/lit/ reads the Old Testament

[Anonymous No.21856374]

I really hope you guys have your bibles and are ready to start tomorrow.

old thread >>21843387

[Anonymous No.21856405]

I'm down. Going to be reading from Robert Alter's translation

When are we doing the new testament?

[Anonymous No.21856420]

>read the incomplete (protestant) OT with a bunch of low IQ atheists
I'm alright

[Anonymous No.21856462]

Finally a group reading with retards from /lit/. How long have I missed those...

[Anonymous No.21856464]

[Anonymous No.21856472]

>>21856464
450ish pages in two weeks is only like 35 pages per day. That's nothing. Nabokov expected his full time Cornell students to read at least 55 pages a day and he considered that easy

[Anonymous No.21856484]

>>21856472
And that’s only the orthocuck OT

[Anonymous No.21856491]

>>21856464
>2 weeks to read 150 pages
Uhh nu/lit/ sisters

[Anonymous No.21856498]

>>21856472
We're not full time bible students are we, you fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.21856513]

>>21856498
The point is Nabokov required his full-time students to read 55 pages a day for one class. None of us are students in any capacity so even 55 pages a day should be a cakewalk for us

[Anonymous No.21856658]

>have two whole threads of people saying 4 weeks is too little time
>now have a thread with people saying 8 weeks is too much time
I with the lord would take me.

[Anonymous No.21856679]

REMINDER: DO NOT REPLY TO OFF-TOPIC FAGGOTS OF ANY PERSUASION (this includes pagans, secularists, and denomination LARPers who are just looking to bicker about Reformation-era dogma disputes)

Because this thread is doing the OT and not the NT, we will at least avoid most of the latter, since all they ever do is read two gospels + three letters and watch five thousand youtube videos explaining the doctrinal debate over whether sneedesthai should be translated as a middle or a passive

[Anonymous No.21856747]

>>21856658
>people disagree

[Anonymous No.21856776]

>>21856679
>(this includes pagans, secularists
We're on /lit/, that's everyone reading it. It looks like at least 2 anons are going with the Alter translation so this is going to end up an ice cold literary analysis with a lot of jew jokes.

[Anonymous No.21856873]

>>21856513
prideful

[Anonymous No.21856900]

>>21856374
Are you doing critical studies? I found the literary analysis breaking the narrative down into at least three major sources was very useful to understand the incoherent dual creation and the switching between deity forms if you investigate the original words.
Seems like the early jews ripped off most of their religion including the god El. The flood story exists on a babylonian tablet with even the small details like the measurements of the boat, of animals two by two and sending out the bird.

[Anonymous No.21857051]

Interesting idea. Bump because all group reading threads deserve one.

[Anonymous No.21857088]

Is there a list of what I have to read each day?

[Anonymous No.21857122]

what are the recommended translations?

[Anonymous No.21857328]

>>21856374
They call it numbers because it feels like a million years long

[Anonymous No.21857360]

>>21857088
>>21856464

[Anonymous No.21857502]

Tomorrow is April fool's day so there's a good chance the board will be very off topic tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.21858398]

>>21857502
Turns out the gag for the site is shit and won't derail much

[Anonymous No.21859076]

>>21857122
As literature? KJV or Alter. Modern translations suffer from being written down to an 8th grade reading level while the KJV suffers from "suffer" meaning "allow" and archaeology having come a long, long way. There's really no winning with translations.

FWIW I find Alter the least offensive stylistically. He has preserved a very hebraic cadence and his verse doesn't make my skin crawl. So yeah, your only good options are archaic 17th century English with a questionable translation accuracy that's still better than everything based on it, or one jew.

[Anonymous No.21859167]

>>21857122
KJV or nothing for me. It's just beautiful.

Audiobook versions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiXQmeuHTOY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFT_IxwJJY

[Anonymous No.21859174]

>>21859167
First link is dead. Here's a replacement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivqdtk-KOSU&list=PLWe3fNhjFRx3a-MV-It-SZyHzPEyN4df4

[Anonymous No.21859282]

I've read up to Leviticus. Just going on the first two books in the OT, God's will changes and adapts and he listens to humans and changes his mind based on what they say.
God's form also changes and suddenly after the Exodus, God and his form are different and moses can't look at his face, Moses becomes glowing after being in his presence.
Why do both of these change if God is eternal and his plan pre conceived?

[Anonymous No.21859304]

this scripture sucks, its boring and useless. Lets read Yoga Sutras or Buddha's Words instead

[Anonymous No.21859410]

>>21859282
It's the story of the foundation of a People, heavily redacted. It traces the evolution of theology as different tribes joined together, culminating in the Exodus narrative which was the fruition of the promised Covenant and end expression of a unified tribe. It also traces the evolution of Man and how he perceives and interacts with the Increate and Creation. Careful reading also yields that God speaks and acts either from what appears to be nowhere or through an emmisary, messenger, or dream and in any other case, people prostrate themselves lest they look upon the Face. In more and less esoteric lines, the Face is direct apprehension, likely through intensive contemplation, and separate from other experiences. You'll see that more in Prophets.

[Anonymous No.21859428]

I strongly recommend watching Northrop Frye's bible course if you are interested in a secondary source that looks at the bible from a mostly "literary" perspective-- getting into the importance of metaphor, the different symbols, etc. can find it easily online for free if you look up Northrop Frye bible course, should be on the university of toronto website

[Anonymous No.21859489]

Just a tip --- Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are mostly fairly boring for someone who's reading casually, but it gets good again after Moses dies. If you feel like giving up I recommend skimming through these and giving the next few books a shot. Samuel especially is one of the best narratives in the bible.

[Anonymous No.21859509]

>>21856374
How does this work? You read a chapter per day? What's the current progress?

[Anonymous No.21859512]

>>21859489

Deuteronomy 13 is the finest chapter of the finest book of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.21859520]

>>21859410
Maybe I misread it or didn't understand it fully but early on God is walking around and in physical form with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and it never mentions that they can't look at him fully or that his face is not visible or can't be seen.
When the Moses story happens, God and the way he appears is different and he can't appear directly now, he can appear on the mountains and there's clouds/fire obscuring the place. The other thing is from the Moses story, God's power is done through something and not directly. Moses sees an angel and then God appears, they switch places. Moses also has to use the rod to channel the power.
I think too much is lost in the translation since I've seen people say that "fear of god" or phrases that are written like that should be more of a reverence or respect to God, not actual fear. I wonder if it is the same with the face of God/appearance.

[Anonymous No.21859591]

>want to start reading the bible but want to finish Moby Dick first
>every page has some reference to the bible just to remind me

[Anonymous No.21859614]

>>21856472
as a slowboy, how do you read this fast and retain this much information. ive never been able to do it, ever. im slow as shit

[Anonymous No.21859693]

>>21859520
Adam, Eve, and Noah were holy people extremely close to God.
in the times of Moses everyone is much farther and deep into sin.
that holiness is completely opposite of sin, so it is dangerous to approach God impure.
it's why the priests purified themselves often, and why Aaron's sons died after disrespecting God.
take the light and darkness metaphor.
God is light, and we now have darkness in us.
it's not a choice of light to obliterate darkness when the two meet, it's the way things work.
same with God's perfect holiness ans our sin.

Moses' staff has no special meaning, God just told him to use it.

you can understand the wording properly after some time studying.
still, it does get harder, and some things and referencing (especially of words) are more obscured/nearly impossible to see.
traduttore traditore and all that.

[Anonymous No.21859702]

>>21859520
You can take something literally, at face value, and also recognize that it has a metaphorical layer and is also describing something that may not be mundane reality. You also have to separate from small "o" orthodox interpretations and take the work as is. There's literal and there's autistically literal interpretations. There are also autistically metaphorical interpretations, headcanon as it were.

"Walked with" can also be read as walked before, or in the presence of, or on the path of. Or all of them together. I think walked before God is the literal Hebrew. Another example of layered literality and metaphor intertwining. You're on the right track with "fear" in the sense of respect for something powerful, that's a really old world type of "respect", one you have for a whirlwind or standing army. Awe as in awful now has that same connotation, especially in the South where something can still be awful good.

We're dealing in carefully constructed narratives describing esoteric and mystical events and the perceptions of ancient man, the translations are the least of the issues for the most part. People had a fundamentally different perception of reality and it is reflected in their language as much as their language reflects it.

