BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Home Bible Study: Genesis

 
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Blake Head
23:21 / 06.03.07


Still reading, but setting up this dedicated thread on Genesis as discussed here for those of us that want to “read it, gather thoughts, and try to offer a response to it as individuals and how it relates to our own systems of belief.”

Also from the other thread, I’ll second id in asking people to be respectful, thoughtful and critical regarding their own assumptions, and to contribute to a discussion which focuses on the personal response Genesis provokes rather than the authority it may or may not have invested in it. More soon.
 
 
Princess
18:18 / 09.03.07
So this would be a thread for sort of developing a relationship with the text and being all personal? And the other thread would be for straight up textual analysis? I just want to get clarified because I'm pretty excited about this topic and I don't want to do any fucking up at all.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:02 / 09.03.07
So this would be a thread for sort of developing a relationship with the text and being all personal? And the other thread would be for straight up textual analysis?

I'm on the "very difficult, nigh impossible tp seperate the two" side of that particular fence.

At any rate: I'm down with starting with Genesis, but I think we need to keep in mind how freakin' big the book is. I mean it goes all the way from the creation to Joseph's death in Egypt. There's a lot of stuff in there. Are going to try to go chronologically our just willy nilly, bringing up whatever strikes us as the most interesting?

On the beginning: I find that I favor the second creation story over the first. In truth it provides one of my main pro-choice arguments when dealing with the religous, when God blows the breath of life into Adam's nostrils. I like to argue that the first breath of the newborn is the breath of God, and that without it the fetus doesn't have the sort of "life" that we have.

Moving on to the fall of Man, which is one of the most interesting (to me, anyway) moments of Genesis. God has told Adam that he is free to eat anything, but should he eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he will surely die. Now here comes the serpent, who, for whatever reason, has a big mouth and convinces Eve to try some of the fruit. "Nah, you won't die, God knows you'll become like the gods who know Good from Evil," the serpent says.

Turns out that God wasn't really lying when he said they would die, although it was sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may have been more accurate to say "Eat from this tree and I'll see to it that you die", because that's what happens. Death is one of the several curses God throws around after the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then a weird moment:

"See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." (New American Bible translation). Then God, so fearing this, kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden and set a cherubim and a fiery revolving sword to gaurd the entrance so they could not return.

Puzzling speech. Who, exactly, is God speaking to there? Why is he so against man having eternal life as well as knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did the serpent do what he did? If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to man, who was it there for? Were God and his companions munching on this fruit?

This section throws up some interesting questions. Granted, it's not really supposed to be taken literally, but even so some of it is puzzling.
 
 
Blake Head
22:01 / 09.03.07
Princess: Yes. That was the idea. Sort of. I’m a bit worried I’ve set this up too restrictively because I can definitely see why it’s hard to separate the two. But…yes. This thread for content analysis and personal responses to Genesis. People could start incorporating textual analysis here or continue in the other thread and bounce back here with what they feel personally inspired by, though if I have any preference it’s for all the Genesis stuff in one place. I think I’d only say that I’d mainly rather see not just textual analysis. But whatever people want: I seem to keep putting my foot wrong so whatever’s most productive and clear.

In other news I’m really glad people are excited by the idea. Me too.

Still actually reading though. I thought we’d go for roughly chronologically possibly skipping to bits that we’re really interested in.

Talking about this with Elettaria, I’ve had it pointed out to me that reading the Bible as a radical document is in itself something of an assumption, and perhaps bears the influence of encountering it less in the form of a history that I felt continuity with and more as a text used (negatively or positively) for proselytising. Another assumption was reading Genesis as recording a Fall that resulted in irreducible human deficiency and brokenness (which hopefully we can get into in a bit) when while that’s hugely evocative culturally and to me personally, might not have been read that way, with that emphasis, at the time.

Not that those readings are any less valid, just saying.
 
 
Princess
11:40 / 10.03.07
OK, that all makes sense. I'm intending to read this and write about it on my online journal. Would people take offense if I just copied my blog-posts to this thread? It would be the same information that would have been posted here anyway.

It just seems silly to write the information about my personal development twice. It shouldn't damage the thread but I thought I'd ask because there have (rightly) been problems with posters using Barbelith as an extension of their LJs.
 
