Everybody knows some of the broad themes of Genesis: God creates earth,
the Garden of Eden, the story of Noah, etc. Here are some things that
may not have been brought to your attention in Sunday School.
~ God creates day and night on the first day, but doesn't create the sun or the stars until the 4th. (Genesis 1:3-5, 16-19)
~ God repeatedly refers to himself as "us," though why (and why only in Genesis) is never explained. (Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7)
~ Adam was not kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating the
forbidden fruit. God became nervous that his newly-enlightened creation
would also eat fruit from the tree of life and become immortal.
(Genesis 3:22-23)
~ Cain killed Abel because God liked Abel more. Why? Because as a
farmer, Cain could only sacrifice plants to God. Abel was a herdsman,
and so could sacrifice animals. (Genesis 4:2-5)
~ God's sons come down from the heaven to have sex with earth women. (Genesis 6:1-2, 4)
~ "There were giants in the earth in those days" isn't an accurate
translation. The word translated into giants was "Nephilim", which
nobody actually knows how to translate. (Genesis 6:4)
~ Noah gets drunk on wine from his vineyard and passes out with his
genitals exposed. Ham, his son, accidentally sees this. When Noah wakes
up, he punishes Ham by making his youngest son a slave. (Genesis
9:20-27)
~ God makes a covenant with Abraham and demands that he and all his
descendents become circumcised. God never explains why cutting off the
foreskin is important, but it seems quite contradictory to all the
other laws about never exposing one's genitals. What good is a
distinguishing self-mutilation that nobody is allowed to see? (Genesis
17:10)
~ Rachel and Leah battle for Jacob's favor by giving him their maids as sex partners. (Genesis 30:1-11)
~ God has a wrestling match with Jacob and loses. To honor the occasion, God changes Jacob's name to Israel. (Genesis 32:24-30)
~ The "sin of Onan" is not masturbation. Onan wasn't punished because
he "spilled his semen on the ground" but because he didn't impregnate
his sister-in-law. God kills Onan. (Genesis 38:1-10)
Of course, many of these issues have light shed upon them when the Bible is viewed from a critical, rather than inerrant perspective. For example, God referring to himself as "us" is explained by
Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis. For a great book on how to read the Old Testament in a historical-critical perspective, I highly recommend Brettler's
How to Read the Bible.
Comments (28)
www.runtus.org/USERIMAGES/Sun%20Fourth%20Day.doc
I hope this works. I am having difficulties getting the link to work on your page.
Message me if you cannot get it to work.
Excellent answer to your first question.
Heady stuff--AND breathtaking. *claps and whistles*
I have heard most of these before...Why were they supposed to be ones the pastor's won't bring up? I'm lost there...Sorry....
When I used to go to church I did actually hear some of these.
I've never heard a Pastor preach on Isaiah 36:12 - "But Rab'sha-keh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Not all light comes from the sun because stars produce light too. It's
believed that God was the source of light because, in terms of
creation, the sun had very little to do with life on earth.
This is great. I've pondered these passages for years, because growing up Catholic, things just didn't translate the way I understood them. I took the passages and looked at them as you have presented them here.
Well done.
Taylor
I am not aware of any Bible believing churches that consider any part of the Bible to be taboo. That only occurs in settings where eisigesis is the method used for reading and "understanding" scripture. If you approach the Bible with atheistic presuppositions in mind then of course you are not going to agree with or understand it.
God created all the stars at the same time, including the sun. I don't know why he chose to do things in the order which he did, but God does not need the sun to generate light since he can generate it directly.
God referring to himself in the plural is fine because God is plural (Trinity), at least, according to the Bible.
Yes, he threw them out because he did not wish for them to become immortal in spite of their sinful nature.
The "Son's of God" refers to angels when it is used in the OT. In the NT it's applied more loosely to include any beings created directly by God, and Christians are allowed to become sons of God through adoption.
Seeing Noah naked was an accident, the crime was telling his brothers but doing nothing about it. Of course there may have been more involved than that because it says that when Noah woke up he sensed what his son had done to him. At any rate, it was not Ham or all of his descendants that were punished, just Caanan which I believe was Ham's firstborn son.
