Torah/Pentateuch Reading Group Week 1

[Anonymous No.9569596]

Genesis May 29 - June 11
Exodus June 12 - June 18
Leviticus/Numbers June 19 - June 25
Deuteronomy June 26 - June 2

[Anonymous No.9569616]

For the record:
Genesis is 50 chapters long,
Exodus 40,
Leviticus 27,
Numbers 36,
Deuteronomy 34

>Deuteronomy June 26 - June 2
Surely you mean July 2.

[Anonymous No.9569633]

>>9569616
>Surely you mean July 2.

Yeah I messed that up

[Anonymous No.9569640]

>>9569596
tfw I unironically stole my bible from a hotel room

[Anonymous No.9569672]

>he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
I've heard that God did not need to rest but was showing us what to do.

[Anonymous No.9569675]

>>9569616
Genesis 4 chapters/day
Exodus 6
Leviticus/Numbers 9
Deuteronomy 5

This should give you plenty of time to read the oldest part of the Bible, look for commentaries and whatnot.

[Anonymous No.9569679]

>>9569640
They're there to be taken

[Anonymous No.9569682]

The structure of Genesis:

Genesis can be divided neatly into two major movements. Chapters 1-11 cover the distant aeons of primeval history, while chapters 12-50 cover the shorter span of patriarchal history. These two movements, differing in scope and perspective, create a funnel effect: the primeval narrative is cosmic in scope; it stretches across undateable ages; and it presents a world that is steadily beaten down by sin. In contrast, the patriarchal narrative narrows the focus to a single family instead of the human family as a whole; it slows the pace of the story to four generations; and it outlines God's plan to restore the world to a state of blessing. Within these two halves, the internal structure of Genesis is marked off by the recurring formula "these are the generations" or these are the descendants" or "this is the history" (Heb. 'elleh toledot). Eleven times the underlying Hebrew expression occurs in Genesis, each time pointing the way forward to a new phase or development in the story, usually with reference to significant ancestor.

[Anonymous No.9569685]

>when Jacob deceives Isaac and steals Esau's blessing
Hairfags btfo

[Anonymous No.9569694]

>>9569640
Don't feel bad, it's probably a Gideon Bible which is circulated by heretical prots

[Anonymous No.9569709]

I'm guessing that Adam being thrown out of the garden because he sinned and the tree of life being guarded by an angel is symbolism for heaven.

[Anonymous No.9569713]

Should we start a discord to discuss or do it in-thread?

[Anonymous No.9569718]

In case you wanted to know what Gen 1:1-2:3 sounds like in its original language:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CYjbiDJ_M

>>9569713
We have a thread, might as well use it.

[Anonymous No.9569729]

>>9569713
I'd rather just do it in the thread.

[Anonymous No.9569735]

>>9569718

Are the Elves leaving Middle-Earth? That sounds beautiful.

>>9569713

I think we should stick to this. A few people in the older thread also said they didn't want to do Discord. They're too shy, and it would be best not to make them feel left out.

[Anonymous No.9569743]

>>9569682
Any recommended sources?

[Anonymous No.9569755]

That's from Scott Hahn's commentary.

[Anonymous No.9569765]

>>9569718
>all those asspained muzzies in the comments

[Anonymous No.9569767]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&

For those who don't know it exists.

[Anonymous No.9569769]

Dirty protestants who believe the creation is only a few thousand years old come to that conclusion by counting the years included in the genealogies of the old testament. However the genealogies in the bible cannot be used to date the age of the universe because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived.

[Anonymous No.9569770]

>>9569596
noice I'm in on this
>>9569713
In thread

[Anonymous No.9569781]

>>9569765

>Can't compare to holy Quran in anyway! A corrupted book can't be as beautiful as original one

>Allah did not corrupt it, people did, Jewish rabbi made the tórah wrong with their ignorance, church made stories to fill the injeel and change the truth. allah allow those kafir change the book bcz it's a part of his plan, and they are gonna pay for what they did, only quran is authentic book from god today. who denied this has nothing to do with god

>You are a godless scum and I guess you awe an evil christian who worship baal jesus the "son of god" like the enemies of Eliyahu

>paul the apostate is the twister and changer of injeel, also he is the first man who start to invent trinity, messiah mean a prophet who is a king, cause oiling is for the king, who consider a messiah is "god", is same as claim he is a false messiah and a false god, that's why christians has nothing j to do with jesus

>My friend, I've said the paul the apostate is the false prophet warned by jesus, who is the writer of galatians? was there even single angel or messneger apeared when paul was "elected"? how can you trust such a unbelievable man?

>christ said the smallest of heaven is greater than John the Baptist, who is smallest in the heaven? The youngest and last prophet, mohammad is in prophecy of Jesús. jesus never said anything about paul, he only warn the antichrist in his name, mohammad never did anything in the name of Jesús, but in god, you should which is opinion of Jesús and follow his opinion, if you read bible carefully you will find jesus's opinion has no different with mohammad, and Paul was inventing a new religion contra faith of Jesús, who is the wolf in sheep skin?

t. Tianyu Xia

[Anonymous No.9569791]

>>9569781

If your entire ideology is built on a conspiracy theory you're in trouble. You should be in trouble anyways. I don't know how Muslims continue to exist in the numbers they do.

[Anonymous No.9569802]

What perspective and translation are we doing this from?

[Anonymous No.9569813]

>>9569791
Inbreeding at massive rates. Swarms of room temperature IQ mongrols act as the backbone of Allah's """ministry"""

[Anonymous No.9569819]

>>9569735
>Are the Elves leaving Middle-Earth?
I was thinking more of the Ainulindalë, the creation of Tolkien's universe in the Silmarillion, since it's creation that it is talking about, the kind of creation Tolkien was ultimately inspired by.

>>9569743
You can find commentaries, maps, historical information and context in any study Bible.

/lit/ usually redirects you to the New Oxford Annotated Bible. If you want to go full Joo you have the Jewish Study Bible, which has a fairly sizable commentary for the Torah, larger than your typical Christian study Bible.

There is also an ESV Literary Study Bible which analyzes the texts of the Bible more as literature (the Bible contains different books of different genres and with different characters...) rather than the usual approach.

>>9569765
>>9569781
>>9569791
I'm puzzled that they would go out of their way to shitpost there, rather than simply listen to their favorite reciters of the Qur'an.

YouTube is a big place, there are so few Hebrew Bible readings in cantillation or chant, and so many Qur'an recitations.

>>9569802
Whichever you want.

[Anonymous No.9569830]

>>9569709

The cherubim guarding Eden could be seen as an act of mercy. Because man ate from the tree of knowledge and at that point is in a state of separation from God, if man were to eat from the tree of life we would live forever in that state of spiritual separation.

[Anonymous No.9569849]

>>9569819

>I was thinking more of the Ainulindalë, the creation of Tolkien's universe in the Silmarillion, since it's creation that it is talking about, the kind of creation Tolkien was ultimately inspired by.

In terms of content, no doubt. But I was thinking about this song from Fellowship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZG1aDo20zQ

[Anonymous No.9569862]

>>9569819
>>9569743
Could I recommend the "Didache Bible with Commentaries Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church" Ignatius Edition, Its one of the few modern formal equivalence translations that ironically doesn't do the Jesuit thing of gender neutrality, inclusive and selective translations choices.

[Anonymous No.9569863]

>>9569830
Damn I never thought of it that way desu

[Anonymous No.9569900]

>>9569709
No, the idea of heaven didn't exist in exile-era Judaism (when Genesis as we know it now was put together). I've read that the original meaning of Eden itself was as God's private dominion, rather than a human paradise. Humans were fully obedient to God in his garden, and were expelled for rebelling (or just trying to take on too much responsibility), the story explains earthly suffering and the basics of male-female relationships, the story of Eden is about why the world exists as it does.

Of course, in Christianity you have the idea of the world as in a fallen state, but that a spiritual world will be created after a great cataclysm. This grew out of a more apocalyptic form of judaism that was prevalent in the 1st century AD, and where ideas of a messiah and battles against evil come into play.

[Anonymous No.9569923]

You guys might like the introduction the NABRE has (scroll down to 'The Book of Genesis'): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/intro/?search=Genesis

[Anonymous No.9569930]

>>9569923
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/intro/?search=Genesis&version=NABRE

[Anonymous No.9569938]

>>9569930
Oops, thanks for that

[Anonymous No.9569946]

>>9569862

I did ache when I saw the ridiculous pace being set up for this reading group

[Anonymous No.9569950]

"Firmament" is a Hebrew term related to a verb that means "hammer out" This suggests the ancient Israelites imagined the firmament as a hammered bowl that is placed over the world like a roof or dome, holding up waters above the earth and separating them from the seas below. This ancient cosmology has a phenomenological basis: to the unaided senses, the sky looks like an enormous vault, and it's blueness may have suggested the idea of an ocean suspended overhead. Modern readers must recognize that the author's world view is one of his cultural assumptions, not one of his inspired assertions; thus, the cosmological presuppositions of the author should not be taken as revealed propositions to be accepted by faith. The Catholic Church, following the wisdom of St. Augustine (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2, 9), maintains that the Bible does not contain any properly scientific teaching about the nature of the physical universe.

[Anonymous No.9569961]

>>9569946

It's only 4-5 chapters per day of Genesis, and less than that in the later books when you factor in the mostly skippable stuff like the building of the Tabernacle or the entire book of Leviticus.

[Anonymous No.9569988]

>>9569950
>Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
>midst of the waters
Does the(?) firmament extend outwards from a point or that the Earth had a larger amount of water that was effectively split into half to create the sky/firmament making "dry land appear"?

[Anonymous No.9569990]

>>9569961

I just know that there's way too much going on in these texts to do them justice in that kind of time frame. I suppose the idea of fully plumbing their depths is illusory, but I've seen entire classes devoted to a single book that didn't do them justice

[Anonymous No.9570000]

>>9569950
>firmament is hebrew

you could have at least skimmed wikipedia before shitposting...

>The word "firmament" is first recorded in a Middle English narrative based on scripture dated 1250.[4] It later appeared in the King James Bible. The word is anglicised from Latin firmamentum, used in the Vulgate (4th century).[5] This in turn is derived from the Latin root firmus, a cognate with "firm".[5] The word is a Latinization of the Greek stereōma, which appears in the Septuagint (c. 200 BC).[1]

[Anonymous No.9570005]

>>9569950
Ancient Jewish cosmology is fascinating.

>>9569988
Ancient near eastern creation myths usually involve a primordial ocean, the idea in Genesis is that God is organizing the world out of a chaotic mass of water. The firmament appears in the waters, it's basically a dome that holds up a layer of the water, with a layers of water below it (pic related). The midst of the waters was separated. Dry land comes later.

[Anonymous No.9570009]

>>9570000

Don't be pedantic. I'll fix it just for you.

>The Hebrew term translated as "firmament" is related to a verb that means "hammer out" This suggests the ancient Israelites imagined the firmament as a hammered bowl that is placed over the world like a roof or dome, holding up waters above the earth and separating them from the seas below. This ancient cosmology has a phenomenological basis: to the unaided senses, the sky looks like an enormous vault, and it's blueness may have suggested the idea of an ocean suspended overhead. Modern readers must recognize that the author's world view is one of his cultural assumptions, not one of his inspired assertions; thus, the cosmological presuppositions of the author should not be taken as revealed propositions to be accepted by faith. The Catholic Church, following the wisdom of St. Augustine (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2, 9), maintains that the Bible does not contain any properly scientific teaching about the nature of the physical universe.

[Anonymous No.9570015]

well, that was a shit start so far

ill gladly laugh when this "reading group" dies, as the war and peace RG did.

[Anonymous No.9570055]

>>9569988
Darkness and water are the first materials God interacts with (Gen 1:2).

After introducing light (3-5), God separates water between what is below and above the sky/firmament (7-8), see pic above, then the water below is separated so that dry land appears (9-10).

[Anonymous No.9570071]

>>9570015
Nobody really expects any "reading group" threads to go well, proper literary discussion requires several months of preparation for a brief debate or essay usually by people already well versed in their respective fields.

