteWhich, as I'm sure you know, is exactly what they wanted to do.
Speaking of which, have you heard the theory that Yahweh was originally a god of like agriculture and "the harvest"?
Interesting stuff so far. Reading the Bible is a good idea for people who like to delve into classic literature and film, since you get a lot more of the references. At the very least, Nikko, you'll improve your cultural literacy and at best save your eternal soul.
ReplyDeleteYours in Christ,
Neil
Good post. I like the footnote-esque commentary. Nice graphic at the top too.
ReplyDelete@arbobeck - I have not heard that theory about Yahweh being a divine farmer. That would make sense though.
ReplyDelete@Neil - I'm loving reading the Bible if only because it's making me enjoy Lost even more.
@Eric - It is a good graphic but I cannot take credit for that. The guy that's writing the Skeptic blog alongside this one made it for me.
Well, I will not delve into each remark you made, but I will highlight a couple. First, the let Us passage is reference to the Trinity - God is three persons in one - Father, Son, and Spirit.
ReplyDeleteYes, Adam was right there by Eve. He failed his purpose to lead Eve and because of this, Eve and then he sinned. He failed what God had called him to be.
That is not a discrepancy with the mention of languages and then the tower of Babel. If you look, after the tower of Babel, the author returns to genealogies. The author is giving Noah's genealogy, steps back, shares how these languages mentioned at the end of chapter 10 came about, and then continues with providing genealogies.
Jacob being called both Jacob and Israel is no different than you being called Nicholas and Nikko. They're interchangeable. You will find this throughout the Old Testament. The sons will be divided in Jacob and dispersed over the land of Israel.
And finally, Jacob did wrestle with God - this is Jesus Christ in His pre-incarnate form. The angel of the LORD is the name given to Him in the Old Testament. You'll see plenty more of Jesus in coming passages. And on that, from Genesis to Revelation, it's all about Jesus. The first prophecy of Jesus is found in Genesis 3 when God says from the seed of the woman will be a Child who will have his heel bit by the serpent (Satan) but then the Child will crush the head of the serpent.
I could continue, but just wanted to touch on a couple of your responses. Looking forward to continuing =)
@Lane -
ReplyDeleteOn your first, third, and fifth points, this is a problem I had with the Bible before reading it and am finding so far that it doesn't go away when you do read it. That is, it's open to interpretation. There are Christians that would agree with you and there are Christians that would agree with me (sans the "no God" thing). I see no principled way of discerning between these viewpoints.
Your second point is just clarifying what I said so I have nothing to add.
Your fourth point is taken. That didn't really bother me as something logically inconsistent or earth-shatteringly wrong, just odd. However, I will point out that God does say, "No longer shall your name be Jacob." I go by Nikko as well as by Nicholas, but when I started going by Nikko it wasn't under some decree that my name was no longer Nicholas. It's just a nickname.
Concerning Genesis 26:6-9: the Hebrew word for "laughing" is "yitzhoq". "yitzhoq" can be translated as "joy/laughing/playing" and it can also have sexual connotations which is how it should be translated in this particular passage in light of the context. When you read Exodus 32:6 in the ESV, "yitzhoq" is translated as "play". Again, this particular instance infers sexual connotations because of the context of the people worshiping their greatest god - the god of fertility.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info, Romans. I figured that this was a translation or contextual issue but I still thought it was funny to point out. Still, I appreciate the clarification.
ReplyDeleteSure man! I want you to understand the Bible!
ReplyDelete