Circumcision was also a part of the law, and genitals were to be covered when performing religious rituals and rights. I don't know why God decided to tell them to cut off part of Mr. Wang. That has always mystified me. It's supposed to be the sign of the covenant but I'm not sure it serves any practical purpose.
I predict most of the people leaving comments will address the simple arguments, instead of tackling the more important ones (like, How Onan was killed or God losing in a wrestling match).
anyway...
@jmsnooks - "If you approach the Bible with atheistic
presuppositions in mind then of course you are not going to agree with
or understand it."
I'd like to think the bible, or the tons and tons of Christians would be able enough to break any man's bias. Bias is a hard thing to deal with of coarse, but I think there are MORE people that "cling" to faith, than there are people that "cling" to not having a faith.
Being strongly dedicated to something can usually bring up a "bias". I don't think atheists usually have this problem, because even if they are deep in atheism, it's still a belief ("belief" not being the best choice of words I suppose) that's "Flexible" enough to be done away with, when confronted with solid evidence.
This of coarse leads into a debate on wither the evidence provided is in fact, solid or not.
@Elegant_Evil - To be quite honest I'm not certain what arguments are being made. Some of the paraphrases seem to be innacurate. If there were some points clearly stated then they could be addressed. Of course at the end of the day most people are going to continue to believe whatever they want to believe.
If he's trying to say that miracles are difficult to believe in I would tend to agree for the most part. Although, I have yet to hear of any belief system pertaining to origins which does not incorporate the miraculous somewhere along the way. The differences arise in application and attribution. As to those 2 items you mentioned, I would say they occured to make a point. Onan was killed because he was being belligerant and rebellious by refusing to impregnate that woman. Since God intended to make a community out of Jacob's family, he decided to make an example out of that guy. God used only human level strength against Jacob in that wrestling match and allowed Jacob to win. I believe it was to make an ideological point about being persistant when dealing with God, a theme which is reiterated in the NT in some of the parables by Jesus.
@jmsnooks - If you approach the Bible with atheistic
presuppositions in mind then of course you are not going to agree with
or understand it.
"Atheistic presuppositions" huh? Would you mind explaining that one?
Christianity confuses me. I'm pretty sure in the New Testament, Jesus told us to abolish the old law of moses and follow his teachings and his one great commandment (Love one another as I have loved you). Therefore, Christians shouldn't be following the old testament at all. However, many Christians constantly quote the old testament when trying to make a point about something related to their faith. If we're not to follow it, why should anything in the old testament matter at all?
@jmsnooks - [I am not aware of any Bible believing churches that consider any part of the Bible to be taboo.]
I was just pointing out that these are verses that a lot of people who go to church and hear the classic stories of Genesis aren't aware of.
[If you approach the Bible with atheistic
presuppositions in mind then of course you are not going to agree with
or understand it.]
A lot of these I found and marked off in the Bible I got for confirmation while I was still a believing Christian. Besides, I don't know what "atheistic presuppositions" I need to paraphrase Bible passages that are either weird or just don't make sense.
Lol, I'm a minister( believe it or not) and I try to point out that masterbation isn't a sin. It's like alot of people will only read half of a bible story to someone( just the parts that fit their agenda,lol).
When God says"us" he's talking to the angels.
"Nephilim" are sometimes called "fallen angels" or, if you believe the old stories, they were the children of Adams "first" wife, Lilith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Lol, you forgot Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they could have children with him^_^ ( oh wait, that's in another part of the bible).
If you get a chance, I would like to know your thoughts on this: Dated July 13th...
http://www.xanga.com/Andyshs
Actually I've heard each discussed and sometimes debated in Bible classes and sermons all my life. I've even included some of these in my own sermons and bible studies.
@Elegant_Evil - Everyone is biased. My advice is: If anyone tells you they are not wether they a theist or atheist then dismis them as the arrogant fools they are.
"Bias is a hard thing to deal with of coarse, but I think there are MORE people that "cling" to faith, than there are people that "cling" to not having a faith."
Just try telling any hard Darwinist that you doubt evolution and they will become as bull headed as any fundy.