[Anonymous No.21859787]

>>21859693
The way God chooses and appears to Moses changes though. Moses himself isn't bad, otherwise God would tell him to change his ways and not act as his messenger.

>>21859702
The way this book is written with some passages as metaphor, some literal and some both make me mad. For something describing the perfect creator being and then handing the bible to be written by humans and misinterpreted/mistranslated/outdated just makes my thoughts go down the atheistic path. It seems silly to me that God is okay for the work to be difficult to understand or outright botched.
Why not just you know, write a clearer book? Why not just make a judgement on interpretations of the very stuff you (God himself) are telling? If something can be said to be the perfect being and the stuff isn't easy to understand, I don't know it makes me confused.


>>21859702
>We're dealing in carefully constructed narratives describing esoteric and mystical events and the perceptions of ancient man, the translations are the least of the issues for the most part. People had a fundamentally different perception of reality and it is reflected in their language as much as their language reflects it.
Load of nonsense, I've read stuff from the Bronze age, half of it can be understand easily since humans are very similar throughout history- law codes, tax systems, diary entries are all very clearly near to how we live. Other stuff like jokes or stuff that is obscured, yeah we can't understand because we haven't got the context so we just need more information to get the context.

[Anonymous No.21859935]

>>21859787
we're all tainted by original sin. Moses was too.
we can't resist the glory of truly seeing Him.

the first time is more of an idiomatic "face to face", meaning intimate talk.
the time when it refers to a literal vision is when God protects him from seeing it.

>it seems silly to me that God is okay for the work to be diffucult to understand
it's discussing concepts and ideas that are extremely complicated, and at times impossible to convey in language.
that's like saying physics or chemistry shouldn't exist because they are too complicated.
>misinterpreted
done often, but proper study always wins through
>mistranslated
also easily falsifiable
>outdated
never has been.

>why not write a clearer book
you can't. you can only try to simplify a concept so much, and some are simply impossible to simplify.
it's why stuff like the Nicene Creed is so long. you need to explain it completely.

>Bible is different and more complicated than any other book of antiquity
that's an argument in favor of it.

[Anonymous No.21859978]

OP needs to clarify what chapter we are to stop at formally

[Anonymous No.21859989]

>>21859935
If you got all the denominations together they would all argue they are right.
>>21859935
>>misinterpreted
>done often, but proper study always wins through
So which church are you going to say is right? If you interpret it on your own, then you might be wrong as well.
>>21859935
>it's discussing concepts and ideas that are extremely complicated, and at times impossible to convey in language.
>that's like saying physics or chemistry shouldn't exist because they are too complicated.
A perfect being should be able to simplify it for us. Physics and Chemistry can be with enough studying.

[Anonymous No.21860019]

>>21859989
>Physics and Chemistry can be with enough studying.
theology too. just study it.
a phd program couldn't be simplified to an hs level, but you can understand it studying enough, and then it gets simple for you.

>they would all argue they are right
they all have the same absolute basic theology. they have their differences, but the essentials are the same.

[Anonymous No.21860037]

>And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
>for signs
Hebrewsisters what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.21860068]

>>21860019
>they all have the same absolute basic theology. they have their differences, but the essentials are the same.
Take the most fundamental aspect which is Salvation through Christ then, Catholics believe it isn't just through Christ and that you need to attend Eucharist weekly and confess your sins to a priest. https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-eucharist-necessary-for-salvation Protestants don't believe this and believe faith alone is enough and some believe you need missionary work.
If it's the same theology, why all the 2000 years of disagreements, splinterings, wars and general sourness? None of this really makes sense to me. If the denomination stuff ultimately makes no difference, why doesn't God just clear that up? I don't like the idea that "oh I can't get involved anymore, it's up to you now, I gave you the tools"... if you set in motion a course of events that leads to that then you should have some responsibility to clear it up later.

[Anonymous No.21860094]

>>21859787
Law is meant to be understood. Vedic philosophy is meant to be understood. Songs are mostly meant to be understood, although we verge into esotericism. Esoteric writings are not, not directly because they deal with the ineffable. To assume there is no subtext in the face of a work that says there is subtext (Proverbs 1) only for the wise, that would be foolish. Biblical Hebrew is a disturbingly information rich and nuanced language and the authors deal out ambiguities and double meanings constantly.

It's also important not to deny the validity of all alleged mystic experiences and possibly useful filter and interpret through them. When someone with no contact with the Bible says something described is similar to yogic states and visions, maybe it is similar. The Prophets are definitely working merkabah mysticism or a predecessor.

[Anonymous No.21860426]

>filtered on genesis
Go on without me, I'll just stick to r/atheism

[Anonymous No.21860456]

> If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors — because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.21860471]

I guess I'll pose the first question:

What does the layering of at least 4 distinct creation myths in sequence say? Where do they align and where do they differ?

Gen 1 is written in a different register and with more abstract language than Gen 2. Gen 3 follows from it, giving a second, more detailed account of the first human. And Cain and Abel could easily make up a whole thread as far as the foundation of civilizations. Then there's a genealogical timeskip and it happens again with Noah. This is where it would be helpful to read Enoch and get yet another account of the foundation of civilization.

[Anonymous No.21860536]

>>21860456
Salt the earth and leave it as an example of what happens when you stray from the Hegemony. Let's break it down on a practical level that also works. God has rules, the Rules of Nature. Don't shit in camp or everyone gets sick. It is an abomination to the will of God™. Everything that follows is an interpretation of how not to get rekked by Nature. Someone fucked up enough times that it made it into the book and had punitive actions against doing it. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't in all situations. Don't question it because it's also the will of the State and the motto of the State in regards to punishment is "it is unfortunate you thought you could fuck around and find out, let this be a lesson to others".

You find narrative parallels in the Vinaya pitaka, where every monastic rule has a story involving the monk who fucked up and why it is bad that he fucked up. The priest-king-judge formulation of State theocracy has no desire to explain the why and all the power to do what must be done to prevent the rot and miasma spreading.

[Anonymous No.21861322]

what chapter am I supposed to read to today?

[maybemaybe No.21861329]

>>21861322
See how many pages the Pentateuch takes up in your Bible and divide it by 16, and read that many pages each day

[Anonymous No.21861658]

>>21859702
>"Walked with" can also be read as walked before, or in the presence of, or on the path of. Or all of them together.

>And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
So if it is a metaphore what could it mean that they hear God walking? Are they realising the sin they committed, or do they feel the judgment of God?

Another thing I don't quite get is how God asks questions like in that quote or when asking Cain what happened to Abel. Isn't he all knowing? Or is it some kind of shittest, or a way for the characters to say out loud to themselves what they did?

>>21859935
>why not write a clearer book
you can't. you can only try to simplify a concept so much
If this is the most simplified it gets then nobody would ever discuss the Bible, every single false and right interpretation would be there.
We still need bible study and scholars to do the explaining anyway. Why didn't they do it in the first place?

[Israel Grimes No.21861689]

>>21860037

>“que ce soient des signes pour marquer les époques, les jours et les années”
>"Qu'ils servent de signes pour marquer les rencontres festives, les jours et les années"
So festive events and/or epochs..?

Maybe use the equinox to tell time or stuff of that sort?<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

[Anonymous No.21861859]

>>21861658
The throne is empty. The lights are on but no one is home at the the end of the tunnel. Isaiah & Ezekiel.

[Anonymous No.21861917]

I just removed my socks and realized I'm some type of KVJist. The most heterodox certainly. It's odd to say something is busted and broken and anything to the contrary is dogshit. And they are rancid dogshit, for they were written for someone lesser than me in a dark land what made fun of me like the jews were. It's almost nice having that kind of solidarity.