[Anonymous No.9570108]

Notice that Satan uses half-truths to seduce and mislead: he claims that the couple will not die (3:4), that their eyes will be opened (3:5), and that they will become like God (3:5). These assurances all seem to come true at one level, since after eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve continue to live for many years (5:5), their eyes are opened (3:7), and they in some sense become like God (3:22). However, in the light of God's intentions, these promised gains turn out to be painful losses.

When Satan first approaches Eve he asks her "Did God say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" The question insinuates that God is an obstacle to human fulfillment. In particular, it raises doubts about the Lord's generosity and goodwill, as though Adam and Eve were deprived of much more than God provided them. This is a complete distortion of the divine allowance in 2:16

As a little aside, Tolkien practically plagiarized this text when he wrote the story of Melkor corrupting the elves and turning them against the Ainur. It's the same story told in a different way.

[Anonymous No.9570114]

>>9570108
>Ainur

I mean Valar. I couldn't think of their proper name until after I posted that, then it came to me.

[Anonymous No.9570117]

>>9570015
I've participated in a few reading groups/book clubs on /lit/ over the years that have all failed eventually but i'm still interested in this for some reason

[Anonymous No.9570202]

any thoughts on Original Sin?

[Anonymous No.9570210]

>>9569713
If this starts struggling, we should make a discord

[Anonymous No.9570224]

>>9570202
He's a meme but Peterson's interpretation of Original Sin is pretty interesting, that it's a sort of reverberation in the collective unconsciousness about when we first became moral creatures and learned the difference between right and wrong and the guilt that we all feel when we've done wrong.

[Anonymous No.9570229]

>>9570202

The account of the Fall (Gen 3:1-24) affirms a primeval event using figurative language. It indicates that man, at the beginning of history, rebelled against his Creator and brought sin and misery into the world. As Genesis presents it, the immediate effects of man and woman transgressing the original covenant (2:16-17) includes shame (3:7), strife (3:12), suffering 3:16-19), and separation from the Lord (3:23-24). Its lasting effects, including death (3:19) and a disordered propensity towards evil (6:5), are passed down to the entire human family. (CCC 390, 400).

[Anonymous No.9570437]

Couldn't manna be the firmament described as "heaven (inaccessible to man under normal conditions) crystallized?

[Anonymous No.9570491]

I don't think so. Manna is described as spreading like flakes on the ground but more importantly manna is believed to be a real thing while the firmament was just a part of the human authors cosmology. You know how people today would say that the sun rises or sets? That's a popular description because the sun isn't actually moving. It's just how it appears to our senses and that's what the firmament was to the authors of Genesis.

[Anonymous No.9570499]

>>9570491

meant for >>9570437

[Anonymous No.9570529]

>>9570005
>God is organizing the world out of a chaotic mass of water
do you reckon its hardwired into us, the evolutionary genetic memory of dragging ourselves out of the oceans?

[Anonymous No.9570558]

>>9569596
Wait a minute, it's Shavous, which means we are restarting the cycle of the books? Are you Jewish?

[Anonymous No.9570572]

The Book of Genesis is a historical and theological introduction to the Bible. It lays the indispensable groundwork for the rest of biblical revelation. For this reason, the book adopts a universal and religious perspective: the world is the stage of the Genesis drama, and God is the main actor behind the scenes of history and human affairs that it records. This broad perspective is most evident in the early chapters, which encompass the divine creation of the cosmos, the formation and the fall of the human race, the epidemic spread of moral and spiritual corruption, the universal flood, and the scattering of people over the earth (chaps. 1-11). But concern for the world at large, though less obvious on the surface, remains at the center of the patriarchal narratives as well, where God's promises for the future continue to propel the story forward (chaps. 12-50).

In many ways, the theology of Genesis comes to expression in its preoccupation with "covenants". This is not strange in itself, since covenants were very much a part of social and political life in the ancient Near East. But unlike their ancient counterparts, several covenants in Genesis involve God, not simply as the witness or enforcer of a human arrangement, but as a full partner in forging covenant bonds with the world and pledging his love and loyalty to the human race. God thus covenants with creation (1:1-2:4), with Adam (2:15-17), with Noah and the world (9:8-17), and with Abraham and his descendants (15:18-21; 17:1-21; 22:16-18, etc.). Two of these covenants, the Adamic and the Abrahamic, occasion events that mark the low point and the high point of the Genesis narrative:

1) The Adamic covenant is the primeval bond that unites the human family with God the Creator in a state of blessing. However, when this relationship is tested, the covenant is broken by the rebellion if the first couple (3:6) and the original blessings are exchanged for the discipline of the divine curses (3:16-19). From that point on, everything goes downhill, as the plot bottoms out under the avalanche of human iniquity that follows, with envy, murder, bigamy, violence, impurity, and pride wreaking havoc throughout the world (4:6-11, 19, 23; 6:11; 9:22; 11:1-9)

2) The Abrahamic covenant is God's solution to the broken Adamic covenant. At first, his covenant with Abraham is simply the pledge of a new homeland (15:18; 17:8) and a future dynasty of kings (17:6, 16). But at the summit of the Genesis story, when Abraham is tested as Adam was God responds to the faith and obedience of the patriarch by swearing a covenant oath to restore his blessing to the world through Abraham's offspring (22:16-18). It is this pledge, according to the NT, that envisions God's worldwide plan of redemption in Jesus Christ (Acts 3:25-26; Gal 3:10-29).

Part 1/2

[Anonymous No.9570576]

>>9570572

2/2

The Book of Genesis, then, is protological as well as prophetic. It looks back on the earliest phase of human existence as the beginning phase of salvation history, focusing on the generations that paved the way for the founding of Israel as a covenant people. But it also looks forward to the future realization of the divine plan, when the curses of the Adamic covenant are slowly but eventually reversed by the blessings of the Abrahamic. Insofar as the man's rebellion and estrangement from the Lord are dilemmas that go unresolved within the storyline of Genesis, the book presents itself as the first chapter in this larger story of redemptive history.

[Anonymous No.9570590]

>>9569596
Any midrash we should know or look in to?

[Anonymous No.9570598]

>>9570590

I'd be interested in this as well. The only Jewish perspective I get on scripture is Ben Shapiro.

[Anonymous No.9570600]

>>9570558

Pure coincidence

[Anonymous No.9570636]

>>9570600
Fuck off

>>9570598
Ben Shapiro is adorable.

[Anonymous No.9570668]

>>9570590
Most Rabbinic stuff is actually really really boring outside a couple of quotes about slaves and goyim, a lot of it is about which parts of the bible you should read at what times and how to wash your hands before doing certain tasks.

[Anonymous No.9570675]

>>9570668
That's most Talmudic texts. Midrashic texts are written by rabbis that supposed cover the gaps between timelines (like Lilith is a Midrashic text)

[Anonymous No.9570688]

>>9570675
The Zohar reads like a Jewish Frenchman from the 60's.

[Anonymous No.9570981]

You'll probably notice that a lot of people throughout the Pentateuch have some very inflated lifespans. There is as yet no positive solution to the mystery of these enormous lifespans. Modern anthropology holds that the humans species is around 40,000 years old, that prehistoric man lived a fairly short life, and that human longevity slowly increased rather than decreased over the millennia. The bible, however, as well as ancient Near Eastern writings (e.g., Sumerian King List) concur in giving the ancients an immensely long life, especially before the flood. Various approaches have been taken to explain this phenomenon in Genesis.

1) Some take the ages at face value and maintain the literal truth of the genealogies; however, this results in putting Adam less than 2,000 years before Abraham and makes the human race only about 6,000 years old.

2) Others have proposed converting the "years" into "months", but this creates a situation in which some of the figures are children at the time they are said to bear children of their own.

3) Still others take the names of the Patriarchs to refer to "clans" rather than individuals, yet this fails to explain why some of the names clearly concern individuals, such as Adam, Cain, Enoch, and Noah.

4) Perhaps the best hypothesis, and one that would help explain both the biblical and Near Eastern data, is that giving primeval figures extremely long lives was a way of conceptualizing the great antiquity of mankind. In other words, this may be simply a literary technique used to assert the remarkable age of the human race itself.

[Anonymous No.9571026]

>>9570981
or 5 the books full of bullshit

[Anonymous No.9571029]

>>9570981
>4) Perhaps the best hypothesis, and one that would help explain both the biblical and Near Eastern data, is that giving primeval figures extremely long lives was a way of conceptualizing the great antiquity of mankind. In other words, this may be simply a literary technique used to assert the remarkable age of the human race itself.

Not targeted at you - but how could anyone ever think anything other than this.

[Anonymous No.9571043]

>>9570688
That's a pretty good summation of its tone.

[Anonymous No.9571048]

Well on the face of it, converting the years to months or conflating the Patriarchs with clans could seem like a reasonable solution. It's only when you really look into things that they fall apart. There's no excuse for believing the years recorded are literal though.

[Anonymous No.9571072]

>>9571048
This.

[Anonymous No.9571120]

>>9570981
In catholic school I was taught that the age of a person in the Old Testament was a way to express how wise they were. This is why Noah and Moses both live fuck off long lives.
but that's kinda weird because Adam lived a longer life for a Pentateuch guy and he was yknow the guy ate the fruit

[Anonymous No.9571133]

>>9570981
>1) Some take the ages at face value and maintain the literal truth of the genealogies; however, this results in putting Adam less than 2,000 years before Abraham and makes the human race only about 6,000 years old.

Or at least, 6,000 years since we were ensouled.

[Anonymous No.9572099]

I'll save you reading group

[Anonymous No.9572225]

>>9570529
The uterus we're all born from beginning with a single cell is quite the wet environment

>>9570590
>>9570598
It's not technically midrash, but the commentary on the Jewish Study Bible can give you a Jewish perspective. For instance, here's a commentary on the serpent and Eve in Gen 2:1-3:

His question
is tricky and does not admit of a
yes-or-no answer. The woman,
who has never heard the com
mandment directly (2.16-17), para
phrases it closely. Why she adds
the prohibition on touching the
fruit is unclear. A talmudic rabbi
sees here an illustration of the dic
tum that "he who adds [to God's
words] subtracts [from them]"
(b. Sanh. 29a). Another rabbinic
source presents a more compli
cated explanation. In relaying the
prohibition to his wife, Adam has
obeyed the rabbinic principle that
one should "make a [protective]
hedge for the Torah" (11 1. 'Avot 1.1).
Tragically, this praiseworthy act
gave the snake his opening. He
"touched the tree with his hands
and his feet, and shook it unti l its
fruits dropped to the ground,"
thus undermining the credibility
of God's entire comm andment in
the woman 's mind (i'lvot. R. Nat.
A,1).

[Anonymous No.9572277]

>>9570529
I doubt it goes that far back. One hypothesis that I like is that it comes from the earliest settlements being based around rivers. So you had a cultural idea that freshwater is safety and order, while saltwater (ocean) is undrinkable, tempestuous, and dangerous to travel on, so it represents chaos.

[Anonymous No.9572591]

>>9569709

I always thought of Eden as representing the state of grace rather than heaven itself.

[Anonymous No.9572813]

First-born animals represent the choice picks of the flock, or those that are most suitable for divine sacrifice. Abel offers his best to God while Cain appears to offer something less, or at least no indication is given that his sacrifice is made from the "firstfruits" of his harvest. When you consider that the external act of worship is a reflection of the interior disposition of the worshiper, it's no surprise that God was happy with Abel's but not with Cain's. It's not how expensive the sacrifice is that was important.

It may seem like just a simple question when God asks Cain "Where is Abel your brother?" but there's a little bit more going on here. I see this as an invitation for confession and repentance. There's a similar instance of this in 3:9 when God asked Adam "Where are you?" and of course they both refuse this mercy.

[Anonymous No.9572853]

>>9569709
It articulates human nature. Desire is mimetic. Serpent gives his desire to Eve, Eve gives her desire to Adam. They get caught. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames Serpent.

We do not create the world nor do we create ourselves. Our desires are not our own.

The Old Testament is a work of genius.