And at some point in the conversation you'll be portrayed as stupid just for disagreeing with them. It does not matter how reasonable your arguments are.
@Extremegoatmaster - Hard lined evolutionist believe that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid. Just like hardlined fundies believe anyone who disagrees with them is immoral.
@GodlessLiberal - I see in responding to JM you also adressed my point so I figured I'd respond:
"I was just pointing out that these are verses that a lot of people who go to church and hear the classic stories of Genesis aren't aware of."
Though that is generally true of Sunday morning christians I've found that most of the more... determined Christians are readily aware of these items as well as their favorite rebuttal to them.
A good example being in the fact that you discovered several of these in your own confirmation bible.
Nihilism is a paradox therefore making God more plausible. I did not say all atheists were nihilists because they are not, but all nihilists are atheists being another paradox.
@Extremegoatmaster - If you approach the Bible from the persective that there is no God and you truly believe that then you are predisposed to disbelieve in the Bible.
@GodlessLiberal - What have you done to your leg?
Most people that go to church are sadly unaware of the Bible. If it doesn't make sense to you or you don't understand it then don't you think it would be more logical to just show the actual verse and let people draw their own conclusions?
@Persiankitty - The NT is built upon the OT. The law is no longer binding but that does not mean that the events written about in the OT as history and the prophecies contained therein are to be dismissed and ignored. The NT reiterates that God created everything and that it is because of Adam that we have sin and death. Evolutionism is a different belief system entirely, and if it were true then that would mean there is no original sin, and thus no need for Jesus. And if God didn't make the earth then Jesus probably was just a man, and didn't rise from the grave, and died for nothing.
@nidan - "Everyone is biased. My advice is: If anyone
tells you they are not wether they a theist or atheist then dismis them
as the arrogant fools they are."
Sounds like you have a bias towards people who claim to not have a bias (haha I made a funny), but in all seriousness.
I agree that everyone is has a bias, but I don't think they bring that bias in, on everything they do. A man may shrug at the mention of "religion" ,but may stand up tall and speak loud when the topic of "politics" is made.
I think people create themselves a bias, because a bias is like a shield. It presents a form of stability to that person, and stability brings comfort to people.
For example, a man who hardens his heart, you could say, has a "bias" towards "feelings". The man does this because it lessens the impact of any of the negative emotions that comes his way. However, it can also protect against positive emotions. Making him unlikable and perceived as cold by those around him.
On the other end, a man that doesn't hold a bias, leaves his heart open. He may be likable, but he takes the the full blow of any insult made at him, And there are people out there, that would rather take that full blow.
I like the idea of the "Golden Mean".You have to have a balance. You have to have a shield, but knowing when to put it up and take it down is what's really important, and that...well, that takes practice.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Just try telling any hard Darwinist that you doubt evolution and they will become as bull headed as any fundy."
True, I'm sorry I didn't underline or make it bold, but what I said was "I think there are MORE people that "cling" to faith, than there are people that "cling" to not having a faith."
I was making a comparison. I'm not denying that Atheist Fundis exist. I go to forums where topics like faith,and politics are brought up often. I've read plenty of comments from Atheist Fundis.
They usually resort to ad hominems.
@Elegant_Evil - "I agree that everyone is has a bias, but I don't think they bring that bias in, on everything they do. A man may shrug at the mention of "religion" ,but may stand up tall and speak loud when the topic of "politics" is made."
I agree with you as far as most people are concerned. But I've learned that it's a very different story when fanatics are concerned.
Wow, talk about changing words completely around. A lot of these are stretched to sound bad.
The reason the sacrifice of an animal was better than giving plants and stuff is because back then, when you loved a god, you shed the blood of a perfect animal to show it. Here you find a perfect animal that's perfect to eat for food, but you give it up for what you love. It's also a foreshadowing of Jesus shedding his own blood because he loved us so much.
"I am not aware of any Bible believing churches that consider any part of the Bible to be taboo."
Well, I don't have contact with churches really, but I will say that many, many organizations reject books like The Gospel of Thomas. Consequently, I'd sure think it quite easy to find many "Bible believing churches" that consider part(s) of the Bible taboo... if I cared to look.