 
Princess
11:10 / 13.03.07
Also, if people are going to be doing the whole Bible, would this be the place to mention how we started the journey. Like, maybe talk about how we feel about the thing prior to starting?

Or would that be massively off-topic?
 
 
grant
17:30 / 13.03.07
Copy here! Talky talk about self here!
 
 
Scarlett_156
15:49 / 14.03.07
I read through a great deal of the other "bible study" topic and read all the posts in this topic, and didn't see this mentioned anywhere-- in the opening paragraphs of Genesis, the god/gods are called "elohim"; God's name doesn't change to YHVH until later in the story. Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Hebrew knows that "El" "Elo" is a god title, and adding "-im" as a suffix to a word denotes plurality; i.e., a "seraph" is a single angelic creature, and "seraphim" are multiple.

Therefore it SEEMS that when the story started, there was more than one creator of the universe-- that a number of entities acted in concert to bring about the world and all its life.
--------
NOTE: When I point this out to hard line christians they tend to become a bit ticked with me; don't get angry ok? I just joined the site a couple of days ago, and people started picking on me right away, and I want to make it really clear that I am not trying to affront to anyone. Thanks for taking the time to read.
 
 
EvskiG
16:34 / 14.03.07
Just FYI, that's mentioned on page 2 of the other thread.

The plural also is used in Genesis 1:26. ("Let us make man in our image . . .") It's generally considered to refer to God addressing the inferior fellow deities who helped Him in the process of creation.

Lots of the references to God as a plural deity, or as one of many deities, were cut by the emendations of the scribes.
 
 
grant
17:58 / 14.03.07
generally considered to refer to God addressing the inferior fellow deities

By who? I know a couple seminary students & the like (Christian Bible study folks) who were big on the "royal we," while I've always favored the plural-singular/compound being explanation (another version of which gets waved around in arguments over the trinity, God as three-in-one).
 
 
EvskiG
18:32 / 14.03.07
This Oxford Study Bible is the first source I can think of. (Looked at Genesis 1-2 last night.) Not searchable online, though.

I don't think the "royal we" argument holds water. God repeatedly uses the singular to refer to Himself ("I" rather than "we") in Genesis 1:29-30. But He uses the plural ("us" rather than "me") in Genesis 1:26. (This seems to be true in both the King James Version and the New JPS. Don't know Hebrew well enough to confirm.)
 
 
EvskiG
18:48 / 14.03.07
Also might want to take a look at Genesis 6:2:

"The sons of God [literally, "bene ha-Elohim" or "sons of Elohim"] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose."
 
 
Scarlett_156
19:37 / 14.03.07
I read MOST of the replies in the other thread, missed the one where it talks about plurality, my apologies.

Certainly it seems that if there was such a thing as God thinking about itself, it would likely refer to itself as "we".

What those first few paragraphs in the Creation story make me wonder most, however, is what the belief was of the people who first started telling the story, and passed it on to posterity. Did these ancients perceive the deity as "more-than-one"? (I have my own suppositions about the subject, but am interested to hear what other educated people might have to say.)

Is monotheism a more developed conceptualization of God? (i.e., an idea whose time had come?)

Did the ancient Hebrews chuck the plurality thing just because God armed Moses with a bunch of really cool magic tricks and sent him out saying "Worship me and me only OR ELSE!!!"...?
 
 
EvskiG
22:01 / 14.03.07
The plural also is used in Genesis 1:26. ("Let us make man in our image . . .") It's generally considered to refer to God addressing the inferior fellow deities who helped Him in the process of creation.

. . . .

By who? I know a couple seminary students & the like (Christian Bible study folks) who were big on the "royal we," while I've always favored the plural-singular/compound being explanation (another version of which gets waved around in arguments over the trinity, God as three-in-one).


Looks like Rashi's answer (and hence the traditional Jewish answer) is that "us" refers to God and his angels:

Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: "I shall make man," we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:] And God created," and it does not say,"and they created" - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]
 
 
Princess
22:09 / 14.03.07
He's very good, isn't he?
 
 
grant
23:27 / 14.03.07
See, I have this understanding of angels as sort of projections (like, uh, metaphysical pseudopods) of God -- made of Godstuff but not quite possessing the grandeur of God in His Primal, Primary Essentialness. I'm not entirely sure where I got this idea from, although I see echoes of it in a lot of places. God as Heavenly Host, you know. Metatron as the Voice of God. That kind of thing.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:43 / 15.03.07
How I got started studying the Bible: grew up in a Roman Catholic household (which included catechism), went to a private southern Protestant school where Bible class was mandatory, and have generally been interested in religion for most of my life. Since the Bible has been around me literally all my life, studying it seems only natural.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
01:50 / 15.03.07
Is monotheism a more developed conceptualization of God? (i.e., an idea whose time had come?)