[Anonymous No.9572965]

The descendants of Cain were technologically advanced and yet morally debased. To their credit, they were pioneers of urbanization (4:17), pastoral culture (4:20), instrumental music (4:21), and metalworking (4:22). To their shame, however, they were the first to engage in murder (4:23), polygamy (4:19), and vindictive violence (4:23-24). The point of presenting the genealogy in this way (4:17-24) is not to say that scientific progress is evil or incompatible with religious obligations. Rather, it shows that advances in material civilization come with the danger of moral and spiritual decline. The more a culture is enamored with human achievements, the more it risks forgetting about God and its responsibilities toward him.

[Anonymous No.9572981]

>>9572965

5:1-31 is the genealogy of Adam through the line of Seth. Certain contrasts between Seth's line and Cain's line in 4:17-24 are highlighted, most notably in the second (Cain, Seth) and seventh generation (Lamech, Enoch). In the second generation, Cain founds a city and "names" it after his son, Enoch (Gen 4:17); Seth and his son, Enosh, instead of seeking their own glory, call upon the "name" of the Lord (4:25-26). In the seventh generation, Lamech flaunts his reputation as a murderer and bigamist (4:18-24); Enoch, however, walks with God and is caught up to heaven (5:21-24). Cain thus fathers a wicked family line, and Seth, a righteous family line. This is confirmed by the flood that follows: it destroys the line of Cain, but the line of Seth is preserved through righteous Noah (5:32; 6:9).

[Anonymous No.9572983]

>>9572813
>may seem like just a simple question when God asks Cain "Where is Abel your brother?" but there's a little bit more going on here. I see this as an invitation for confession and repentance. There's a similar instance of this in 3:9 when God asked Adam "Where are you?" and of course they both refuse this mercy
Not that it contradicts anything, but I interpret this as a rhetorical question. If you don't have Abel/God next to you, you are separate from him, you have forgotten him, and are in a place where you don't belong.

Family and separation are a big deal to desert-dwelling shepherds.

[Anonymous No.9572998]

You guys were right. This New Oxford Annotated Bible is so fucking cool.

[Anonymous No.9573012]

>>9572998

Is the commentary really good? I've been spending all my money on Scott Hahn's books. They're very in depth but expensive since he's releasing single books in order to fund further research, with the goal of eventually releasing all of the Old Testament at once.

[Anonymous No.9573021]

>>9573012

I'm totally new to this, so it's very helpful to me. I'm not sure what a Biblical scholar might think. But there's alternative translations for certain parts, explanations for why they think the authors might differ, and footnotes that explains the meaning of every segment almost.

I don't know how much it costs because I pirated it [it's on b-ok()org], but it's probably well worth the money.

[Anonymous No.9573048]

>>9573021
>I'm not sure what a Biblical scholar might think.

the oxford annotated bible is very popular in academia, although a real serious scholar would be expected to work with the original hebrew/greek.

[Anonymous No.9573070]

>>9570981

Post flood is when God first permits man to eat meat, so maybe all the tofu burgers had something to do with their lifespan.

[Anonymous No.9573080]

>>9570981
This is such a weird pick and mix of accepting science and rejecting it.

[Anonymous No.9573093]

>>9573080

You shouldn't take the fact certain theories are mentioned to mean that they're accepted or endorsed especially when they're refuted in the same sentence. If you'll look carefully you'll see that #4 is the only one that can be reasonably accepted, although another poster did mention something about ensoulment at a certain time in regards to #1 and think there might be something to it. I just don't know enough about that specific theory to expound on it.

[Anonymous No.9573143]

>>9573080
historical criticism of religious scripture is such a touchy subject that people who engage in it have to develop a habit of talking with respect about utter crackpot bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9573175]

6:1-4 is a critical event in the Genesis narrative where the righteous line of Seth (sons of God) intermarries with the godless line of Cain (daughters of men) and becomes corrupted (except for Noah, 6:8-9). On top of the violence and moral decadence spreading over the earth, this is the final outrage that moves God to pour out his wrath in the waters of the flood. This interpretation appears in rabbinic tradition (Genesis Rabbah 26, 507; b. Sanhedrin 108a) and in the Church Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, homilies on Genesis 22, 8; St Augustine, City of God 15, 23; St Ephraem, Commentary on Genesis 6, 3).

Another interpretation, also represented in Jewish and Christian antiquity, holds that the 'sons of God' are not men but rebel angels called Watchers who took the form of men and had sexual relations with women. (1 Enoch 6-7; Jubilees 5, 1; 7, 21; St Justin Martyr, First Apology 5, 2; St Clement of Alexandria Christ the Teacher 3, 2). See also: Jude 6.

[Anonymous No.9573204]

>>9573175
>sons of god
>daughters of men
where does this come from?
i thought Cain meant "smith", the progressive city man killing the pastoral Abel.

[Anonymous No.9573235]

According to Genesis 6:4, by the time of Noah there came a group of individuals called the Nephilim, who "were on the earth in those days and also afterward, which the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown."

Critics say this passage is mythological because it describes sexual unions between angels (sons of God) and humans (daughters of men) that resulted in the birth of the mysterious Nephilim. But the text never says the "sons of God" are angels. Indeed, what makes angels different from humans is that they do not have physical bodies, and so they can't sexually reproduce. But if that's true, then who were the sons of God and their offspring, the Nephilim?

One interpretation of the Nephilim, which Christian theologians like St Augustine and some Jewish rabbis in the first few centuries after Christ held, is that they were the righteous descendants of Adam's good son, Seth (or Sethites). The Sethites, who obeyed God's commands, were God's "sons," but they later lost their righteous standing by marrying the worldly and immoral descendants of Cain (or the "Kenites," who Genesis 6:4 calls the "daughters of men"). The Children of these mixed marriages became very powerful and corrupt rulers, the Nephilim.

Another interpretation, which the Jewish historian Josephus as well as early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr favored, holds that the Nephilim were gigantic offspring that came from angels mating with humans. How this occurred would be a mystery, but we can't rule out the possibility that fallen angels could have manipulated matter in order to cause pregnancies in human women. Either way, the Church has not officially defined the nature of the Nephilim, so a Catholic is free to accept the theory that best explains the text and its relation to the other truths of the Faith.

The Bible's other descriptions of giants can be explained by the human authors' use of exaggeration for rhetorical effect, or hyperbole. For example in Numbers 13:33, a group of scouts sent into Canaan reported back to Moses that in comparison to the land's inhabitants, "we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." This doesn't mean that the inhabitants of Canaan were 500 foot tall monsters. It just means they were larger than the Israelites which is quite plausible since ethnic groups can vary in height. Even today men in Scandinavian countries are on average seven to eight inches taller than men in Southeast Asia. If you belonged to a basketball team and the opposing team was, on average, a foot taller than your team, you might say it was difficult playing against such "giants," without meaning that the other team climbed down from a beanstalk.

[Anonymous No.9573256]

>>9573204

It's an assumption really. I think the only other possible interpretation is that the sons of God are angels and the daughters or men refer to all humans but that causes some problems, namely when it comes to explaining who the Nephilim are. According to St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica 1.50.4, and Matthew 22:30 angels should be able to have sex with humans.

[Anonymous No.9573415]

Did these mentioned family trees affect the social standing of Jews at all? My Jewish girlfriend told me at some point that Cohen's weren't allowed to marry non-Cohens or something like that. So was what line you descended from super important for Bronze Age Jews?

[Anonymous No.9573424]

>>9573235
look up Enoh.

[Anonymous No.9573427]

>>9572853
based af anon

[Anonymous No.9573458]

Compositionally, the account of Noah and the flood may have been compiled from two independent flood stories that were skillfully woven together. Scholars who hold this view base their hypothesis on alleged tensions within the account and typically speak of the flood narrative as a composite of Yahwist (j) and Priestly (p) traditions.

Comparatively, the episode in Genesis has close affinities with other flood stories from ancient Mesopotamia, especially the Gilgamesh Epic.

Chronologically, the deluge lasts for ten and a half months: the floodwaters rise for 40 days (7:4), remain for a total of five months (7:24), and then recede for five and a half months (8:3-13).

Theologically, the flood brings about a new creation, cleansing the old world of the bloodstains of violence (4:10, 23; 6:11). Several parallels with the creation story bring this out: the land is once again engulfed by the deep (1:2; 7:11); the land reemerges dry from the water (1:9;8:13); Noah and his family are blessed and made fruitful to multiply (1:28; 9:1); man's dominion over the animals is reaffirmed (1:26; 9:2); a food supply is given (1:29; 9:3); and God renews his commitment to continue the daily and seasonal cycles (1:14; 8:22). The NT interprets the flood as a foreshadowing of Baptism, which cleanses the believer of sin and confers the grace of salvation in Christ.

[Anonymous No.9573481]

>>9573415

I would imagine so based on personal experience. Modern "tribes" are constantly discriminating against each other or jockeying for social position. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume it was even more pronounced in actual tribal societies. At the very least there was certainly some enmity between the tribes when Judah and Israel split.

I have no idea why Cohen's in particular would be described against today but I'm no Jew. They're descended from the priestly class so I'm sure that has something to do with it

[Anonymous No.9573486]

>>9573481

I think it's more about them trying to keep their line pure than other people discriminating against them. Still, seems a bit much for my taste.

[Anonymous No.9573493]

>>9573415
Yep, they don't openly talk about but your surname can massively effect your standing in the Jewish community.

Ever wondered why Sigmund Freud was still able to maintain a relationship with his synagogue while Spinoza was issued a Herem? his name.

[Anonymous No.9573495]

>>9569596

Doing it right, giving nice big windows for the entire reading group.

[Anonymous No.9573504]

holy shit is this the best thread on /lit/

>no memes
>intelligent, thoughtful conversation including sources
>patrician etiquette

unironically looking forward to following this this summer anons

why isn't /lit/ composed entirely of gold threads like this instead of retarded /pol/ memes and rate my bookshelf garbage

whatever tho carry on gents, cheers

[Anonymous No.9573518]

>>9573493

Can you please tell me more about that? I'm so curious. Or just give me a link or whatever if you're too busy.

[Anonymous No.9573521]

>>9573415
>So was what line you descended from super important for Bronze Age Jews?

Yes. The reasons why will start to become clear when you read Numbers.

God delineated the inheritance and duties of the Israelites by tribal affiliation. Intermixing among the tribes would muddle the apportionment of that inheritance and the respective tribal prerogatives.

[Anonymous No.9573522]

>>9572225
Damn, I thought Eve gave Adam the fruit, didn't realize that Adam participated in the act of gathering it's harvest.

[Anonymous No.9573586]

This thread is being archived, right?

[Anonymous No.9573591]

>>9573522

Oh yeah. From a cursory reading it's easy to think that Eve is entirely to blame for eating the fruit. The words "her husband" in Gen 3:6 ar followed in the Hebrew text by the phrase "with her", indicating that Adam was present when Eve committed the sin. Unlike Eve, who was deceived by the serpent, Adam bows without resistance to the wishes of his wife and asserts himself against the command given to him by the Lord. Tradition holds that Adam, having surrendered his trust in God, committed a sin of pride in wanting to be "like God, knowing good and evil." His desire was not to discern what was good and evil, since men are rational creatures and had the moral awareness of right and wrong since the beginning, but Adam wanted the ability to determine what IS right and wrong. It's this desire to wield an authority that's exclusive to God that is the ultimate sin.

[Anonymous No.9573600]

>>9573504

chan culture I guess.

And people being condescending when they don't need to be usually derails a thread into hurt feelings. It'd be nice if more threads were informative, at least. I think it's usually hard to discuss things in depth because a lot of people wandering around here are just trying to learn. If somebody has wide experience with a /lit/ book that everyone is going to know about or want to read, they should post their hot takes and I'm sure a lot of people would be grateful to have some new insight.

[Anonymous No.9573603]

>>9573591

Would that mean the fruit had no effect? Was their sudden awareness of their nakedness just a pretense of some new insight?