[Anonymous No.21861946]

>>21861689
>Gpt-4chan
What? Someone explain this immediately

[Anonymous No.21861981]

This will be my first time reading through the Old Testament, so it'll be interesting to see how directly reading the bible will shift the common perception I hold for its events.
When reading Genesis 1-4 I found a line of symbolism that reframed Cain's slaying of Abel from being only a case of envy born a sin, to a clashing of the two ideals Cain and Abel represent. In Gen. 2, 15 God tasks Adam as the keeper of the Garden of Eden, and as the garden naturally brings forth the fruit of the land Adam's job is not to cultivate the land but to take care of the garden and its animals; for Adam to do 'God's work' is to watch over and keep his creations. Then, after the fall, God states that man will forced to till the land for food and will only eat under the sweat of his own brow; this is the 'work of man', work given to man in punishment, and work done out of necessity. Cain and Abel come to represent the two fields of work, 'God's work' and the 'work of man', and this explains why God looks kindly upon Abel's offering while not caring for Cain's; Abel returns to God 'God's work', the work God had first tasked for Adam, while Cain returns to God the 'work of man', a gift made from bare necessity rather than that of excess. With all of this mind, when God confronts Cain after Abel is slain, for Cain to respond with, "Am I my brother's keeper?", he insults both the work of God in keeping his creations and the piety of his brother Abel alongside the path he chose in life; and even in his mocking dismal of God, Cain shows that he falls short of the role of a shepherd.

[Amanda Skinner No.21862021]

>>21861981
Cain while not giving his alleged best is the first wagie and sets the tone for what is expected. God knew Eve was going to get known by the angel of death or demiurge by her own admission that excludes the man as her impregnator and let it happen. Some claim lineage from Seth, others clearly aren't made of clay. The neet named mere panting breath got what he got, which Sutekh the whole second son cycle, oddly.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

[Anonymous No.21862463]

>>21861658
>We still need bible study and scholars to do the explaining anyway.
as we need professors to explain complex physics and chemistry. or textbooks explaining it.
you're literally being angry that a concept is complex.

God is having Cain confront his sin by calling attention to it.
it is a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous No.21862465]

>>21861981
are you a Christian?
seeing that well into the OT is great. showed me i need to study theology much more deeply.

[Anonymous No.21862503]

>>21856374
I invite you to get a study bible, any study bible. I thought I understood the bible and then I read a proddy study bible and I was like [the anime girl reading Hegel for the first time].

[Anonymous No.21863193]

>>21856374
so why did a good God create evil?

[Anonymous No.21863291]

>>21862463
>you're literally being angry that a concept is complex.
Unlike physics or chemistry, the scriptures are man made. They made them complex and unclear. Lack of foresight really

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21863396]

Could I request OP include a coffeehouse.chat link in the future OP’s so we could voice chat with others in this group إن شاء الله ?

>>21859076
Most of this board has read enough Shakespeare to be familiar with the Early Modern English and distinction in uses. There are a few things that can still trip you up (the apple of mine eye meant the pupil of my eye then, which is the literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom). Archeology had little to do with translation accuracy, you’re probably thinking of philology, stemmatics and hermeneutics.

Alter is definitely the best modern English translation. I do think he falls short of the “grandeur” of the King James translation but part of that is just because modern English sounds less stately than early modern English, even though the King James uses minimalist prose reflecting the Bible’s rather than the ornate baroque style in vogue at the time—this minimalism conveys sincerity, as minimalist prose tends to (unless by a hack), and combined with the stateliness yields a unique “holiness” vibe. But Alter with his commentary is a force to be reckoned with and no one who is serious about studying the Bible today can afford to ignore his translation unless they are willing to learn the Hebrew for themselves.

[Anonymous No.21863452]

>>21862465
>are you a Christian?
Yes, at least in the sense of background and the values I keep, but if tested upon personal attendance I might not meet the mark.
I have knowledge of most of the Old Testament books and how people usually interpret them, but I have never read it in its entirety. In reading I hope to gain any insight that may have been lost to me.

[Anonymous No.21863739]

>>21862503
Study Bibles are good.
My recommendation to all anons if they have the money for it is to get the Oxford NOAB with Expanded Apocrypha, it's in original RSV and has the deuterocanonical books for East Orthodox as well as the Catholic ones.
If any of you are on a real tight budget, then the NABRE St Joseph Student Editions are pretty good cost-to-content wise, but the notes can almost seem secular sometimes. There's a $7-8 paperback version and a hardcover with inked indexing for around double that IIRC.
I have copies of both myself, and will likely be switching between the two, a KJV Cameo, and a Knox version for this reading project with you guys, depending on what book I'm at.

[Anonymous No.21863768]

>>21863193
He didn't

[Anonymous No.21863771]

>>21863396
>Most of this board has read enough Shakespeare
How new are you?

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21863803]

>>21863771
allow me to rephrase that: most of this board *which has, or is going to, read all of the Hebrew Bible or a significant portion of it*

[Anonymous No.21863813]

>>21863396
I think Alter excels at modern poetry in translation. It's impossible to deny the KJV did it very well but he brings both accuracy and, y'know, poetry to it that every translation since the KJV has been missing. I also appreciate the clarity that analyzing it as a collection of narratives brought to it. Most biblical scholars can't into context clues.

>>21863739
When you get ecumenical, the commentary turns towards matters of history and literary analysis and ends up more secular. I've heard of more fringe baptists buying study Bibles and getting livid at some of the hard facts and common academic assertions of how it came to be.

[Anonymous No.21863820]

>>21856420
Based catholic Chad.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21863830]

>>21863813
The King James Version is very good at poetry. From Isaiah 14

[Anonymous No.21863896]

>>21863803
I've read like 10 books in my life. Any prediction on what book will filter me?

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21863902]

>>21863896
Very possibly some you have read though you may not know it

[Anonymous No.21863919]

Ham rapes his father, Noah. I imagine it looked a lot like that Pakistani grandpa rape video.

[Anonymous No.21863963]

Oh, and I forgot to say, for anyone interested in Alter's translation/notes but doesn't want to or can't buy the full OT of his, there are a couple selected books printed in smaller and cheaper editions.
I have a copy of his translation/commentary for just the Wisdom Books, which for the Hebrew canon means Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, but it looks like there is also one with just the books of Moses, or just the Psalms as well. I'll probably make use of this book for comparative reading during Job and Ecclesiastes.
>>21863813
>When you get ecumenical, the commentary turns towards matters of history and literary analysis and ends up more secular.
I'm quite aware, I mostly put the warning there for any Catholics that might be going with the NABRE but didn't know that about its notes.
Any Oxford NOAB is fairly secular-slanted as well, given that ecumenism is much more at the forefront for them, but for some Catholics it comes as a startling surprise when the translation that is pushed by the USCCB and used in many Masses is accompanied by notes casting doubt on certain miracles and prophecies, etc...
Personally, it doesn't bother me much since either way I think people should read even commentaries/notes with a keen eye and questioning mind rather than simply accept everything they read as definitive.
>>21863820
I don't think it's "based" to be prideful and write inflammatory drivel in bad faith. There is no rule here saying that any anon must read the protestant canon, and if you or the other rat would use your eyes, brain, and heart with greater goodness then you might notice the chart posted here: >>21856464 has the canons for East Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant: in that order. There is no Protestant primacy taking place, and I recommend confession to the both of you for having arrogant hearts and seeking to sew strife for no reason.

[Anonymous No.21864070]

>>21863963
I didn't do it for no reason.
I did it for fun!

[Anonymous No.21864108]

>>21864070
>I didn't do it for no reason.
>I did it for no reason!

[Anonymous No.21864158]

>>21863963
Don't worry faglord I don't study with pr*ts no matter how much you push ecumenical bs

[Anonymous No.21864583]

>>21863963
I put it down to academic study Bibles being part of theological seminary and comparative religion, people who don't need to be told what they believe who, perhaps have stronger foundation that isn't shaken by the fact that camels weren't domesticated in such and such a period and the Rebekah story may have been amended at a later date. Academic study isn't for everyone. It edges into philosophical truth v. Truth and man some people are just completely unequipped for that kind of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.21864605]

>>21864583
>Moses didn't ride a camel
Hold me bros...

[Anonymous No.21864954]

>>21864158
>I don't study
I can tell.

[Anonymous No.21865197]

>>21864954
>prot wit

[Anonymous No.21865206]

>>21865197
Describing yourself?
I'm not a Protestant.

[Anonymous No.21865778]

>you must cut the foreskin of babies if you want that piece of land
>God randomly trying to kill Moses
>his wife touching his foot (or dick depending on who you ask) with the blood of their circumcized son to save him from God's wrath
>it works
>people making oaths by touching thighs (or dicks depending on who you ask)
>Noah's daughters
>"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces"
I wish the Bible were less cringe sometimes.

[Anonymous No.21865798]

>>21865778
>Lot's daughters*

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21865802]

>>21865778
>>21865798

Consider the Quran since since Islam says all of these are interpolated Jewish folktales

[Anonymous No.21865833]

>>21865802
I already converted a long time ago but I didn't post with the intent to proselytize. I genuinely wish there were less weird passages in the OT.

[Anonymous No.21865865]

>>21865833
All the dick mangling and animal sacrifice points to a substitute for human sacrifice. It's very likely people were sacrificing their firstborn considering how much it plays into the narrative. Swearing on someone's balls was pretty common and well attested. The weird bits are what has been clearly redacted.

[Anonymous No.21865880]

>>21865865
>a substitute for human sacrifice
Why not just sacrifice criminals and call it a day?

[Anonymous No.21865903]

>>21859282
I think you're correct, these texts weren't written in an era of systematic theology. If you read other ancient writings, the presentation of the gods is equally malleable. For example, the Olympian gods are sometimes incorporeal and appear to have a perfect view over the whole world from Olynpus. At other times they have physical bodies which need to travel to places to see them, or they appear in disguises in order to talk to people (one character in the Ilias recognises a disguised god from the shape of their thigh). Gods could be thought of as physical and could appear to people in ordinary spaces or sometimes they were ineffable ans couldn't be seen with mortal eyes. Remember, even on Mt Sinai Moses can see the bottom of YHWH's throne

>>21865865
Animal sacrifices are attested in texts older than the Old Testament, like in Sumerian tablets. Why assume it's only a substitute for human sacrifice?

>The weird bits are what has been clearly redacted.
That seems a bit too convenient, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.21865939]

>>21865903
It's just one common theory, that it's a move from a stage of Molech-type sacrifice into a substitute. It may be Egyptian or some other finite cultural belief of a period that shaped the narrative without ever having been the norm.
>That seems a bit too convenient, doesn't it?
Cain kills his brother and is granted civilization. In one book of exegesis on the chapter, if you ignore the more gnostic and kabbalistic angles, you find rabbis arguing that the story is the foundation tale of a clan or tribe that joined with the Hebrews at some point. They got to keep their myths but the greater meaning of them was redacted. Same with Noah getting wasted and his sons seeing his "nakedness". Something was removed that would contextualize it.

[Anonymous No.21866182]

>Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

I am trying to abandon my heathen ways and the worship of pagan idols for the GLORY OF CHRIST, my christbros, but what do I make of such passages?

[Anonymous No.21866195]

>>21866182
for the most mundane answer possible, proof of killing, mayhaps.

there's a simple way to be a Christian: instead of hoarding these questions to lay upon believers you find, go look for the answers.
you'll find them soon enough.

[Anonymous No.21866220]

>>21866195
but normal people use like, a head or something. indjuns used scalps, euros usually did heads, cowboys did ears and fingers. why foreskins?
>go look for the answers
I looked here. you can't answer me? I have researched this and never found a reasonable explanation. I can only assume Jewish mental illness, a genetic predisposition towards schizophrenia, and a general attitude of cruelty and sadism pervasive within the Jews to be the answer. I seem to remember reading that during the Jewish massacre of the Greeks on Cyprus, that they would skin their enemies and dance in coats of their flesh, wring the entrails of babes still living, and castrate their enemies. This seems to confirm what the Greeks claimed regarding Jewish sadism.

[Anonymous No.21866249]

>>21866220
as if 4chan was ever a proper resource.

i literally searched "david foreskins" and found a proper answer.
to be succint, it is, as you so claim, a crazy idea.
but from whom has it come? not from God, but from the tormented mind of Saul, already away from God.
meanwhile, it is also simply a ruse, because being such a hard and grotesque task, he expects David to give up or to be killed.

as you can see in the Bible, the jews seldom obeyed God, and it was often right after being freed from oppression. we are told, numerous times, as are the Israelites, to not be of such short memory, or so hard-headed about wanting things our own way instead of God's way.

so, the same way the foreskins were a wretched and grotesque challenge by the tormented mind of Saul, that massacre's horridness probably came during one of Israel's many periods of idolatrous descent into sin.

[Anonymous No.21866265]

>>21866249
>not from God, but from the tormented mind of Saul, already away from God.
I thought the entire Bible was the inspired Word?
I understand the whole the Jews did not obey God thing. but then why trust anything they said? Why not find God in other sources? Surely the Jews were not the only people to be in touch with God? If that is the case, either God is not all-powerful, or he is insane. the only wisdom I have garnered from the OT so far, is further confirmation in my hatred for Jews

[Anonymous No.21866315]

>>21866265
you do not want answers, but merely to attack someone. what do you get out of it?

your question about the Bible being the Word of God makes no sense, although i hope you're not asking it completely maliciously.
it being God's word doesn't mean all actions that men did detailed in it were correct.
we instead see the exact opposite, with them falling into sin, and turning from God.

God gave man free will, and we can see throughout the Bible how we've time and time again failed Him. you can see a parallel to Israel's disobedience in your own life.

why trust it? because God chose them as His people. the men He inspired to write it were of the few proper and God-fearing people.
e.g. Moses and the Pentateuch, the Prophets and their words, the Gospels and the Apostles.

why did God choose them? ask Him. perhaps to show an example of our own lives, in a whole people.
you can see the exact thing man's heart does in how Israel acts; in the good times, God is turned away from, and man might even fall into sin, out of commodity.
in the bad times, man claims to be saved.
right after being saved, comes immense gratitude, and a short-term zeal.
and the cycle repeats.

for that tendency of ours being put into words, Jeremiah 17:9
>The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

[Anonymous No.21866585]

You guys know of a good bible lecture series? Looking for academic non-schizo resources.

[Anonymous No.21866599]

>>21856374
I didnt even know this was going on. I just started reading through the book of Samuel the other day.
The thing which struck me the most is this kind of contradictory message of absolute obedience to authority, but then the book also really likes the theme of how the high are randomly made low.
Whatever happens to one is because of gods favor or disfavor but there's no reliable means to determine God's will.

[Anonymous No.21866602]

>>21866585
not sure. i have some tangential nice resources though.
Bible Project's word studies are really great.
and the One for Israel channel has great apologetic videos, along with quite a lot of testimonies and Bible discussion.

[Anonymous No.21866606]

>>21866599
God is not some random being of whimsical desire.

the world has its own randomness to it, but that is not from what God is doing.
Ecclesiastes goes over that randomness quite well.

unsure where you've read that dichotomy, to be honest. mind drawing the parallel with verses?

[Anonymous No.21866837]

>>21866606
>God is not some random being of whimsical desire.
My point was that the book of Samuel contains these clashing themes. Obedience to a higher will or authority is at times an absolute good, and at other points we are reminded that those who are high will inevitably, tragically be made low by God for failing to be obedient to his will. Obedience to authority is good except when it's not, which is a lot.
Unquestioning obedience to God's will is the ultimate virtue and is always good no matter what. Sometimes that that obedience extends to the authority of leaders/rulers, but at other times that authority is viewed with jealousy by God.
Authority is absolute so long as it is sanctioned by God, but when that authority fails in some way to God, or simply fails in a real sense falls to another, that authority becomes idolatrous, merely a heretical attempt to supplant God's authority with the authority of men.
In this contrast we can see these contrary strains in Judeo-Christian thought both hierarchical and egalitarian. How later Christians could use the same source to justify authority or to question it. When later Christians wants to justify an authority as good they cite the lines that praise obedience, or suggest authority is god given. When they view an authority as false they cite the lines talking about the high will be made low for seeking to imitate God's power.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21866845]

>>21865833
The weird passages are fundamental to the corruptions of the Bible which transformed it largely from a didactic work (like the Quran) into a work of sheer literature. Here prophets are not role models but literary characters. If you wiped away every weird Jewish insert you would by extension wipe away the character the distorted Bible established and ascribed to the various prophets. Notice for example Noah عليه السلام being sent as a mercy for the people is not elaborated on in the Bible and doesn’t even make sense anymore—Robert Alter notes many have theorized it refers to the invention of wines being ascribed to him, which is said to be a relief for the poor in Proverbs. and the episode of Noah عليه السلام in the Bible referring to him discovering wine depicts him as getting drunk and naked. Ham discovers him and shows him to his other sons and covers him, this sort of behavior to us as Muslims—though we don’t believe it happens—is alone enough to make sense of why he was cursed but for Jewish exegetes it wasn’t clear why it was so bad and the two most common Rabbanical understandings are that his son raped his father, or castrated him. So you can see by this logic how bizarre hypotheticals added to the text as commentary back in the day might have been worked into it over time leading to things seems really strange to us today

[Anonymous No.21866900]

>>21866315
Not that guy, but I have the same kind of doubts about the Bible and I don't really see the value in trying to stifle discussion about this particular topic. You were saying that David's task was intentionally vile and grotesque and did not come from god, that's a fair interpretation. But you are ignoring that it is made very clear in the OT that being circumcised was the sign god chose for his people. It wasn't a grotesq warfare trophy like a cut off ear or a scalp, it was what the followers of god would do to themselves in order to gain access to heaven.

We can all admit that this ritual did not come from divine inspiration but was made up by man, right? So my fundamental question that I have about the Bible and that I can't find any answers for is this: If one blatantly obvious lie exists within the Bible that was an incredibly important part of the religion at the time the OT was written, how can I take any of the rest as the divinely inspired word of god? I'm not saying everything in the Bible is lies, but one lie existing infinitely increases the chances that there are more.

Some people keep saying they were atheists, then read the Bible and became religious. But for me it's pretty much the opposite. Nothing has ever made me question my faith more than actually reading through the OT.

[Anonymous No.21866904]

>>21866585
Yale Open course taught by Dale Martin

[Anonymous No.21866912]

>>21866904
This is exactly what I was looking for. Even has an old testament course featured right below it. Have a cat. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.21867024]

>>21859614
skim through things you already know, focus on things you don’t know, keep your eyes in the middle of the text and quiet down your inner voice.

[Anonymous No.21867060]

This pace is too easy. All of the books of the Bible are short enough that they can be read in one sitting, preferably at the start of the day.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21867071]

>>21867060
Plenty of people are reading Bibles with commentary which often runs longer than the text

[Anonymous No.21867341]

I like to sometimes have some ambient music when reading. What's appropriate and suits reading the Bible?

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21867356]

>>21867341
Gregorian chants if anything

[Anonymous No.21867367]

What is the difference between the man created in Genesis 1:27 and the man formed in 2:7?

[Anonymous No.21867371]

>>21867367
Nepotism? The man gets hooked up with a wife and a job tending the garden.

[Anonymous No.21867381]

>>21867371
The man in 1:27 is made in God's image along with women. The man in 2:7 is made from dust and gets the garden. In 2:22 a women gets made from his rib. How is she different also from the women made in 1:27?

[Anonymous No.21867387]

>>21867381
>>21867367
If I had to guess, I would guess that the first is a summary of the days of creation then it has a flashback to the details of creating people. But this would mean than both Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day. But then that leaves the question if all of their story happened on the 6th day and God's day of rest came after kicking them out.

[Anonymous No.21867482]

>>21866900
>We can all admit that this ritual did not come from divine inspiration but was made up by man, right?
no, we cannot.

the grotesqueness is that challenge was to take them from an unbeliever people, who would, by definition, have to be killed for it. you could say Saul perverted God's sign to try and kill David.

there are no lies besides the ones you try to tell yourself. The Bible is perfect.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21867495]

>>21866900
Circumcision prevents smegma and for that reason alone was of major benefit for people in certain climates, especially when water is scarce. It wasn’t just a Jewish practice, Arabs and Egyptians also practiced it.

[Anonymous No.21867815]

>>21867482
S you genuinely believe that god, the creator of the universe deeply cares that his followers have circumcized penises? By the way, if god created adam in his image, wouldn't that include the foreskin? Either you are saying that god made a mistake by creating man with foreskin, or man made that shit up for practical, cultural or hygienic reasons like >>21867495 mentions.

I honestly feel like Bible christians are the greatest blasphemers in the entire world, due to how incredibly little they think of god. In their mind, god is just a spiteful little desert deity, when in truth he is the cosmic conscience and the all-encompassing life and love itself. He does not care about your foreskin one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.21867960]

>>21866900
Read Samuel again. First, Saul and later David himself were referring to Philisters as something like people who have filthy foreskin. You don't have such a reference before. Later on when Saul was tormented by demon voices he ordered David on a suicide mission. He was supposed to collect those foreskins. David survived and gave Saul the foreskins. As far as I can tell this topic in this intensity is something between Saul and David. Ironically, David sent Urija on a suicide mission after he made Urija'w wife pregnant. For this act David got punished.

>>21861981
Looking at Cain and Abel and their professions is a good start but later on when you read about Esau and Jacob you have the professions kind of reversed and Jacob being favored is kind of irritating because he is more of a trickster rather than a morale character. Considering Cain and Abel again you have to look at details. Abel is handing over the first borns and you will find later on that there is a big emphasis on first borns reading the first five books of the Bible. So Abel is giving something special while Cain doesn't. At least, it's not stated that Cain gives something special.

[Anonymous No.21868082]

>>21866182
The OT is not a focal point of reading but the primer to the coming of Christ, a lot laws and situations that are considered normal, useful, accepted in the OT have become irrelevant when the very Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled them. They aren't bad, since God ordained them but they have been superseded and improved by Christ

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21868137]

>>21867815
No one reads God creating man in His image as meaning God looks like a man. People also have their wisdom teeth and tonsils removed.

[Anonymous No.21868177]

>>21868137
>People also have their wisdom teeth and tonsils removed.
Sure, when there is something wrong with them. People didn't have their wisdom teeth and tonsils removed during the time of the OT though.
God creating man in his image means he put some thought into his creation. To say man should be without foreskin is to claim god made a mistake in his creation that immediately needs to be corrected at birth, which is the peak of hubris. Again, I understand the purpose of it as a cultural ritual and for practical purposes at a time where hygiene was pretty bad. After all, that's the same reason for all of those rules in regards to what you are allowed to eat and how to prepare food etc, but don't pretend god gave you those rules. It was men. Men made up those rules. They might even have been very useful and good rules for their time, but they were 100% conceived by man, not by god.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21868184]

>>21868177
Foreskins have purpose when you’re naked. Quite a bit of purpose.

[Anonymous No.21868419]

>>21868082
Laws also are dropped in the course of books. Either in deuteronomy or numeri you weren't allowed to inbreed but in David's family inbreeding was a solution to save face and was not forbidden

[Anonymous No.21868461]

>>21868177
>but they were 100% conceived by man
only a midwit speaks in absolutes

[Anonymous No.21868462]

>>21856374
Shit, I guess I’ll try to jump in even though I’m late.
Where exactly is everyone right now

[Anonymous No.21868464]

>>21865778
I thought "put his hand under his thigh" was a euphemism for bowing on the floor, because your hands are fully under the person being bowed to and the thigh is an intimate part of the body, indicating an intimate and submissive bow fully to the ground

[Anonymous No.21868466]

>>21868462
See: >>21856464, we're on the Pentateuch until 4/16.
No strict daily readings of certain sets of pages, just read with that date in mind and discuss your thoughts here with us!

[Anonymous No.21868471]

>>21868461
but that's an absolute, you midwit

[Anonymous No.21868483]

Imagine feigning piety on a website made by and for degenerates.
What will the next bandwagon for you guys be after tradlarping gets boring?

[Anonymous No.21868491]

>>21868483
>a website made by and for degenerates
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance”.

[Anonymous No.21868516]

>>21866900
The Bible is the Word of God
it's the truth. inerrant. consistent.

you atheists cope by diligently trying to dismiss it
but God is God, so relax

[Anonymous No.21868624]

>>21868491
case in point kek

[Anonymous No.21868741]

>>21868516
I'm not an atheist and I do believe in god. I just don't see god in the Bible. I am actually not challenging christians in bad faith in order to confirm my beliefs, I do it because I really want to find a convincing answer to the doubts I have about the scripture, but so far I haven't found one. To me, god is simply greater than how he is described in the Bible and most of all, god is not outside of me, god is at the very core of my being. I was never apart from god, the life I am leading at worst can cloud that connection and make me forget about it. Forgetting god and leading a life of sin and desire, that becomes your own hell and your own punishment in this life.

That's how I interpret the gospels. God is the greatest force of good and creation in the universe, he is not a spiteful desert deity that has human feelings about revenge and jealousy, who has taken a liking to one specific tribe as his chosen people over everyone else and told them to follow pedantic rituals and rules, lest they will be damned eternally.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21868776]

>>21868466
Really this is not a good approach because the Bible is so extremely dense. A discussion session for each five books with a coffeehouse.chat would be better, with a new session every day. The entire Pentateuch is so very broad the details one might want to discuss will be effaced by the next.

[Anonymous No.21868920]

>>21868137
>No one reads God creating man in His image as meaning God looks like a man
Some actually do, and they're dead serious.

[Anonymous No.21869425]

>>21868741
>who has taken a liking to one specific
did the thing you worship take a liking to any rules?
Because God has taken a liking to rules, and a people.

[Anonymous No.21869438]

>>21868920
Jesus is God
So uhh yeah, God doesn't junt "look" like a man, He literally is a man.

[Anonymous No.21870574]

>>21869425
>>21869438
when Jesus wept, he was thinking about you

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21870596]

>>21868920
Mormons do but otherwise no

[Anonymous No.21870752]

>>21869425
I honestly feel kinda sad for people like you. You have such a small mind that you can't help but make god small with you. No, god has not taken a liking to rules or to any specific group of people. The authors of the Bible had a liking for rules and a very human reason to lift up their own bloodlines over the rest. I hope you will one day find a true connection to god and not this cheap, meaningless imitation.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21870756]

>>21870752
God obviously establishes rules as you need physical laws and constants for creation to even exist.

[Anonymous No.21870947]

>>21870756
Lots of things can exist without physical laws.

[Anonymous No.21871902]

How do you guys interpret the tower of babel? There's a strong temptation to interpret the splitting of languages as a result of humanity's hubris against god, yet I've noticed that there's no overt reference to them defying God. Infact God notices their potential which seems like the reason he split them in the first place rather than punishment. Thoughts?

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21871974]

>>21871902
The tower, they boasted, will “reach to heaven” (Genesis 11:4). This is similar to Bellerophon being punished for trying to ride Pegasus to Olympus. Such a tower is very clear a sign of man architecturally drawing himself up and “sticking his chest out” to God, so to speak. And a modern example can be in the Arabian peninsula where there is a scramble to build taller and taller buildings just for the sake of them being enormous (this is often seen as echoing the hadith which said a sign of the end times is that poor shepherds—taken to mean the Bedouins—will compete to build enormous towers).

[Anonymous No.21871978]

https://rarebible.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/iron-chariots-too-powerful-for-god/

Goku could beat God.

[Anonymous No.21872004]

>>21870752
what rule says there's ro rules?

[Anonymous No.21872185]

Just finished Genesis and I must say I really love the way characters are portrayed. They are not idealized champions of virtue, but just fairly normal human beings with their own flaws. I love how they almost always try to haggle and outsmart God. Lists of names and places are quite tiresome to read and make it harder for me to go through the books.

[Anonymous No.21872589]

>>21868483
>feigning piety
That and reading a work of literature are very different things, no?

[Anonymous No.21872605]

>>21872589
*snort* My problem is obviously too intellectual for your brainlevel. Why dont you show yourself out of this thread before *cracks knuckles* i embarass you any further. *wheeze*

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21872618]

>>21872185
The genealogies have more meaning when you are aware of their geographical significance and the fact that many of the names are cognate with known kings of various peoples and tribes. Genesis concludes by zeroing in on Israel and his children but it mentions the founder of every civilization the Hebrews knew about including Hellenic civilizations

[Anonymous No.21872957]

Question
>Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness
Who is 'our'? Is God not a single entity?

[Anonymous No.21872966]

>>21872957
he was talking to the demiurge

[Anonymous No.21872995]

>>21872957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

[Anonymous No.21873004]

>>21872995
weak cope

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21873036]

>>21872957
Such plural is often formal in semitic (and many other) languages (it is English too, though it has fallen out of fashion, but for example the book The Expert at the Card Table, a book written a century ago on how to cheat at cards, has an author who uses “we” to refer to himself as it is formal). Allah also uses “we” in the Quran, and the greeting ‘as-salamu ‘alaykum, “peace be upon you”, is plural as formal. “Your Honor” was originally a plural address, singular would be Thine [before an h was the same as before a vowel then so thy was rendered thine and my was rendered mine) Honor.

[Anonymous No.21873037]

>>21873004
Not even a cope it's plural in Hebrew not the royal wee! Just lying out of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.21873901]

>>21856374
bump

[Anonymous No.21873916]

I love the Old Testament. You can find Jesus on every page.

[Anonymous No.21873926]

>>21872957
God The Father speaking to Christ (God the Son) and the Holy Spirit.
God is Triune, and that's all you need to get. the Trinity is an extremely complex concept.

[Anonymous No.21874098]

>>21873926
I think the other anons are probably right that it's just the royal we. using plurals as an honorific is more common than you might think.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21874237]

>>21874098
This is ironically only the Muslim explanation. In Christianity it was generally taken as the the Trinity, in Judaism it’s that God is referring to angels with Himself. Robert Alter in his commentary also says it seems to refer to multiple beings based on Genesis 3:22. The unusual aspect here is the plural pronoun suffix נ (nūn) is only used by God in beginning of creation, after that He is presented as using strictly singular form (unlike the Quran where He he generally uses a plural and on occasion uses singular). By contrast the primary name of God in the Bible is plural, Eloahim (Gods), throughout (yet only definite-case singular in Quran, Allah, The-God). My personal theory about the use of we is just formalism that fell out of style, but as for using the term Elohim instead of a definite article singular like Arabic—a similar contraction here would
El-loah—I think it is because the feminine form of that, Allat, was a popular goddess throughout the Middle East, and using a masculine form of it was disliked. Among the pagan Arabs Al-Lat was considered a daughter of Allah and an angel one sought for intercession, and the Quran mentions Al-Lat among with other such figures and Allah in the Quran questions the Arabs for hating daughters for themselves yet ascribing daughters to Allah. While injunction is given not to insult the pagan deities (6:108), the Quran also warns that they’re demons (4:117).

[Anonymous No.21874294]

>>21874237
man idk. i just am kind of skeptical of reading the trinity into the old testament. but i guess it's plausible. i don't know anything about translations or anything so i won't comment on it again.

[Anonymous No.21874762]

No one can read the Bible like I can.
It would take a thousand fools to even try.

[Anonymous No.21874797]

>is ashamed of his own creation he destroys it twice in Sodom and also flooded the earth during Babylonian time
Hey

[Anonymous No.21875151]

>>21856464
I thought maccabees was apart of apocrypha?

[Anonymous No.21875165]

>>21859614
Read the sentence as opposed to each individual word

[Anonymous No.21875409]

>>21875151
Depends on the Bible. The Catholic and Orthodox bibles include it, the protestant bible doesn't

[Anonymous No.21875775]

I finished the Moses books and God doesn't come across as patient or understanding. He wants to kill the tribe of Israel over and over when they start (perhaps rightfully) complaining.
Moses stops him several times but sometimes God just kills some people and sends a plague on them.
>you shall have no other gods but me, for I am a jealous god

He sounds just like a bronze age tribal god/cult that any universal god.
How are you supposed to reconcile the universal patient and understanding god with the OT Moses God?

[Anonymous No.21875875]

Why was Simeon not mentioned in Deuteronomy 33?

[Anonymous No.21875880]

>>21856374
Sorry my brothers in christ, where are you guys right now? I want to catch up but missed the threads.

[Anonymous No.21875940]

>>21875880
Genesis, for the next week or so.

[Anonymous No.21875976]

The KJV is stately but the Alter translation is absolutely lively for Genesis.

[Anonymous No.21875988]

>>21875775
They are in a covenant with God that was founded by the forefathers of Isreal and renewed with every new generation and God held them accountable for their actions and he showed often enough what happens if you fall out of line. Take for example Abraham who wanted to have kids and when God granted him this wish he wanted him to sacrifice his son which Abraham did. It's total commitment. This covenant is lsraels identity and lays the foundation for all of their acts which were often merciless to the people who were living in their promised land. This identity manifests in the claim they have for the land they believe that is rightfully theirs and that they are waiting for it to be handed over to them. However, on their way Israel keeps fucking up and not only the common people but also the chosen people

[Anonymous No.21877154]

Bump

[Anonymous No.21877273]

Why did God come down to Earth to beat up Jacob out of absolutely nowhere? Just so he could call him Israel?

[Anonymous No.21877395]

>>21877273
He wrestled with a man in the dark. A demon in the night that fled with the break of dawn. He struggled with elohim, God or gods.

[Anonymous No.21877415]

>>21877273
he needed an assbeating

[Anonymous No.21877467]

>>21877415
Also this.

[Anonymous No.21877995]

>>21877415
Jacob was a bit of a cunt.

[Anonymous No.21878502]

>>21859076
>So yeah, your only good options are archaic 17th century English
It's not quite that. The translation was made deliberately archaic even for the standards of the year it was published, 1611. This can be seen in the fact that they originally did not include the letter J, switched the usage of U and V around from the normal way these letters are used, and used blackletter font, whereas the 1560 Geneva Bible (also in English) used letters normally and had a more readable roman font already by that point.
However, despite these issues, the KJV was updated in 1762 and 1769 by two different scholars, Paris and Blayney respectively, based on the English standards of that time, and our KJV Bibles today descend from the final revision of these editors. However, the underlying translation is essentially the same, just with more standardized spelling and formatting and a few very minor word changes implemented here and there (such as abandoning the word "sith" for the more known word "since" in all except one place, for instance). The KJV post-1769 is much easier to read than earlier English editions of the Bible.

>with a questionable translation accuracy
No, the KJV is regarded as very accurate to the base text. The only reason people were motivated to move away from it was because they didn't want to use the base text anymore. Ironically however the Greek (and Hebrew) texts now used are inferior to that used by the 16th and early 17th century translators. In the New Testament, for instance, about 7% of the Greek words are removed or missing from the modern translations, including about twelve single verses being missing, not to mention some that remove the last twelve verses of Mark and have thousands of other, smaller (substantive) changes.

[Anonymous No.21878508]

Going to post a schizo theory that gets tossed around about Sodom and Gomorrah.
In the passage God and Abraham are discussing the place. God says he will destroy it but concedes that if he finds a good person there he won't. It then ends with God going his way 18:33
Then immediately in 19:1 it switches to two angels arriving.

The first part of theory says that Genesis underwent some changes and that originally it was God that showed up and visited Lot and that the mob was wanting to rape God and that got changed to the mob's attempt to rape angels.

[Anonymous No.21878515]

>>21863193
Evil is a privation of good. Insofar as God gives grace and goodness according to His infinite wisdom, evil is a result of sinning or refusing to accept God's grace. It can be found in terms of moral evil, which is an inward corruption representing sin, or natural evil, which is outward destruction. In the Biblical account, the Lord can directly bring natural evil as a punishment toward those who demonstrate moral evil, but it is said that God is not the author of sin.

As it says in Jeremiah 19:5 for instance, "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:"

[Anonymous No.21878534]

>>21871902
>Infact God notices their potential which seems like the reason he split them in the first place rather than punishment.
Like anything else God that does in the Biblical account, it is for the ultimate good. Even acts of punishment, setbacks, chastising and other bad things happening seem grievous, we are told. But God works all things together for good to them that love God.

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."
- Genesis 50:20

"Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."
- Hebrews 12:11

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
- Romans 8:28

[Anonymous No.21878625]

>>21878502
>No, the KJV is regarded as very accurate to the base text.
Proof of this? Not shitposting, I genuinely want to know more about this.

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21878652]

>>21878625
You can do an interlinear comparison for yourself. In the original King James the words which are not literally word for word (even conjunctions and copulas in many cases) are in a distinctly different font. In later editions they are distinguished by italics. In the original version too the margins are full of alternative translations where a verse could be translated with multiple meanings.

[Anonymous No.21878657]

>>21878625
>Proof of this? Not shitposting, I genuinely want to know more about this.
The KJV was used by virtually everybody in the anglosphere until the Revised Version of 1881 was made, and that only occurred because Westcott and Hort had made a revised Greek text which differed from the so-called "received text," based on the findings of Tischendorf (Codex Sinaiticus, fully examined at the earliest in 1859, if not later) as well as some other influences on Hort's philosophy from "higher critical philosophy" of earlier textual critics such as Johann Semler, Griesbach, and Andreas Birch.

The overall worldview of the editors of the critical text behind the English Revised Version of 1881, and subsequent translations influenced by it (e.g. the ASV of 1901, etc.), was substantially different than that of the translators of earlier Bibles such as the Geneva Bible of 1560 or the KJV of 1611. They worked with an entirely different base text, constructed using different textual critical principles. This has largely influenced modern translations today as well, since the NA28 (and UBS) Greek text is still almost entirely Alexandrian, in line with the Westcott and Hort edition with only slight alterations that one could almost consider token in nature.

Basically, these modern translations such as the NASB, NIV and so on come from a different line of thought and approach to Bibliology, one that does not accept the Providence of God in history but attempts to reconstruct an imperfect text based on any evidence that the individual scholar can scrounge together. Thus, each modern version uses its own slightly different base text. So for example, the NIV says Jesus was "indignant" in Mark 1:41 while no other translation uses this, because the NIV translators took that word from a single Greek manuscript, one that is widely rejected by everyone else. Meanwhile, another modern translation, the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) changes "the only begotten Son" in John 1:18 to "the only God." Most other versions don't do this, but the ESV reading found in John 1:18 is based on another widely rejected (used by gnostics) reading found in a few manuscript sources.

For a single example compare:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
- John 1:18 (KJV)

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known."
- John 1:18 (ESV)

[Anonymous No.21878806]

What do you think of Paul Wallis's or Mauro Biglino's arguments about why words like elohim and olam should be left untranslated but include notes.
he argues that seeing the actual terms used in their proper context without relying on interpretation allows for a much clearer understanding of what is actually described in the text?

[Anonymous No.21878917]

daily reminder that predestination is actual true catholic doctine

[Anonymous No.21879036]

>>21878625
It's structurally accurate and seldom paraphrases or uses synonyms where one word is repeated throughout a chapter. But it is based solely on the Masoretic and Septuagint and any transcription errors and dogma they contain, relies on 16th century English Protestant hebrew scholarship, which wasn't the best when it comes to grammar and obscure words, and makes the Greek much more stately than the often GSL writers were capable of. But if you have a copy with the full translator's notes, they genuinely believed in making an accurate transcription and preserving what nuance they were capable of.

>>21878806
I'd prefer interlinear glosses like you find in philosophical texts that rely on wordplay that show when the same word is used. Hebrew and Greek use a lot of homonyms and etymological rhetoric but repeated use of foreign words is tiring.

[Anonymous No.21879138]

What the fuck? There's way more than 10 commandments. There's like 30 commandments just about how you are supposed to build a tabernacle, plus some about if oxes kill a dude and even a commandment against witches. How did it get whittled down to 10 in mainstream?

[Anonymous No.21879145]

>>21879138
those 10 that were inscribed in the two Tablets of Stone are the 10 commandments

[Anonymous No.21879149]

> love God
> love your neighbor as yourself
> forgive others who have wronged you
>love your enemies
> ask God for forgiveness for your sins
> Jesus is the messiah and was given the authority to forgive others
> repentance for your sins is essential
> don't be hypocritical
> don't judge others
> the kingdom of God is near. It is not the rich and powerful - but the weak and poor - who will inherit this Kingdom

These are the teachings of Christ.
If you do not adhere to them you are NOT a Christian.
If you cherry-pick parts of the Bible to undermine these teachings you are NOT a Christian. Utilising the Jewish parts of the Bible for this purpose is unchristian

A Christian puts the teachings of Christ before all other sources of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21879181]

>>21879149
We're reading the Old Testament, leather club's two blocks down.

[Anonymous No.21879216]

>>21879149
Amos 5:15
>Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the Lord God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.
Matthew 5:17
>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
>18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If you cherry-pick parts of the bible to undermine these teachings you are NOT a Christian.

[Anonymous No.21879231]

>>21879216
Cope

[Anonymous No.21879237]

>>21879231
seethe

[Anonymous No.21879269]

>>21879237
Dilate

[Anonymous No.21879274]

Yahweh seems more to me like the god of this world and possible creator of it but not the highest God and was put in place for a post flood plan of systemic prophecy to bring about the highest in the human form of Jesus. Any lit that explores those ideas?

That said I'll continue the reading despite many strange feelings about both the OT and NT

[Anonymous No.21879339]

>>21875976
This is cringe.

[Anonymous No.21879603]

>>21879274
Have you read about Gnosticism? A good primer is The Gnostics by Jacques Lacarriere.

In short, your interpretation of the Old Testament was common, though not the majority, in antiquity until the emergence of the state sponsored orthodox catholic Church led to its designation as heresy.

Marcion was one such with similar views. He produced one of the first biblical canons.

[Anonymous No.21879609]

>>21879149
What you are describing is not Christianity, but atheist secular humanism with biblical window dressing. The Pentateuch is central to all true Christian teaching.

[Anonymous No.21879617]

>>21877415
It wasn’t an assbeating, Jacob contended nobly with God until God finally managed to injure him slightly after a whole night of wrestling. If anything, the episode proves that man and God are fairly close in physical prowess.

[Anonymous No.21879624]

>>21875151
a certified protestant moment

[Anonymous No.21879664]

>>21879274
Kabbalistic and occult interpretations place YHVH as a kind of function underlying Creation. The highest of the manifest aspects of God. The rules, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.21879725]

>>21879149
> don't judge others
You've misunderstood Matthew 7:1 completely. It's actually a crime to abstain from pointing out sins, as the entire Bible tells us, including Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

For instance, Matthew chapter 7 itself says this:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

So we see that we should be ready to be judged by the same standards, and we should help others by combatting sin. The important point is to first deal with our own sin before helping others; the point is not to "never judge," which is a popular but incorrect distortion of the Lord's teachings and it is a false misconception made by evil people who want to promote sin.

Elsewhere in the Bible we have:

"He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."
- Proverbs 24:24-25

"Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies."
- Psalm 139:19-22

"Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD."
- 2 Chronicles 19:2

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things."
- Romans 2:1-2

Basically, we are supposed to follow God's judgements throughout the Holy Bible rather than trying to undermine them. When God says that sodomy is an abomination, Christians don't try to change that judgement. We are sure that the judgement of God is according to truth. It would be evil and against God's will to pretend that it is good or acceptable, as some do when they push the, "don't judge," narrative out of context. Same thing goes for lots of other sins as well.

> the kingdom of God is near. It is not the rich and powerful - but the weak and poor - who will inherit this Kingdom
It is actually for whosoever will believe.

"Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it."
- Psalm 37:34

[Anonymous No.21879873]

Best passages to read for holy thursday lads?

[Anonymous No.21880306]

>>21879274
Yahweh has nothing to do with christianity and you should not pray to him.

[Anonymous No.21880329]

im sorry to break it to ya, br0s... but god doesn't exist ;/

[Anonymous No.21880333]

>>21880329
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.21880337]

>>21880329
Fuck, really? What do I do now?

[Anonymous No.21881076]

>>21880329
Proofs?!?1?!2

[Anonymous No.21881138]

This might seem very obvious and simple to some of you but it was very helpful for me.
He says that when you pray, (especially when you don't feel like praying) you need to be forceful. You need to aggressively fight off the laziness or the softness and pray even when you aren't feeling like it. You need to be a warrior for prayer.
It might seem very obvious in a way but I never heard someone put it exactly like this before it and it just made it click for me in my mind.
https://youtube.com/shorts/aKcVS1AZA1A?feature=share

[Anonymous No.21881488]

>13 Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’
>14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
>15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”
Based God calling out shameless cackling hags

[Anonymous No.21881514]

>>21878508
>What if you find just 100 good men? How could a just God destroy 50 decent men? Honestly, I think we all know you'll spare the city if you can find just 10 honest men.
Memes have rotted my brain

[Anonymous No.21881604]

>>21881514
Where do you think they learned it from? All the dialog in the Alter translation makes it even more apparent.

[Anonymous No.21881746]

>>21881514
wdym?

[Anonymous No.21881798]

>>218817463
,2,3,4-4,2,3 AND These men are PAWNS! I put a price of 20,000 dirham on their heads. Next they will be hailed as the true messenger of GOD! They were just a couple of songwriters, who came to Ishtar, to break into show business. Easy boy, easy boy, easy boy, easy boy! What the hell's the matter with him is he blind?! Well yeah he is, bu-but he's in perfect condition. So how did they wind up on everyone's hit list? Your life is in danger. Behave normally we have guns pointed at your back. No don't put your hands up you idiot! Oh little darlin'. My little darlin'. I can't believe these men may control the fate of the Middle East. Oh where, ar-are you? Do it! Ayiyiyiyiyiyi schmechahii buttahotsfayaaah! This is unbelievable. HOOPA HOOPA HOOPA Kno-ow well-a. That my love-a Are the two American messengers of god dead yet? Is this the oasis? Does this look like an oasis to you? Yeah look at the birds! Are those vultures? YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH Wa-as just fo-or you He's aiming at us! Would you stop being paranoid! Run smuck, they're trying to kill us! Warren Beatty. Dustin Hoffman. Isabelle Adjani. Your girl? How did she get to be your girl? ONLY YOU! I think they're wonderful! Ishtar: Written and directed by Elaine May Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha this is some of our best work!

[Anonymous No.21881800]

>>21881798
>>21881746

[Anonymous No.21882981]

Is Joseph the first person in history to get metoo'd?

[Anonymous No.21883017]

>>21867495
That's modern reinterpretations. It actually has nothing to do with hygiene. Circumcision was a substitute for castration used among priestly classes of the ancient near East and effected submission to YHWH. It's something man must do to be part of the Covenant with YHWH. It still does for jews and you can't be realy jewish if you're not cirumcised. That's why Israelites under Joshuah cut their foreskin before besieging Jericho, so that YHWH help them in return. People enemy of Israel are often called uncircumsied, so to stress they're not part of that Covenant. Slain enemies could be circumsied post-mortem, probably as an humiliation ritual to the God of Israel. Saul asked David to bring him 200 foreskins of Philistines to prove he killed them as he ordered.

[Anonymous No.21883118]

The Bible is more repetitive than I expected.

[Anonymous No.21883325]

When is God going to shut the fuck up about this tabernacle? I get it. He is really into tabernacles and wants it exactly right, but Jesus cool it with the tabernacles.

[Anonymous No.21883495]

>>21856374
How do I know I'm among the predestined few?

[Anonymous No.21883500]

>>21883495
there's no way to know, but you are indeed one of them anon

[Anonymous No.21883568]

>fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered
Fifteen cubits isn't that much to cover mountains, though. About 7-8 meters iirc.

[Anonymous No.21883716]

>>21883568
maybe the authors meant to say "fifteen cubits above" as 7-8 meters of water above the top of the mountains.

[Anonymous No.21883741]

>>21883568
Consider that it's talking about the known world where the lineage of Adam had spread to (compare with other passages that talk about the whole world coming to Egypt to buy grain), as well as the fact that the water doesn't have to be freestanding in order to cover everything. With a high enough rainfall, the mountains could be covered with flowing water at certain points if the rainfall rate was high enough to outpace the drainage rate. This is conceivable if for instance a massive vein of geothermally heated water were to erupt from underground and if it were massive enough to raise the sea levels significantly, which is what I think happened.

The slow drainage rate for Noah after the flood would be explained by the fact that his ark was located in the Armenian mountains, which do not drain into the ocean, but into the Caspian sea (which is normally well below sea level). That area is part of an endorheic basin. So it could have taken a long time for that part of the world to drain to normal levels if it became heavily flooded.

[Anonymous No.21884179]

>>21878806
I tried to find a written article but only found videos.
Here's Yahweh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfsrrBqPCNw&list=PLnLqo5uJqfUNyHndmItLZZQoyzaCY3jI0&index=4

[Anonymous No.21884184]

>>21883741
Isn't there a good theory that Noah's arc was actually situated in the Tarim basin since there's a mount ararat there?

[Anonymous No.21884223]

>>21883325
The layout of the tent stops being discussed in Numbers. Numbers has law passages mixed with narrative passages. Then Deuteronomy is a long sermon with one narrative passage at the end.

[Anonymous No.21884438]

I will be looking out for the number 40 from now how as I read. It seems to be a period of time representing holy cleansing; first seen in the the great flood, then Moses' time on mount Sinai, and famously the period of time Jesus spent fasting in the desert.