Monotheism in and of itself wasn't really new, unless you are refering to one single god denying the existence of any other gods (even that may not have been new, I'm not really sure). I'm sure some folks were worshipping just one god here and there.

Ethical Monotheism was a pretty new idea though.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
05:40 / 15.03.07
and according to John,
in the beginning was the word.

although, this undoubtedly reflects Genesis as opposed to contradicting it. Still, it suggest much about the nature of the Bible itself as the word of god.

I've spent many of the past few years reading and listening to various creation stories. I find the one in Genesis rather disjointed and baffling. Maybe the versions I've read have suffered under censorious pens.

seperating the light out of the darkness, or void, begins many other tales of creation.

once we get to the garden of eden, things get more complicated.

god curses the snake, the symbol of vitality and life-force, woman and man. quite an opening to a story about the relationship between man and his deity.

it's a fascinating read. i'll have to reread it to sharpen my point.

knot djek
 
 
Unconditional Love
11:56 / 15.03.07
"It was said (in the Shabaka Stone) that it was Ptah who called the world into being, having dreamt creation in his heart, and speaking it, his name meaning opener, in the sense of opener of the mouth. Indeed the opening of the mouth ceremony, performed by priests at funerals to release souls from their corpses, was said to have been created by Ptah. Atum was said to have been created by Ptah to rule over the creation, sitting upon the primordial mound."

The above from wikipedia, about the god ptah also spelt Peteh.
 
 
grant
16:12 / 15.03.07
Monotheism in and of itself wasn't really new, unless you are refering to one single god denying the existence of any other gods

I think the term you want here is henotheism.
 
 
Scarlett_156
02:20 / 16.03.07
(quoting grant here)See, I have this understanding of angels as sort of projections (like, uh, metaphysical pseudopods) of God... (end quote)

This is basically the way I see the demiurge, surrounded by his familiars. (In other words, I agree with you... er... on most days of the week, that is.)

If God made us in his image, then he wanted for us to be magicians, yes...? i.e, God is to the angelim as Man is to his created familiars.

I have found Genesis to be one of the most interesting of the bible's chapters. It has provided me with the opportunity for a great deal of fruitful speculative thought, and I'm glad to see it discussed here.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:53 / 16.03.07
For those too lazy to follow the wikipedia link:
Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is a term coined by Max Müller, to mean devotion to a single "God" while accepting the existence of other gods
 
 
EvskiG
13:07 / 16.03.07
As I understand it, there's (1) henotheism, (2) monolatry, and (3) monotheism. Henotheism is devotion to a single god while accepting not only that other gods exist, but that those other gods are worthy of being worshipped. Monolatry is devotion to a single god while accepting that other gods exist, but denying that those gods are worthy of worship. Monotheism is devotion to a single god while denying that others exist.

The ancient Hebrews evolved (or devolved) from (1) henotheists, who worshipped El or Yahweh and recognized the worthiness of the worship of other Canaanite deities such as Ba'al or Asherah, to (2) monolatrists, who acknowledged that these other gods existed but (as noted in many prophetic writings) despised them and their worship, to (3) monotheists, who denied that other gods existed at all.
 
 
Quantum
13:19 / 16.03.07
I've got an old comic that's set in the time of king David, about the creation of the old testament. IIRC a scribe is sent round all the people of Judea to collect their myths and stories and codify them in a book to consolidate his hold over the people and enforce unity. The scribe takes the story of Genesis from an imprisoned heretic woman and the comic is a thinly veiled treatise on how likely it was Genesis was written by a woman and then amended to fit David's desired message.
If only I could remember what it was called or find it...
 
 
Olulabelle
17:46 / 27.03.07
I'm following both this and the Bible study thread with interest but this thread seems to meander in several directions. I think we should try to keep the discussion here specifically about Genesis and take the general discussion to other threads. The Bible Study thread is a great place for some of this conversation. I think it would be lovely if what we ended up with were designated threads for specific books of the Bible, a bit like the Barbelith Tarot project, or the Runes. If we could aim towards that, it would be great.