[Anonymous No.9573611]

>>9573591
>Tradition holds that Adam, having surrendered his trust in God, committed a sin of pride in wanting to be "like God, knowing good and evil." His desire was not to discern what was good and evil, since men are rational creatures and had the moral awareness of right and wrong since the beginning, but Adam wanted the ability to determine what IS right and wrong. It's this desire to wield an authority that's exclusive to God that is the ultimate sin.
I'm imagining this from a feminist perspective, and it's beautiful. I mean, there are later chapters that fault out call for a woman's submission to her husband, but I like that rationale and the ability to think is being brought into the picture.

[Anonymous No.9573635]

>>9573603

I think it's a mistake for people to read "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and think that eating the fruit suddenly gave Adam and Even the ability to tell what is right and wrong because I see no sin in that. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that murder is bad for example, and I think Adam would have known that murder was bad before he ate the apple. In Jewish and Christian morality God is who defines what is good and bad, and it would be a sin to want to supplant God or "take God's place" and try to define morality for ourselves. To try to proclaim that murder is a moral good, for example. It's the ultimate sin because it's the same sin that Satan is guilty of.

So in the end I think it's more accurate to think of "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" as the "Tree of defining good and evil."

[Anonymous No.9573648]

>>9573504

[Anonymous No.9573649]

>>9573603
the fruit gives them self-consciousness. when you know what will make you suffer, you know what will make others suffer. you understand how to torture and humiliate.

[Anonymous No.9573679]

The Author of Genesis may also have used popular storytelling devices found in other flood narratives in order to show how the God of the Israelites was superior to pagan deities. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods are afraid of the flood and flee to higher ground, but in Genesis God is in complete control of the disaster and is unaffected by it.

The Epic of Gilgamesh also seems to have been derived from an even older story called the Epic of Atrahasis. In this story, a pantheon of gods flood the earth because human beings had become too hubris and noisy. The author of the Genesis account may even have been purposefully subverting this anti-life attitude in his own narrative in which God commands that Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiple." God's decision to send the flood in judgment of sin instead of as a population control measure would be a further subversion of this theme.

Similar accounts of a massive flood in the Ancient Near East should serve to corroborate the Genesis account, not contradict it. Geologists have discovered that melting glaciers near the black sea could have caused the collapse of giant ice dams about seven thousand years ago. Such an event would have triggered sudden, massive flooding across a wide area, which would have served as the basis for all the flood accounts in the region.

We shouldn't assume the author of Genesis was asserting that a worldwide flood took place. Modern readers may interpret passages in Genesis that describe water covering "the earth" as meaning the entire planet was inundated. But a resident of ancient Mesopotamia may have only understood "the earth" to mean "the land" or the region he knew. In fact, the Hebrew word for "earth" in this passage, eretz, can also mean "land," as in Genesis 41:57, where it says that "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain" when a famine struck the region. Of course, this doesn't mean that everyone on the planet went to Egypt to buy grain, just those people who inhabited the region the author was referring to went there.

[Anonymous No.9573853]

In 6:6 when "the Lord said he was sorry", I don't think this should be taken literally. The Bible often describes the thoughts and actions of God in human terms in order to make the mystery of God more understandable to human minds. Another class of figurative or anthropomorphic expressions includes those that describe God as having physical features like hands (Ex 7:5), arms (Hos 11:3), or feet (Ex 24:10). Additionally scripture teaches that God does not change (Mal 3:6), nor does he repent as man does (Num 23:19).

[Anonymous No.9573877]

Gen 3:16-19 seem to allude to the birth of patriarchy and the practice of agriculture. Are these taken to be results of the expulsion from the Garden? Prior to the expulsion, were Adam and Eve meant not to have a hierarchical relationship? And did they not have to work for their food? If the latter, what were they doing to 'till and keep' the Garden?

[Anonymous No.9574060]

>>9573415
That's a theme in the Book of Tobit, where Tobias is encouraged to marry Sarah, because she's a member of his clan.

[Anonymous No.9574092]

>>9573877

>Gen 3:16-19 seem to allude to the birth of patriarchy

Actually I think this idea of patriarchy was born earlier in 2:15 where God "put(s) man in the Garden to till and to keep it. Later in 2:18 is when God makes Eve, "a helper fit for him." From this I think one can say that the hierarchical structure is good or intended, it's only after the Fall does "tilling the garden" and "helping him" become toilsome and the hierarchy becomes corrupted.

[Anonymous No.9574116]

>>9574092
Genesis 1:26-27 seems to have them created at the same time, so perhaps the Elohist source had a different view. But there's ambiguity about "man" (adam) meaning all humanity, just males, or Adam the individual.

>Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

[Anonymous No.9574207]

>>9574116

There's actually two separate accounts of creation within the first 2 chapters of Genesis. The first as you pointed out is in chapter one, and the second is from 2:4-25. I agree that there is ambiguity in the first account of creation but the second is definitely describing the formation of the first human couple, with Adam being formed from the earth (2:7) and Eve being created from Adam's rib (2:22). I don't think there can be any ambiguity in whether Adam came before Eve.

[Anonymous No.9574355]

Some basic questions about the expulsion from Eden:

>The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil...

Who is "us?"

>He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever

Were Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of life prior to the expulsion? It wasn't forbidden to them. If so, does that mean that the tree of life becomes forbidden once one has knowledge of good and evil?

>he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life

What's up with this flaming sword? 'Cherubim' is plural, so I assume they aren't wielding it. Is it really a flaming sword, or is that just a translation with liberties?

[Anonymous No.9574436]

>>9574355
"Us" is LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) and the divine council. Early Israelite religion had this idea of a council of divine beings . The original belief might have been that they were lesser gods who lived in the heavens with Elohim, the chief god. Psalm 82 has Elohim admonishing the other gods for being cruel and says that dominion of the Earth is ultimately His. The song of Moses in Deuteronomy expresses another view of the divine council, where the Most High (El Elyon) divides the nations according to the number of gods, with Israel as Yahweh's nation (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). Later, the idea of the single god (Elohim, El Elyon, and Yahweh, all in one) that has total power necessitates the divine council being totally subordinate, so instead of lesser gods who are antagonistic, you have angels which are his servants.

[Anonymous No.9574455]

>>9574355
It's possible the flames refer to the light reflecting off the sword

[Anonymous No.9574459]

How many of you are Christians?

[Anonymous No.9574469]

>>9574355

When God uses plural expressions like "us" it could be seen as a plural of majesty, in which God speaks as a king representing his court or the fullness of his authority. In other cases in could be read as a plural of self exhortation, in which God urges himself into action (11:7). It could also be a plural of assembly, in which God addresses his intention to the heavenly host of angels (cf. Job 38:4-7). In Christian tradition this could also be a hint that God is a communion of Divine Persons, later revealed as the Trinity (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). Scripture elsewhere indicates that creation is the work, not only of the Father, but also of the Son (Jn 1:1-3; Heb 1:2) and the spirit (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30).

"become like one of us" means that man has acted the part of a god by presuming to exercise lordship over the moral order and redefine what is good and evil in opposition to his Creator (cf. Is 5:20). Only in this disordered way has his transgression made him like God. Adam would have attained true godliness had he humbly obeyed the Father as Jesus did (Phil 2:5-8).

This fellow here touched on the tree of life and I think he hit the mark >>9569830

The tree of life is distinct from the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge gives us the ability to define what is good and bad, but a consequence of eating it is the separation from God. The tree of life, however, gives the ability to live forever. So God placing the angels (cherubim) to guard the tree, and the entrance to Eden could be seen as an act of mercy. Because since we're in a state of separation from God, if we were to eat from the tree of life we would live earthly lives eternally separated from God without any chance of reconciliation.

I know God is often portrayed as fire throughout the OT. That might have some significance in regards to the flaming sword but I don't know.

[Anonymous No.9574509]

>>9574469
Aren't cherubim winged beasts? An angel (malak in Hebrew) is specifically a messenger of God, while the cherubim fulfill a different role.

[Anonymous No.9574569]

>>9574509

I always assumed they were man shaped since they're described as using a sword. Unless they're like Sif from Dark Souls.

[Anonymous No.9574659]

>>9574569
I always thought the sword was just a disembodied flaming sword that guards the entrance. Something like Robert Crumb's illustration. The passage is pretty ambiguous though.

[Anonymous No.9574924]

>>9574659
Yeah, I picture it not being wielded because (a) there are cherubim in the plural, and presumably a sword is wielded by one individual, and (b) I picture cherubim, like in Crumb's picture, as being animal-like and having four legs without hands. (Though this may be some sort of weird prejudice I picked up from a non-canon source – I don't know why I picture cherubim this way).

[Anonymous No.9574945]

>>9574924
I think they are described as having multiple faces of different animals.

[Anonymous No.9574974]

The first creation account (1:1-2:4) affirms a cosmic event at the beginning of history. It offers neither a literal or a scientific description of how the world was made; rather, it asserts theological truths about God and creation in a symbolic way (CCC 337). The account should not be interpreted as a revealed timetable about the actual historical sequence of creation, nor should the author's prescientific view of the cosmos be mistaken for divinely inspired teaching about the physical constitution of the natural world. It's main teachings include the following:

1) The entire universe owes its existence to God as Creator and Lord.

2) Each and every part of creation is good in the eyes of the God.

3) God established a hierarchy among created things, as seen in the ascending movement of the account, from inanimate things to animate creatures to the human race as the crown of the material world.

4) Creating shows forth the power of God, who speaks the universe into existence, the wisdom of God, who arranges all things into a symphony of natural beauty and harmony, and the goodness of God, who bestows life and blessing gratuitously.

5) The creation story exhibits an apologetic interest in countering the mythological world views of the ancient Near East. According to the pagan myths, a pantheon of deities existed in the beginning; the gods were embodied in nature and had human like needs and imperfections; the world was born out of a struggle between gods; and man was created only to be exploited by the gods. In contrast, Genesis teaches that only one God exists, that he stands outside of time, that he is altogether distinct from the natural world, and that he blessed mankind, making man the bearer of his image. In addition to these considerations, the seven-day structure of the account is best viewed as a literary device for communication the following points

6) Six days of work followed by one day of rest underscores the obligation of man to lay aside his labor and honor the Creator every seventh day (Ex 20:8-11).

7) The founding of the world in seven days parallels the building of the Tabernacle according to seven commands (Ex 40:16-33) and the dedication of the Temple in seven days (1 Kings 6:38). Also, the description of God resting on the seventh day (2:2-3) has links with ancient concepts of the a temple, which is considered a place of divine rest (2 Chron 6:42; Ps 132:14; Sir 24:11; Isa 66:1). The creation week in Genesis thus reflects the belief that the world is a cosmic sanctuary.

8) Seven days of divine speech hint that God established a covenant with creation. Not only does the Hebrew for "seven" share a common root with the verb for "swearing a covenant oath" (see 21:27-32), but in later Jewish tradition, God is said to have founded the world through his oath (1 Enoch 69, 15-27; Sifre Deuteronomy 330) (on creation see CCC282-87, 337-44.

[Anonymous No.9574997]

>>9569596
"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."


WTF, I hate God now

[Anonymous No.9575132]

>>9573522
>>9573591
>>9573611
Look, people, the situation with the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge is crystal clear to me.

To whom did God give -directly- the commandment? To Adam, not to Eve.

Adam is for all intents and purposes not only the first man, but also the first rabbi, as in, the first teacher, the first person in charge of making sure the commandments are known, understood, and followed not only by himself but also the rest of God's people.

When the serpent asks Eve about this one commandment, she gives a technically wrong answer. "Why she adds the prohibition on touching the fruit is unclear" says the commentary on the Jewish Study Bible.

Yet to me it is clear: she was not given proper instruction. The job was so lousy it resulted in dooming Eve and even in having Adam joining her in apostasy.

To say this is all Eve's fault is ridiculous, when Adam doomed all mankind because he failed to teach one person.

You will see that this motif of responsibility, disobedience and covenant-breaking is very very common, in fact all over the Hebrew Bible.

The book of Judges (the second after the Torah) alone is nothing but a series of apostasies and idolatries.

The Hebrew Bible is a history of fails.

[Anonymous No.9575241]

Rashi's comments on eating the fruit is pretty interesting

Genesis 2:3
>you will surely not die: He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating” (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

2:4
>you will surely not die: He pushed her until she touched it. He said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching, so is there no death in eating” (Gen. Rabbah 19:3).

2:5
>for God knows: Every craftsman hates his fellow craftsmen. He [God] ate of the tree and created the world (Gen. Rabbah 19:4).
>and you will be like angels: Creators of worlds. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13]

2:6
>and the woman saw: She understood the words of the serpent and they appealed to her; so she believed him (Gen. Rabbah 19:4).
>that the tree was good: to [cause them to] be like angels.
>and that it was a delight to the eyes: As he had said to her, “and your eyes will be opened.”
>and that the tree was desirable to make one wise: As he said to her, “knowing good and evil.”
>and she gave also to her husband: lest she die and he live and marry someone else. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 13]
>also: to include the cattle and beasts - [from Gen. Rabbah 19:5].

2:12
>whom You gave [to be] with me: Here he [Adam] showed his ingratitude. — [from Avodah Zarah 5b]

2:14
>Because you have done this: From here [we learn] that we may not intercede in favor of one who entices people [to idolatry], for had He asked him, “Why did you do this?” he could have answered, “The words of the master and the words of the pupil-whose words do we obey?” [i.e., Adam and Eve should have obeyed God rather than the serpent!]- [from Sanh. 29a]
>more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field: If he was cursed more than the cattle [whose gestation period is long], he was surely cursed more than the beasts [whose gestation period is comparatively shorter]. Our Rabbis established this midrash in Tractate Bechoroth (8a) to teach that the gestation period of a serpent is seven years.
>you shall walk on your belly: It had legs, but they were cut off. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20:5]

2:22
>has become like one of us, having the ability: He is unique among the earthly beings, just as I am unique among the heavenly beings, and what is his uniqueness? To know good and evil, unlike the cattle and the beasts. — [from Targum Jonathan, Gen. Rabbah 21:5]
>and now, lest he stretch forth his hand, etc.: And if he were to live forever, he would be likely to mislead people to follow him and to say that he too is a deity (Gen. Rabbah 9:5).

2:24
>the cherubim: Angels of destruction. — [from Exod. Rabbah 9:11]
>the revolving sword: It had a blade to frighten him from re-entering the garden. The Targum of לַהַט is שְׁנַן, like,“He drew the blade (שְׁנָנָא)” in Sanhedrin (82a), and in Old French it is lame.

[Anonymous No.9575258]

>>9575241
2:3 should be:
>and you shall not touch it: She added to the command; therefore, she came to diminish it. That is what is stated (Prov. 30:6): “Do not add to His words.” - [from Sanh. 29a]

Which is pretty significant, Rashi is saying Eve interpretated God's commandment in her own way, making it weaker, and opens an entrance for the serpent to exploit (touching it first so Eve is enticed before the punishment of eating)

[Anonymous No.9575299]

>>9575241
>Rashi

Where can I read more of his exegesis of Genesis?

[Anonymous No.9575345]

>>9574974
good post

[Anonymous No.9575397]

>>9574974
>5)
if kronos is the first creator god, then the greek golden age of men (as narrated by hesiod) is very similar to paradise, except there are no women. golden age ends with revolt of zeus and other gods/titans.
also the flipside of the perfect christian god and his perfect world is that the humans wear all the blame for the imperfections, enter slave-morality.
in previous versions of genesis the trees are actually defended by the snake/dragon and he tactically sacrifices tree of knowledge, so the humans cant reach the tree of life and gain immortality. so the previous versions were a bit more wholesome.

[Anonymous No.9575768]

8:20-9-17 is the Noahic covenant. Ratified in response to Noah's obedience (6:22) and expressed in the sign of the rainbow (9:13), it features God taking upon himself the unconditional obligation -- despite the persistence of sin (8:21) -- to maintain the stability of the natural order (8:22) without the threat of another flood (9:11). The Noahic covenant is a renewal of the covenant that God established with the creation in the beginning. The Noahic covenant remains in force as long as "the earth remains" (8:22), that is, "for all future generations" (9:12) (CCC 71)

In 9:13 The Hebrew term for rainbow is the same term used for a hunting (27:3) or military bow (Lam 2:4). This has given rise to different explanations of the sign.

1) Some see the rainbow as a sign of peace. They picture God hanging his bow in the sky, retiring it from service and signifying that he has ended his battle with the sinful world.

2) Others interpret the rainbow as a sign of God's covenant oath. Signifying that God will be forever faithful to his pledge, for he threatens himself with a curse should he fail to uphold the terms of the Noahic covenant.

[Anonymous No.9575989]

Is this group going to go into the full bible if it survives?

[Anonymous No.9576160]

>>9575989
I think it would be more economical to skip over or compress some of the duller ones in favor of getting to the NT and church father materials faster
Let's be honest, there's no reason to spend a day on Ecclesiasticus

[Anonymous No.9576667]

>>9573877
>Prior to the expulsion, were Adam and Eve meant not to have a hierarchical relationship?
Adam does not give orders to Eve beyond communicating to her the commandment of not eating of the fruit, which comes from God.

>And did they not have to work for their food?
Adam does work since Gen 2:15, so even in an Earthly Paradise you work, but the burden was light, much of the food was completely free of charge and abundant, and they didn't eat meat like the rest of the carnivores. In Eden there isn't even a predator and prey relationship.

Working out of Eden means you have to face famines and other economic crises, exploitation, poverty, etc. So after the Fall labor becomes how we know it.

>If the latter, what were they doing to 'till and keep' the Garden?
Stewardship and basic maintenance of an ecosystem that is about as perfect as biological, material variability allows.

Picking a fruit (not THAT Fruit) still requires a minimum amount of effort. Work in Eden must mean they're practically trimming a few branches here and there to make it even prettier.

Completely different from having to grow your own food off the land, which is what Adam (and Eve) are cursed to do. They have to take care of all of the plants' life cycle.

We're use to see ecosystems as highly complex and integrated and self-regulating and self-sufficient, but according to the Genesis writer, Eden cannot be "complete" by itself.

God needs Adam and Eve to introduce sapience into the world, so it can be redeemed and in a sense, "improved." The fact that even in Eden this task would be upon us means that humankind has a mission.

Humanity's existence has a purpose.

[Anonymous No.9576681]

>>9576667
Also, speaking of Eden and labor, we shouldn't forget that God himself works, and rests.

[Anonymous No.9576704]

>>9575299
Right here

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

[Anonymous No.9577071]

>>9575989

It could. The prophet books are so repetitive though.

[Anonymous No.9577134]

9:20-27 introduces the next phase of the Genesis story, showing that just as Adam's family line split between the righteous (Seth) and the wicked (Cain), so Noah's family line divides into the blessed (Shem) and the cursed (Ham). The Shemite line is a continuation of the righteous Sethite line through Noah (5:1-32)

[Anonymous No.9577193]

Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" (9:22) is variously interpreted to mean that Ham looked perversely upon his naked father (voyeurism), that he emasculated his father (castration), or that he sexually abused his father (homosexual incest). More likely, the expression is an idiom for maternal incest, where (1) a father's nakedness is an indirect way of referring to the nakedness of his wife (as in Lev 18:7), and (2) "seeing" nakedness is synonymous with "uncovering" the nakedness of a close relative to engage in sexual relations (as in Lev 20:17).

So understood, Ham is guilty of having sexual relations with his mother, and this explains why a curse falls, not on himself, but on his son, Canaan, who would seem to be the child conceived of this sinful union (9:25). It is otherwise difficult to understand why Canaan, who plays no role in the story at all, is mentioned five times in the immediate context (9:18, 22, 25, 26, 27). The account of Ham's perversity thus supplies the backstory of how he became the father of Canaan and the Canaanites. For a parallel episode in Genesis where drunkenness leads to incest with a parent and the birth of nations that become traditional enemies of Israel, see 19:30-38.

[Anonymous No.9577242]

>>9571029
Not that anon but presumably anyone reading the bible isn't exactly opposed to some exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.9577488]

10:1-32 is the table of nations, an inventory of the national, geographic, and linguistic diversity of the ancient Near East.

1) Numerically, it lists a total of 70 nations: 14 from Japheth (10:2-5), 30 from Ham (10:6-20), and 26 from Shem (10:21-31)

2) Genealogically, it asserts the unity of the human family stemming from Noah's three sons (10:32).

3) Chronologically. it stands before the Tower of Babel narrative (11:1-9), yet it presents a map of the world and its languages as it existed after the Babel incident.

4) Geographically, it outlines a general pattern of migration and settlement with the Japhethites concentrated in Asia Minor and the islands of the Mediterranean, the Hamites spread across northern Africa and up to Syria-Palestine, and the Shemites settled in Mesopotamia and across the Arabian peninsula.

[Anonymous No.9577700]

The Tower of Babel incident (11:1-9) explains the dispersion of groups of people (11:8) and the diversity of their languages (11:9). Both are manifestations of divine judgement on man, whose pride has reached a new and towering height in the form of a mudbrick skyscraper. The tower may have resembled one of the colossal mountain temples, or ziggurats, of ancient Babylon. These sacred elevations were thought to be points of contact between heaven and earth.

The family of man bands together to build a secular civilization that glorifies human achievement and the strength of social and political unity. The arrogance of this attempt illustrates how sin has come to corrupt, not only individuals, but whole societies and their collective pursuits. Moreover, as the broader context of Genesis shows, the "name" ( Let us make a name for ourselves 11:4) coveted by the sinners of Babel is never aquired; rather, it is Abraham and his descendants whom God promises to bless with a great "name" (12:2). Preparations for this had already been made when God blessed Abraham's ancestor Shem, whose name in Hebrew means "name" (9:26) and whose two genealogies stand immediately before and after the Babel episode (10:21-31; 11:10-26).

[Anonymous No.9577899]

Speaking of Shem meaning name, HaShem (lit. "The Name") is what Jews say instead of pronouncing the name of YHWH.

Alternatively they say hakadosh baruch hu ("The Holy One, Blessed Be He") or Adonai (usually translated as "The Lord"),

[Anonymous No.9577939]

12:1-50:26 Are the patriarchal narratives. These are often classified as folk tales, legends, or epic sagas; some even consider them the free creations of a later stage. However, the stories of the Patriarchs are best regarded as genuine family history. Not only do the main characters and events have a solid claim to historicity, but a number of supporting details have been verified by modern research as well. Several considerations favor the authenticity of Genesis 12-50 and make it unlikely that these chapters were either fabricated by later storytellers or substantially altered with non-historical elements in the course of a lengthy oral transmission.

1) The patriarchal stories are sober and restrained in dealing with the miraculous. Attention is given to God and his actions, but not in ways that suppress the authentically human dimensions of the narrative.

2) The accounts give every impression of being objective. No obvious effort is made to idealize the Patriarchs by hiding their weaknesses or excusing their failures. Despite being the founding fathers of God's holy people, they are sometimes portrayed in an unflattering light: e.g., Abraham and Isaac are less than truthful (20:2, 13; 26:7); Jacob and Rebekah are deceptive (27:5-29); Judah fathers two sons by a prostitute (38:12-30); and most of Jacob's sons--ancestors of the tribes of Israel--struggled with jealousy and hatred (37:4, 11).

3) The Patriarchs live at variance with the standards of the Torah later erected for Israel: e.g., Abraham married his paternal half-sister (20:10, contrary to Lev 18:11); Jacob married two sisters at the same time (29:21-30, contrary to Lev 18:18) Jacob consecrated sacred pillars (28:18; 35:14, contrary to Deut 16:22); and both Judah and Simeon married Canaanite women (38:2; 46:10; Ex 6:15, contrary to Deut 7:1-3). Stories of religious heroes would not likely be told in this way unless they were believed to rest on historical facts.

4) The Patriarchs always appear as outsiders and sojourners in the land of Canaan. This would probably not be the case if their stories were later inventions; more likely, national propagandists would have made them natives to Canaan, thus giving Israel an ancestral claim to the Promised Land and not simply a theological claim based on an ancient covenant with Yahweh (17:7-8).

5) The Patriarchs fit comfortably within the cultural, social, and religious environment of the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1500 b.c.). Archaeological finds, though not yet attesting the existence of the Patriarchs as individuals confirm the general manner of life depicted in Genesis as well as specific features related to adoption, surrogate motherhood, restitution, and even the price of slaves.

[Anonymous No.9577959]

>>9577899

I always wondered why Christians don't treat the name more reverently. I'm unaware of anything in the New Testament that says we shouldn't. I suppose the 'relaxing' of the rules could be a product of the early evangelization of gentiles but that's just a guess.

[Anonymous No.9577989]

>>9577959
There is no commandment in the Torah against saying YHWH; in Ruth 2:4 (which would mean as late as the 5th century BCE), the name is pronounced.

[Anonymous No.9578111]

it is extremely important to bear in mind that the "sem-" in "semitic" comes from Shem.
(sorry if you guys knew that and it was super obvious or something)

[Anonymous No.9578176]

>>9578111

It wasn't.

[Anonymous No.9578186]

Is it true that jewish monotheism was created in judea by the priesthood after Israel was destroyed to explain why the wealthier, cosmopolitan state perished?

[Anonymous No.9578286]

>>9578186

I'm not sure what you're asking. From a historical and biblical perspective the people that became Israel were monotheistic from the beginning, whether it be Adam, Noah, or Abraham. At this point in Genesis the country of Israel doesn't exist yet and throughout the later history they've been "destroyed" a few times. I'm not sure what the wealthier, cosmopolitan state is referring to.

[Anonymous No.9578327]

Slightly off topic but any good books to recommend on the history of the Catholic Church/Papacy?

[Anonymous No.9578352]

>>9578286
Yeah that's the biblical perspective but I believe it is widely accepted that the monotheistic old testament only really started taking form during the babylonian exile, a process that had already begun in Judea in response to the fall of the coreligionist, cosmopolitan and much wealthier northern state of Israel.
I know about the part of the babylonian exile but not about the process in judea

[Anonymous No.9578392]

The first five books of the Old Testament are an assembly of materials composed over several centuries before finally being compiled, rearranged, and edited into their present form around the sixth century B.C. I think you're confusing the assembly of the book we know today as Genesis to mean that this was when the materials were originally written, it wasn't. It would take a ridiculous conspiracy for an entire nation to just start pretending that they've been sharing these stories for hundreds of years prior without anybody to call them out on it.

[Anonymous No.9578396]

>>9578392

meant for >>9578352

[Anonymous No.9578402]

>>9578392
No most were present they just weren't assembled into a canon yet nor was such a religious text structured and edited to point to one God.
The narrative was created later, mostly during the exile iirc

[Anonymous No.9578430]

>>9578327

I think most general Christian history books like 'History of Christianity: The First 3,000 Years' are pretty good even though the author is secular. I haven't read any offensively bad ones anyways. One of the most useful books I have as a Catholic is The Fullness of Truth by James Seghers. I reference it constantly and it does a great job of answering most protestants in regards to the papacy, Mary, etc. Reasons to Believe by Scott Hahn is also very good.

[Anonymous No.9578445]

>>9577939

To add to this, the existence of Israel as a distinct group of people is attested to not only in the bible, but also in a slab of granite called the Merneptah Stele that has been dated to 1208 B.C. It contains a text describing the Egyptian Pharoah Merneptah's victories in the region and includes this boast, "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not." Even a moderate scholar like William Dever admits that unlike many Egyptian names that only refer to a place, "the name Israel is followed by a different sign: 'man + woman + three strokes,' which refers to peoples in contrast to nation-states or their capitals -- in other words, to an ethnic group."

Now, it is true there is no ancient, nonbiblical evidence that directly refers to individuals like Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. But as Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier observed, "We should not expect people living such a [nomadic] lifestyle between 3,500 and 4,000 years ago to have left any archaeological evidence of their existence, and ancient texts from urban centers are unlikely to specifically document their presence." But even without direct corroboration, there are details within the patriarch narratives that indirectly confirm their authenticity, as was point out.

[Anonymous No.9578497]

>>9577939
I'm afraid those conclusions are flawed, there are many anachronisms in patriarchal stories that point to later redaction or invention, such as domesticated camels, which weren't in use during the supposed patriarchal period. Also, if we're using the criterion of patriarchs being portrayed with flaws, we'd have to accept the Roman founding legends as historical as they depict the Romans as descended from criminals. Why would the Romans make that up? Who knows, but there's no historical evidence for those stories and they're rejected by Roman scholars, just as the Abraham story is rejected by Biblical scholars.

[Anonymous No.9578572]

>>9578497

It's true that camel bones discovered in Israel have been dated to the tenth century B.C., but this does not prove that camels were not domesticated in Israel before that point. The remains of nearly all animals used for human purposes during the second millennium B.C. have not survived to the present day. The discovery of domestic animal bones from one century does not preclude their existence in an earlier century.

Moreover, there is evidence from ancient cave drawings and pottery illustrations that camels were domesticated during the time if the patriarchs and even earlier. Camel petroglyphs near Aswan and Gezireh in Upper Egypt, for example, have been dated to the third millennium B.C. In his study on the domestication of the camel, Martin Heide concluded that the use of the word "camel" in the patriarch narratives "may refer, at least in some places, to the Bactrian camel," or a camel with two humps that migrated from the mountainous areas of Iran


-Michael Ripinksy, "The Camel in Dynastic Egypt," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 71 (1985), 134-41
-Martin Heide, "The Domestication of the Camel: Biological, Archaeological and Inscriptional Evidence from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel and Arabia, and Literary Evidence from the Hebrew Bible," Ugarit-Forschungen 42 (2011), 367-68

[Anonymous No.9578615]

>>9578572
>>9578497

Another alleged error is Abraham and Isaac's contact with the Philistines (Gen 21:34; 26:1), who critics say did not exist during the lifetime of the patriarchs. But according to scholars David Jobling and Catherine Rose, "Rabbinic sources insist that the Philistines of Judges and Samuel were different people altogether from the Philistines of Genesis." This is especially likely since the Philistines described in Genesis were not a major military power nor were they as belligerent as the Philistines described in later books like Samuel.

One explanation for this is that during the time of the united monarchy (when Israel was united under King Saul, David or Solomon), the name "Philistine" may have been a reference to "non-Israelites" in general and not to a distinct people such as the group described in Genesis. The Philistines in Genesis may actually have been emigrants from what is now modern-day Greece. In fact, a stone tablet called the Phaistos Disc testifies to the existence of a seafaring group of people that originated on the island of Crete in the year 1700 B.C., which was near the time and place Abraham lived.

It could be the case that the author or a later editor of Genesis used a name that was familiar to his readers in order to illustrate for them where these ancient people settled. In doing so, he probably did not intend to identify these people with the Philistines who attacked the fledgling nation of Israel several centuries later. This would be similar to modern historians describing the people who interacted with Jesus in the first century as "Palestines" even though the term "Palestinian" did not become prominent until the twentieth century, and the two groups are not politically or socially related to one another.

[Anonymous No.9578678]

>>9578572
Thanks for the sources, I'll read those

>>9578615
"Rabbinic sources" are pretty weak for learning about the historical context of original composition of the texts, the rabbis were carrying out exegesis with an obvious bias hundreds of years after the compilation of the Tanakh books. The rest of the point are pure speculation, with no particular reason to accept them. Is there textual evidence for "philistine" referring to all foreigners?

[Anonymous No.9578708]

>>9578678
>"Rabbinic sources" are pretty weak for learning about the historical context of original composition of the texts, the rabbis were carrying out exegesis with an obvious bias hundreds of years after the compilation of the Tanakh books. The rest of the point are pure speculation, with no particular reason to accept them. Is there textual evidence for "philistine" referring to all foreigners?

These aren't rabbis performing exegesis, the "rabbinic sources" are the textual evidence that the Philistines from Genesis are different from the book of Judges and Samuel. I think you misread that because it's David Jobling and Catherine Rose who are performing the exegesis.

-David Jobling and Catherine Rose, "Reading as a Philistine," in Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett (Leiden: Brill Academin, 1997), 404

[Anonymous No.9578729]

>>9578708
>the "rabbinic sources" are the textual evidence that the Philistines from Genesis are different from the book of Judges and Samuel
That's incorrect, Jobling and Rose cite Midrash Tehilim, which is a medieval commentary on the psalms, as a rabbinic source that claims the different Philistine identities. The source you cited doesn't even claim there were really two different Philistine identities at different times, it's just talking about how they appear as rival claimants to Canaan in the text, and then then cite a much later midrashic opinion on p404 as per your citation.

[Anonymous No.9578753]

>>9578729

>That's incorrect, Jobling and Rose cite Midrash Tehilim, which is a medieval commentary on the psalms, as a rabbinic source that claims the different Philistine identities.

This contradict what I said so I don't know how it could be incorrect. There's not much else to say then. I say the book says one thing, you say it doesn't. I'll leave it to anyone that cares enough to look and see for themselves.

[Anonymous No.9578755]

>>9578729
>>9578753

>This contradict what I said so I don't know how it could be incorrect.

I meant to say this doesn't contradict what I said

[Anonymous No.9578793]

>>9578753
I guess I misunderstood what you said then. Weren't you saying that the Philistines being two separate peoples in Genesis and Judges/Samuel is Jobling and Rose's own exegesis of the texts? Reading the book itself, they are only saying it's a rabbinic opinion to explain an apparent problem in the text, the exegesis in that case is obviously the rabbis' that the authors are only reporting.

[Anonymous No.9578823]

>>9578793

>Weren't you saying that the Philistines being two separate peoples in Genesis and Judges/Samuel is Jobling and Rose's own exegesis of the texts?

Of course I am. If you're performing exegesis on the bible you should take outside sources into consideration. That's exactly what Jobling and Rose are doing, it is their exegesis.

[Anonymous No.9578853]

>>9569718
Why is this being sung? Isn't it supposed to be spoken?

[Anonymous No.9578858]

>>9578823
Right, but their claim isn't about the actual Philistines being two different people, they're only saying that rabbinic exegesis identified them as two different people to explain the differences between Genesis and Judges/Samuel, which was your point. Their own exegesis is just a simple reading that the Philistines become a threat of great magnitude in the later books and provide an example of a Rabbinic explanation, nothing in the text (especially not p404 which you explicitly cited) says what the real Philistines outside the text were, nor does it say the Midrash Tehilim is an accurate reading is an accurate account, just that it was a way the rabbis tried to explain the differences.

To quote your previous post >>9578615
>Another alleged error is Abraham and Isaac's contact with the Philistines (Gen 21:34; 26:1), who critics say did not exist during the lifetime of the patriarchs. But according to scholars David Jobling and Catherine Rose, "Rabbinic sources insist that the Philistines of Judges and Samuel were different people altogether from the Philistines of Genesis."
There is the implication that Jobling and Ross's own book supports the view of two separate Philistine groups (we're talking about the actual Philistines, not just as described in the text, since we're talking about historical discrepancies), when really it doesn't, and is just referencing some medieval Rabbinic views. Which, as I said, tell us very little about the real historical Palestinians, as the rabbis were conducting theological exercises, not historical analysis.

[Anonymous No.9578873]

>>9578853
>Why is this being sung?
Because it's awesome.
>Isn't it supposed to be spoken?
Read or cantillated.

[Anonymous No.9578907]

>>9578858

I think we're talking past each other because I don't disagree with you. The contention between us is semantic in nature, you believe Jobling and Ross are merely quoting Rabbinic sources in a detached way while I believe that Jobling and Ross are making that sources a part of their own exegesis. Ultimately it doesn't matter because the hypothesis that the Philistines of Genesis are different from the Philistines of Samuel doesn't hinge on that one bit of supporting evidence. You asked in response to my original post for textual evidence for the hypothesis which is the only reason I highlighted it a second time.

[Anonymous No.9578958]

Damn, great thread

[Anonymous No.9579217]

The story of Abraham begins with the voice of God calling him to a new land (12:1) and promising him extraordinary blessings for the future (12:2-3). The divine promise was threefold: (1) to make Abraham a great nation. (2) to make his name great, and (3) to make him an instrument of blessing for the entire world. The first promise is closely connected with the gift of land, which is a necessary foundation for building a nation. The second is closely connected with dynastic kingship, which involves the exaltation and propagation of a royal name. The third is a promise of worldwide blessing mediated through his offspring.

Within Genesis, these three promises are eventually upgraded to the status of divine covenants. The first promise becomes a covenant in 15:7-21, where God swears to rescue the family of Abraham from the oppression of a wicked nation and to give them a new homeland. The second promise becomes a covenant in 17:1-21, where God institutes the rite of circumcision and swears to raise up a dynasty of kings out of Abraham's line. The third promise becomes a covenant out in 22:16-18, where the Lord swears to multiply the offspring of Abraham and to use them in blessing all nations.

Beyond Genesis, the promises and corresponding covenants reach their fulfillment in three historical stages. The first promise takes shape during the Exodus with the ratification of the Mosaic covenant, which forges the family of Israel into a nation (Ex 19-24) as they prepare to take possession of the Promised Land (in Deuteronomy). The second promise materializes at the founding of the Davidic covenant, where the Lord installs David as king, swearing to give him a great name (2 Sam 7:9) and an everlasting throne (Ps 89:3-4; 132:11-12). The third promise comes to realization in the New Covenant as universal blessings are poured out on the world by Jesus Christ, the messianic descendant of Abraham (Mt 1:1; Acts 3:25-26; Gal 3:14).

[Anonymous No.9579233]

>>9569596
>4 weeks
Took me a single week for all of it

[Anonymous No.9579265]

>>9570108
>The serpent is Satan
Wrong.
Bet you think the adversary is Satan too.

[Anonymous No.9579285]

>>9579265
reminder that the serpent, Job's accuser/adversary, Lucifer, and the devil of the NT are not identical

[Anonymous No.9579309]

>>9579265

The serpent has been commonly considered (1) a mythopoeic image that represents the devil (or at least the diabolical) in a literary way, (2) the visible form assumed by the devil in the garden, or (3) a real serpent whose body is possessed and manipulated by the devil, much as demons are capable of speaking through bodily creatures and controlling their actions (cf. Mk 5:1-13). Note that the Hebrew term nahash often refers to a snake (49:17), but in poetic and apocalyptic texts it can refer to a draconic sea serpent that represents opposition to the Lord (Job 26:13; Isa 27:1; Amos 9:3).

I'm a Christian so I name the serpent as it was later identified in Rev 12:9.

[Anonymous No.9579312]

>>9578907
I would say it's a lot more than semantics since we're talking about an apologetic view that Genesis is not anachronistic due to the Philistines in it being a separate group to the later Philistines, and I don't think your source even advocates that view, and the original midrashic source they cite doesn't give historical information about the period in question anyway.

But we've clogged up the thread enough, we can agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.9579769]

maybe if we talk about the devil some more the thread will come back to life

[Anonymous No.9579804]

Abraham instructing his wife to tell the Egyptians she is his wife is technically a half-truth, since Sarai and Abraham have different mothers but share the same biological father (20:12). As a result of this tactic, Sarai is taken from Abraham into the Pharaoh's royal harem (12:15). Similar episodes appear in 20:1-18 and 26:6-11.

12:16 may be a hint to how Sarai acquires Hagar, her Egyptian maid (16:1).

[Anonymous No.9579808]

>>9579804
>Abraham instructing his wife to tell the Egyptians she is his sister is technically a half-truth,
Fixed that

[Anonymous No.9580911]

I always found Abraham coming from Ur interesting, anyone know what the significance is meant to be? All I can think is that it was a large urban centre and establishes Abraham's family as coming from a wealthy, powerful region to further emphasise Israel's difference to the Canaanites.

[Anonymous No.9580930]

>>9580911
that's just where he came from, dawg. it's not meant to be significant. it just happened.

[Anonymous No.9580953]

>>9580930
I'm not sure I'd say it's not significant. After all, Ur is often regarded as one of the flat-out oldest civilizations on the world. The ziggurat that has been partially preserved is, in particular, extremely old. I think it's important that Abraham can be tied to such an old, old city. It shows that God had a direct interest in the affairs of men from the very beginnings of civilization.

[Anonymous No.9581390]

In 13:2-18 Abram and Lot divide their company and go their separate ways. The point is that Lot, of his own free will, chooses to put himself outside of the land of promise and into a land of moral corruption (near Sodom, 13:12). Lot prefers the Dead Sea valley at the termination of the Jordan river. Genesis tells us this was a lush and fertile region before God scorched it with fire and brimstone (19:24-29; Deut 29:23).

In 13:14-17 God reiterates the promise made to Abraham in 12:7. Jacob will receive this same promise (land, 13:15; 28:13) while standing in the same place (Bethel, 13:3; 28:19) and peering in the same four directions (points of the compass, 13:14; 28:14).

[Anonymous No.9581584]

Melchizedek (14:18) is a royal title or throne name meaning "king of righteousness" (Heb 7:2). He is the first person mentioned in the Bible to be called a priest and is mentioned elsewhere in the OT only in Ps 110:4. The identity of Melchizedek is a mystery. Modern scholars tend to view him as a pagan priest of the Canaanite high god, El, although this deity was deemed the father of the gods in Canaanite mythology, not the "maker of heaven and earth" (14:19). In Jewish tradition, Melchizedek is name in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a heavenly judge and eschatological deliverer (11QMelch) or is identified as Shem, the first-born of Noah (Targum Neofiti at Gen 14:18), an ancient figure who outlives Abraham, according to a literal reading of the Genesis genealogies (11:10-26; 25:7). Christian tradition sees him as a type of the royal-priestly Messiah (Heb 5-7) and has identified him as an angel, as a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ, or as the patriarch Shem.

[Anonymous No.9581872]

>>9581584

Salem is a shorter name for ancient Jerusalem, as indicated in scripture (Ps 76:2) and testimony of Jewish tradition (e.g., Dead Seas Scrolls, 1QapGen 22, 13). Canonically, it is significant that Jerusalem is a center of kingship and priesthood under Melchizedek even before it is made the political and spiritual capital of Israel under David (2 Sam 5-6).

Bread and wine are elements of a celebratory meal. These may have been communion portions of a thanksgiving sacrifice offered to God after a successful campaign (14:17), or they may suggest that a covenant is forged between Abraham and Melchizedek and is sealed with a sacred meal (cf. 31:44-46; Josh 9:14-15). Allegorically, in the actions of priest Melchizedek the sacrament of the Lord is prefigured; for Melchizedek is a type of Jesus Christ, who offered the bread and wine of Melchizedek, that is, his body and blood (St. Cyprian, Letters 63, 4). This interpretation, shared by many Church Fathers, is implicit in the Roman Canon of the Mass ("the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech", Eucharistic Prayer I) (CCC 1333).

[Anonymous No.9582080]

Thoughts and theories on Henoc?

[Anonymous No.9583792]

bump

[Anonymous No.9584747]

How many of you guys have gotten at least halfway with Genesis?

[Anonymous No.9585301]

>>9582080
The (first) Book of Enoch is my favorite of the apocrypha.

>>9584747
I've already read the whole Bible.

[Anonymous No.9585436]

Angel of the Lord (16:7)

Mal'ak YHWH (Heb.): The "angel" or "messenger" of Yahweh. Sometimes this figure appears to be a messenger of God sent from heaven to speak in God's name (Gen 22:11018; Judg 6:12). At other times, however, he appears to be an actual manifestation of God and s sounding forth of his own divine voice (Ex 3:2-6). For theological and other reasons, this messenger is most likely an angel who mediates the world of God to the world and manifests his divine presence in visible and audible ways. The angel of the Lord is said to be endowed with divine wisdom (2 Sam 14:17), and among his many tasks, he is called upon to lead the people of Israel (Ex 23:20), to thwart the enemies of Israel (Num 22:31-34), to send divine judgments on Israel (2 Sam 24:16), and to announce the birth of significant children in Israel (Gen 16:11; Judg 13:3), including the Messiah (Mt 1:20-21). The bible also refers to this heavenly figure as "the angel of God" (Gen 21:17; 31:11; Ex 14:19).

[Anonymous No.9585469]

>>9578853
Look up Cantillation. Vedas are the same way

[Anonymous No.9585725]

17:1-21 s the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. It follows the pattern of a Near Eastern treaty covenant, meaning that a superior party or suzerain (God, 17:1-8) lays obligations on an inferior party or vassal (Abraham, 17:9-13) under the threat of curse (cut off, 17:14). This is the second of three covenants that God makes with the patriarch. (see: >>9579217)

Circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (17:11) and will later serve as a rite of initiation into the liturgical life of Israel (Ex 12:48; Lev 12:3). Theologically, circumcision of the flesh points inward to the circumcision of the heart, i.e., it summons the descendants of Abraham to cut away the stubbornness of fallen human nature in order to follow the Lord's ways blamelessly (17:1; Deut 10:16). Historically, circumcision was practiced among many peoples of Near East (Jer 9:25-26) and is still observed today as a religious rite among Jews (at eight days, like Isaac, 17:12) and Muslims (at age 13, like Ishmael, 17:25).

Baptism is the counterpart to circumcision as the initiation rite of the New Covenant. With Baptism, however, which is administered to males and females alike, the grace of the sacraments effects the interior circumcision of the heart that the cutting of the flesh merely signified (Rom 2:28-29; Col 2:11-12).

[Anonymous No.9585785]

>>9585725
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is also the discussion involving Paul, Peter, Barnabas and James over whether Gentiles following Jesus should be circumcised, and also whether they are bound to follow every single one of the commandments that you will find in the Torah, some of which you've already seen in Genesis, and that particularly you will find in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

[Anonymous No.9586955]

Saving thread.

[Anonymous No.9586981]

>>9579285
Sources? That's an interesting claim

[Anonymous No.9587555]

>>9586981
New Oxford Annotated Bible.

[Anonymous No.9587720]

The 3 men are identified in the context as Yahweh (18:1) and two of his angels (19:1). God comes to the tent of Abraham and Sarah to reaffirm his promise of a son (15:4; 17:19). Abraham welcomes him and his companions as an eager and attentive host, doing everything possible to ensure their comfort (18:4-8). Abraham is probably one of the models of hospitality spoken of in Heb 13:2.

Following this encounter, the two angels are sent off to inspect Sodom (18:22; 19:13), while Abraham is left to haggle with the Lord over the fate of the city (18:22-33). Christian tradition often saw three visitors as an image of the Trinity.

In 18:14 the question "Is anything too hard for the Lord?' is rhetorical, implying that nothing is impossible for God (Jer 32:17; CCC 269). This verse, which prepares for the miraculous conception of Isaac, is later echoed when the angel Gabriel announces to Mary the virginal conception of Jesus (Lk 1:37; CCC 689).

In 18:21 God is depicted in humanlike terms, as though he had to investigate Sodom Gomorrah firsthand in order to confirm reports of their wickedness. See: >>9573853

In 18:22-33 Abraham intercedes for Sodom by bargaining with the Lord. The dialogue centers on the character of God, whose justice overlooks neither righteousness nor wickedness and whose mercy is willing to spare the wicked from mass destruction for the sake of the righteous. These themes play out in the following episode, when divine mercy spares both Lot (19:16) and city to which he flees (19:21-22).

[Anonymous No.9587771]

Angels appearing as men come to inspect Sodom and evacuate Lot. They are sent to destroy several cities in the Dead Sea valley (19:29) infamous for their injustice (Isa 3:9), disregard for the poor (Ezek 16:49), and unnatural lust (Jude 7). Lot sitting at the gate may indicate that he's a respected elder of the city, i.e., someone who adjudicates civil disputes (Duet 21:18-21).

19:8 is a very unflattering depiction of Lot, who is willing to endanger his own daughters to ensure the protection of his guests. The rejection of his offer accentuates the Sodomites' disordered preference for men over women.

The Lord pulverizes the cities of the valley with flaming rocks of sulfur. The event brings death and destruction to the entire region, leaving it a scorched and smoking wasteland. The memory of this catastrophe serves as a warning to the wicked and stands as an illustration of God's judgement on sin (Duet 29:3, 2 Pet 2:6). Likewise, the destruction of an entire population of sinners, the rescue of a single family, and the account of sexual sin in which the surviving father begets offspring that is hostile to Israel are all paralleled in the flood narrative and its aftermath (chaps. 6-9).

19:30_38 is the shameful origin of Israel's eastern neighbors. the Moabites and the Ammonites. These nations showed themselves enemies of Israel during its Exodus journey (Num 22:1-6; 25:1-3; Deut 23:3-4). The episode recalls the drunkenness of Noah and what appears to be the incestuous origin of the Canaanites in 9:18-27.

The sisters seem to think the devastation of the region is a worldwide calamity. Some interpret the incest that follows as a case of poetic justice, i.e., Lot is made to pay the bitter penalty for recklessly offering his daughters to the perverted Sodomites (19:8).

[Anonymous No.9587966]

Chapter 20:1-18 is Abrahams sojourn in Gerar. The episode shows God ensuring the fulfillment of his promises to Abraham by protecting his wife, Sarah, who will eventually bear him a son (21:1). Despite being taken into the royal harem (20:2), she is untouched by Abimelech (20:6) and delivered back safely to the patriarch (20:14). For similar accounts in Genesis, see 12:10-20 and 26:1-11.

The name Abimelech means "my father is king." It may be a title or throne name of the local monarch. Isaac encounters another king of this name in the same city years later (26:1).

[Anonymous No.9589257]

There is a pun in Gen 18:12.

I noticed that most English translations say "Sarah laughed to herself", the KJV chooses "laughed within herself", Young's Literal Translation says in verse 13 " Sarah laugheth in her heart."

While Sarah is being incredulous, there's God miraculously placing Isaac with in her.

There is laughter within her... because Isaac means: "He laughs."

God has a sense of humour.

[Anonymous No.9589890]

21:1-14 is the birth of Isaac and the banishment of Ishmael. In 12:9 where Ishmael is seen playing with Isaac, the Hebrew is "laughing", and in this context it's in the negative sense of "laughing at". To the distress of Sarah, the teenager Ishmael is taunting or mocking the toddler Isaac. Paul will later interpret this as an act of persecution (Gal 4:29). These pivotal events ensure that Isaac alone will inherit the covenant promises made to Abraham (17:21; 21:12)

21:22-34 is a covenant of mutual peace between Abraham and Abimelech. It follows the pattern of a Near Eastern kinship or parity covenant between equals. Both parties swear a solemn oath during the ratification ceremony (21:31), invoking God's name (21:23) and expressing their mutual commitments through a verbal declaration (21:30) and ritual action (21:28). Beer-sheba translates "well of seven" or "well of the oath". The two meanings are related, since the number seven has the same root as the verb for swearing an oath in biblical Hebrew. In this episode, Abraham enacts his oath by giving "seven" lambs as a covenant witness (21:30) to his rightful ownership of the well seized by Abimelech's servants (21:25).

[Anonymous No.9589933]

>>9589890
If you are the person passive aggressively memeing this everywhere it's not working, and you should learn to get over whatever reason you have this grudge.

[Anonymous No.9589944]

>>9589933

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.9589965]

What if the people with the most religious merit weren't just the people whose ancestors paid the most at Temple, or who had the correct birth aesthetics, but were actually the people who had the intrinsic character traits of the commandments.

[Anonymous No.9590003]

The drama of the Book of Genesis reaches its greatest intensity in 22:1-9, the heart-wrenching story of Abraham offering his beloved son as a sacrifice on Mt. Moriah. So momentous is the event and its outcome that it stands as one of the defining moments of salvation history. Had Abraham shown anything less than heroic faith, there is no telling how the grand narrative of the Bible would have developed thereafter. The question if how to interpret the significance of the episode. For some, the story is a protest against the rituals of child sacrifice that plagued the biblical world. By holding back the knife, the Lord shows that he rejects rather than requires this kind of savagery in the name of religion. For others, the story is a lesson in trusting God and obeying his word, even when life's circumstances seem to contradict his promises. Stretching out faith beyond comfortable limits is seen as the path to greater blessing that Abraham blazes for us by example. Both of these readings provide genuine insights into Genesis 22. But more can be said about the spiritual and theological dimensions of the episode. In the interpretive tradition of Judaism and Christianity, the sacrifice of Isaac is an even of monumental historic importance. It is one of the few events in scripture that have a lasting effect on the shape of God's plan for the future of the world.

[Anonymous No.9590008]

>>9590003

Spiritual significance:
For Abraham personally, the sacrifice of Isaac marks the highpoint of his developing relationship with the Lord. Ever since his call in Genesis 12, Abraham's faith in God has been gradually deepening and maturing to the point where, in Genesis 22, God sees fit to test the strength of his commitment. Preceding chapters describe how the plot builds to reach this climactic moment. (1) Initially Abraham is asked to leave is home and set out for the land of Canaan at the Lord's direction (12:1-2). (2) Later he is asked to sacrifice animals from his herds (15:18-20). (3) Then the patriarch is asked to sacrifice part of himself in a covenant of circumcision at the age of ninety-nine (17:1-21). (4) Finally, the Lord asks for the life of Isaac, Abraham's beloved heir (22:102). No greater sacrifice could be asked of a father than this, all the more so since God's promises to bless Abraham are literally bound up with Isaac on the altar (see 17:19).

So it is that Abraham learns the lesson of trustful surrender to the Lord. At each stage in the process, more is asked of him than before, until all that Abraham holds dear is given over to God and nothing is held back. Each time he is summoned to sacrifice, he is asked to love the Creator more than his creatures and to esteem the divine Giver above his most precious gifts. Even when God's promises and credibility hang by a thread, the only acceptable course is to entrust ourselves to him in faith. Because Abraham followed this course, he shows himself to be one who fears God (22:12). This is significant because the Bible extols "fear of the Lord" as the preeminent religious virtue, the very essence of what it means to possess wisdom and to live uprightly in the eyes of the Almighty (Ex 20:20; Job 1:1; 28:28; Ps 111:10; Prov 1:7).

[Anonymous No.9590013]

>>9590008

Theological significance:
In early Jewish theology, the sacrifice or "binding" of Isaac is an event that sends ripples down through the history of the covenant people. It is said, for example, that Isaac played an active role on Moriah by offering himself as a willing victim and that the merits of his action were stored up for the redemption of Israel in future days. Thus, saving events such as the Exodus from Egypt, the forgiveness of the people after the golden calf apostasy, and the crossing of the Jordan into the Promised Land were all made possible by the sacrifice of Isaac. Likewise, the cultic ministries of the Temple, especially the daily burnt offering and the yearly Passover sacrifice, were considered liturgical memorials of Isaac's offering. In these and other ways, the sacrifice of Isaac was believed to secure lasting benefits for the descendants of Abraham.

From a Christian perspective, the sacrifice of Isaac points forward to the salvation of the world by the Messiah. Anticipation of this rests on both a prophetical and typological reading of Genesis 22. Prophetically, the divine oath to bless the world through Abraham in 22:16-19 is fulfilled in Jesus Christ as the messianic offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16). Through him the blessing of God's covenant with Abraham, destined for all families and nations, are poured out for the salvation of Israel and the Gentiles alike (Mt 28:19; Acts 3:25-26; Gal 3:14). In this way, the curses of the Adamic covenant are surpassed and surmounted by the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled by the Messiah (see Rom 5:12-21).

Typologically, the offering of Isaac serves as a preview of how the world's redemption would be accomplished. Like Isaac, Jesus is an only beloved Son (Mt 3:17; Kn 3:16) who is not spared by his Father but is offered in sacrifice (Rom 8:32). So too, as Isaac is returned alive to the arms of his father, thanks to the intervention of Gof (22:12), Jesus is restored to life in his Resurrection (Heb 11:17-29). Building on this NT foundation, the Fathers of the Church went on to correlate Isaac carrying the firewood (22:6) with Jesus bearing his own Cross (Jn 19:17), to link the deliverance of Isaac on the third day after consignment to death (22:4) with the deliverance of Jesus from death on the third day (Mt 16:21), and to see the ram caught by its thorns in the thicket (22:13) as a depiction of Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb (Jn 1:29), Finally, the sacrifice of Isaac is said to have taken place on Moriah (22:2), which is none other than the mountainous elevation of Jerusalem (2 Chron 3:1) the city where Jesus was called upon to offer his life in sacrifice. Given these remarkable prophetical and typological features, it is no surprise that Christian tradition places Genesis 22 alongside other OT passages such as Isaiah 53 that most clearly describe the work of the Messiah for our redemption.

[Anonymous No.9590106]

>Far more than we moderns generally realize, human sacrifice was a fact of life among the peoples of the ancient Near East in tension with whom Israel first achieved cultural self-definition. Israel's renunciation of the practice of human sacrifice took place over a long period of time, during which intermittent reversions to it occurred. No biblical story better depicts how the Bible is at cross-purposes with itself on the subject of sacrifice than does the story of Abraham and Isaac. ... We are told that God bestowed the blessing and promise on Abraham after the "test" on Mount Moriah because Abraham had been willing to do what God had intervened to keep him from doing -- sacrificing his son. This understanding may have had a certain coherence in the dark world of human sacrifice to which it hearkens back, and it may have some psychological pertinence, but the true biblical spirit has little nostalgia for the sacrificial past and almost no interest in psychology. What we must try to see in the story of Abraham's non-sacrifice of Isaac is that Abraham's faith consisted, not of almost doing what he didn't do, but of not doing what he almost did, and not doing it in fidelity to the God in whose name his contemporaries thought it should be done.

Nearly four thousand years ago, Abraham passed this test. He heard the voice of the true God telling him to stop, don’t kill. And now almost two thousand years after the voice of our risen Savior forgiving us for our numerous slaughters, all those brought together on his cross, are we ready to pass the test, too? Are we ready to stop the killing? What could happen in our world if two billion people who claim Abraham as their father could finally recognize what this test of faith is really all about?

[Anonymous No.9590132]

>>9590106

It wasn't that long ago before I actually started reading the bible and studying it where I thought this sacrifice of Isaac was a nasty thing, where God is commanding somebody to kill their own son. Like it was just another one of those "evil things in the Bible" that critics love to list off without thinking in Youtube comments. I've come a long way since then and now I can recognize that there's some real beauty and heroics on display. These books were originally written to be understood by ancient people so you have to read things through their eyes.

[Anonymous No.9590159]

>Somebody disagreed with me, sneakily circumcise them and treat them like a prostitute

Yeah, just get the hell of this board, subhuman.

[Anonymous No.9590195]

Gahhh the circumcision lord in this thread, don't even have any of the character traits, that other people apparently need to be punished for lacking.

[Anonymous No.9590277]

>>9577193
>assume phallus=power
>see power made explicit
>develop consciousness of how that power has power over you
>understand how to wield that power yourself
>usurp the power
whether the power was usurped by castration or incest doesn't really matter symbolically. The point is that power will be transferred—forcibly, if you're a fool (either a drunken one like Noah and Lot, or a blind one like Issac became)
The same way Adam's nakedness gave him knowledge of how to be evil (through recognizing his own vulnerability and understanding how to exploit it), Seeing Noah's power in a naked—vulnerable—state gave Ham the ability to use Noah's power to transgress him.

[Anonymous No.9591015]

In 23:1-20 Abraham buys land in southern Canaan as a burial plot for Sarah. The chapter details the negotiation and purchase of the property and stresses that Abraham declined to accept it as a gift. This field is the only portion of land that ever belongs to Abraham personally, but his purchase of the site anticipates the full acquisition of Canaan by his descendants (12:7; 17:8).

Abraham will be buried with Sarah in the same cave (25:9-10), as will Isaac and his wife, Rebekah, and Jacob and his first wife, Leah (49:29-32). Samaritan tradition locates the burial place of the Patriarchs, not in Hebron, but in Shechem in central Palestine. Stephen follows this Samaritan tradition in Acts 7:16.