Just finished Genesis

[Anonymous No.15360950]

What are some important theological details I might have missed?
p.s. I couldn't decide which guide to use, so I am reading the book in chronological order. Is that a good idea for a first timer?

[OP No.15360961]

Oh, and what do you think about Genesis? Which parts do you like? and which ones do you find dull?
Personally, I was surprised by how dense the first eleven chapters were. Feels like half the stories I was taught as a kid were right there.

[Anonymous No.15360986]

>>15360961
I finished Genesis recently too. I agree that it felt as if most the stories I was taught as a kid were from there. What are your thoughts of when Noah gets drunk and curses his younger kid for seeing him naked?

[Anonymous No.15360989]

>>15360950
really they were better before Peter Gabriel left

[Anonymous No.15361000]

>>15360950
>post about finishing Genesis
>picture is a story from Exodus
Really ticking my tism with this one OP

[Anonymous No.15361008]

>>15360961
>>15360986
Those stories were lifted from other cultures and run deep in the human psyche. Its easier to identify with them.

[Anonymous No.15361012]

From the beginning God always has given us all we needed.

You might get bored with that reading plan and if that happens hop to new testament then go back to old testament in themes like (proverb/Ecclesiastes/prophets) Story of Israel's first king from Saul, David, Solomon.

Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, Proverbs, Prophets, Genesis, etc. So you may find a parable or saying of Jesus, more than likely there is an old testament close equivalent. Growing trees/seeds/weeds/crops parables from New Testament are give more context in Old Testament

[Anonymous No.15361013]

>>15361008
Preach, all major world religions touch on the flood

[OP No.15361032]

>>15360986
I honestly found it pretty funny. Though I think no one saw him drunk. Rather, he was mad that the kid told his brothers.
Also, how they (try to) use the same trick about getting a random king to fuck their wife and get cursed at least three times.

[Anonymous No.15361033]

>>15361008
yeah but in none of those stories does the protagonist get drunk and naked and then curses his own child, thats kike corruption

[OP No.15361040]

>>15361000
Yeah, I was thinking of making a thread like this for all of the five books and using the same image. Also, check'd.

[OP No.15361046]

>>15361012
Sounds interesting. I'll try to remember that. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.15363198]

bump

[Anonymous No.15363228]

Is there a point to an atheist reading the bible just for the literary significance?

[Anonymous No.15363241]

>>15360989
Incredibly based and cultured poster

[Anonymous No.15363246]

Genesis 2 is older than genesis 1. The second chapter is anthropocentric, describes the fall, and is more poetic than the first chapter.
The creation of the cosmos comes later in religious development, however it makes sense chronologically to put the creation of the universe prior to the creation of man.
Thus, the author of Genesis unwittingly described two separate creation myths together as one.

[OP No.15363297]

>>15363246
It does seem like that.

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27

>And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
>And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
> And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
>And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
>And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Genesis 2:7, 2:18 and 2:22–23

[OP No.15363304]

>>15363228
Yes, I would say so.

[Anonymous No.15363329]

>tfw you finally start to understand the documentary hypothesis
>tfw trying to figure out which sources you're reading as you read
>tfw just when you think yahweh is being yahwist he does something elohistic, and just when you think abraham is panbabylonic he does something that israeli autistic
>tfw trying to figure out what sources the deuteronomist had access to
>tfw we have no idea what the Book of the Wars of the Lord is
>tfw we have no idea what the Book of Jasher is
>tfw the song of deborah is 12th century!
>tfw no wait, it's 7th century!
>tfw the "house of david" is attested in a stele (or is it?)
>tfw "judge" (shofet) is translated as "chieftain" in newer editions
>tfw archaeology says the holy land was sparsely populated when the wars of the shoftim took place
>tfw no it doesn't, archaeology says the exact opposite!
>tfw undergoing so much confusion that i'm starting to think the likeliest answer is that the torah is 100% literal

[Anonymous No.15363348]

>>15363228
It's debatably the most influential collection of texts since the axial age and it is possible to read it for purely hermeneutic purposes, so yes, I say it would be worth an atheist's time.

[Anonymous No.15363366]

>>15360950
Nah, don't read the Bible chronologically. You'll get bored and quit. OT is 90% psyop anyways.

[Anonymous No.15363377]

>>15363228
Yes. Most of the western canon pulls from it. If you do read, reading the classics becomes more vivid once you can make the connections. Also, its language is rich in beauty.

[OP No.15363391]

>>15363329
kekekek