I have a question. I'm fascinated by the specific references to food in Genesis (King James) as quoted by Ev.G in the Bible thread here:

29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


If that means, as Ev. G says that Then he informs humans, animals, and insects that they're vegetarians then why are so many committed Christians meat eaters? Is this to be understood differently? Is it just overlooked or is it ignored?
 
 
Blake Head
17:57 / 27.03.07
I was talking to the flatmate (committed Christian) the other night about this actually, in the context of things that aren't currently widely read into the Bible but which might be in the future. We were originally talking about slavery. His response, basically, was that from a specifically Christian perspective Jesus is on record as eating meat, and he was perfect and without sin, therefore eating meat is cool. Further synchronicities the next day when charity shop roaming I came upon "What Would Jesus Eat" as the solution to modern dietary chaos.

I think we should try to keep the discussion here specifically about Genesis and take the general discussion to other threads.

I think that was originally the idea, but we've sort of ended up with the opposite. I do like the idea of covering various books and having a thread focused on each one.
 
 
Olulabelle
20:07 / 27.03.07
Well then I propose that we contain the Genesis discussion here from now on because it's really what was originally intended. I am sure we can rely on Ev.G, Grant and the others to help us ensure we make sensible book related threads by leaving the Bible study thread to contain discussion about which book to study, rather than the particular book in question itself.

Re: What would Jesus eat? How do the people who run with the 'Jesus ate meat therefore meat is cool' theory square that with Genesis?
 
 
Princess
08:45 / 28.03.07
God gives meat to the humans a bit later in Genesis, just after Noah gets off the ark. There's some quite distressing stuff in there about all the animals of the earth fearing humanity, which is nice.

Interestingly, when Cain got snubbed for offering up vegetables (and Abel got kudos for offering up the delicious lamb) people weren't meant to be eating sheep anyway. So it seems like another case of God setting up rules that the humans don't know about* and then acting self-righteous when they fail to follow them.
It's all pushing me towards Gnosticism to be honest. The God of Genesis seems angry, blind and unfair. The idea that he was a creation too and their is a bigger, better set of Gods behind him could be very comforting.

*Adam and Eve, in my mind, knew that God didn't want them to eat the fruit. But, because they hadn't eaten the fruit, couldn't of known that disobedience was wrong or even that wrong was wrong. So I think it oils down to the same.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:35 / 28.03.07
So would anyone care if I skipped ahead a bit and went over the flood, or the when Abraham hits the scene?
 
 
grant
18:28 / 28.03.07
Actually, I think you miss something by skipping -- there's some discussion about Enoch, possibly, to be had, which starts right around the Cain & Abel story. He was the most righteous of men, after all, but related to the most notorious criminal.

The stories do move pretty quickly in Genesis, I think. Later on, they stretch out (Exodus really only ends in the beginning of Joshua, four books later).
 
 
grant
18:30 / 28.03.07
That's just me, though.
 
 
EvskiG
18:49 / 28.03.07
[Enoch] was the most righteous of men, after all, but related to the most notorious criminal.

Well, everyone was related to the most notorious criminal at that time, weren't they? With Abel dead everyone either had to be related to (1) Cain, (2) Adam and Eve's third son Seth, or (3) Adam and Eve's other sons or daughters, if any.

(Unless you accept the premise that God also created other people not related to Adam and Eve, as per Genesis 1:27.)

One more point about Cain and Abel. This is the first instance in the Bible of a younger son gaining a blessing or favor over an older son. It happens over and over again throughout the Old Testament. (E.g., Jacob, Joseph, Solomon.) It's not at all clear why.

Personally, no preferences about Enoch vs. the Flood, Abraham, etc. Although if we do Enoch we can discuss the extremely wacky Book of Enoch . . .
 
 
grant
01:14 / 29.03.07
Ring-a-ding. The Jacob/Esau thing just baffles me to a certain degree. But we're digressing....
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:43 / 29.03.07
I feel we should link the rest of the original genesis discussion (in which we have covered creation, the fall of man, and Cain and Abel).

I presume there's no way to merge the other one into this?
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply