Reading 2 - Genesis 6-11:9

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Bio-logical
Site Supporter
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:30 am
Contact:

Reading 2 - Genesis 6-11:9

Post #1

Post by Bio-logical »

I feel it is appropriate to post the next reading assignment. Remember that the discussion on the previous one may continue but our goal is to read the bible so I am going to keep moving. I have started a new thread for organizational purposes and will continue to do so for the remainder of the study barring any suggestions.

The reading is Genesis 6- 11:9

Flood
The Daughters of Men: Gen 6:1-8
Building the Ark: Gen 6:9-8:22
Noah Commences the Human race again: Gen 9:1-28
The progeny of Noah: Gen 10:1-32
Babel/Nations
Mans pride forms separatism and the nations while loosing a unifying language: Gen 11:1-9

One addition I would like to make is that I found this site that has several questions about each chapter you may want to keep in mind while reading.
Doubt is not the end, but only the beginning of pursuit.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #31

Post by Cathar1950 »

myth-one.com wrote:Cathar1950, your last post was an example of "babbling," right?

It finally hit me. We're discussing the Tower of Babel, and you gave an example. Good idea.
You should be reported. Did you even bother to read it?

Heterodoxus
Scholar
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus
Contact:

Post #32

Post by Heterodoxus »

myth-one.com wrote:I'm confused as to why you deem it necessary to describe God in Genesis as:
Heterodoxus wrote:6:5-7 -- the supreme Deity within Judaism (hereinafter "the LORD/God")
While your statement is true, it seems to neglect or at least minimize all non-Jews from this God.
:) And why shouldn't it? Were we not studying the Bible story of Creation in GEN 1 of the Judeo-Christian Bible?

Which, IYO, best identifies the version of "God" seen in that Judeo-Christian Bible story of Creation in GEN 1?
  • > YHVH of Judaism?
    > Jehovah of Judaism-influenced Christians?
    > Allah of Islam?
    > Odin, Zeus, or Zoroaster?
    > Other?
The Bible reader can philosophize (indeed, one can Oprah-ize) about a touchy-feely, cookie-cutter, one-word-describes-all type of "God" if they wish. They should, however, bear in mind that:
  • * Mein Kampf is about things attributed to Adolf Hitler, and
    * the Judeo-Christian Bible is about things attributed to the God יְהוּדָיֵ֔� (TWN IOUDAIWN, of the Jews) and of Judaism-influenced Christians.
[center]"That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god."[/center]
[right]~Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1.1-3.
[/right]

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #33

Post by Cathar1950 »

Heterodoxus wrote:
myth-one.com wrote:I'm confused as to why you deem it necessary to describe God in Genesis as:
Heterodoxus wrote:6:5-7 -- the supreme Deity within Judaism (hereinafter "the LORD/God")
While your statement is true, it seems to neglect or at least minimize all non-Jews from this God.
:) And why shouldn't it? Were we not studying the Bible story of Creation in GEN 1 of the Judeo-Christian Bible?

Which, IYO, best identifies the version of "God" seen in that Judeo-Christian Bible story of Creation in GEN 1?
  • > YHVH of Judaism?
    > Jehovah of Judaism-influenced Christians?
    > Allah of Islam?
    > Odin, Zeus, or Zoroaster?
    > Other?
The Bible reader can philosophize (indeed, one can Oprah-ize) about a touchy-feely, cookie-cutter, one-word-describes-all type of "God" if they wish. They should, however, bear in mind that:
  • * Mein Kampf is about things attributed to Adolf Hitler, and
    * the Judeo-Christian Bible is about things attributed to the God יְהוּדָיֵ֔� (TWN IOUDAIWN, of the Jews) and of Judaism-influenced Christians.
Even the God of Judasim evolved. There is El, Yahweh and finnaly YHWH as well as the other gods of Caanonites.
Yahweh is also a god of war and the god of the storm possible taken attrubutes of Baal. There was not some god the Jews sliped away from as they followed other gods.
I supose we should move on unless myth-one want to add some more NT passages and tell us how cleaver God was.

Heterodoxus
Scholar
Posts: 397
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: facebook.com/Heterodoxus
Contact:

Post #34

Post by Heterodoxus »

Cathar1950 wrote:we should move on unless myth-one want to add some more NT passages and tell us how cleaver God was.
Agreed.
[center]"That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god."[/center]
[right]~Martin Luther, Large Catechism 1.1-3.
[/right]

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #35

Post by myth-one.com »

myth-one.com wrote:Cathar1950, your last post was an example of "babbling," right?

It finally hit me. We're discussing the Tower of Babel, and you gave an example. Good idea.
Cathar1950 wrote:You should be reported.
Are we good if I say 1,000 Hail Mary's?
Cathar1950 wrote:Did you even bother to read it?
Absolutely. As proof, let me comment on the following:
Cathar1950 wrote:Elohist also contrubuted to the stories as in "E" and guess what, ancient Hebrew doesn't have an "e" either.
Actually, I think its "i" before "e" except after "c". (Add another 1,000 HM's)
Heterodoxus wrote:The Bible reader can philosophize (indeed, one can Oprah-ize) about a touchy-feely, cookie-cutter, one-word-describes-all type of "God" if they wish. They should, however, bear in mind that:
* Mein Kampf is about things attributed to Adolf Hitler, and
* the Judeo-Christian Bible is about things attributed to the God יְהוּדָיֵ֔� (TWN IOUDAIWN, of the Jews) and of Judaism-influenced Christians.
Hitler was the source of Mein Kampf.

Those "credited" with authoring the original scriptures were inspired by God according to the book we are supposed to be studying:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:21)
So God is the original source of the scriptures -- not men.

Give credit where credit is due.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #36

Post by Cathar1950 »

myth-one.com wrote:
myth-one.com wrote:Cathar1950, your last post was an example of "babbling," right?

It finally hit me. We're discussing the Tower of Babel, and you gave an example. Good idea.
Cathar1950 wrote:You should be reported.
Are we good if I say 1,000 Hail Mary's?
Cathar1950 wrote:Did you even bother to read it?
Absolutely. As proof, let me comment on the following:
Cathar1950 wrote:Elohist also contrubuted to the stories as in "E" and guess what, ancient Hebrew doesn't have an "e" either.
Actually, I think its "i" before "e" except after "c". (Add another 1,000 HM's)
Heterodoxus wrote:The Bible reader can philosophize (indeed, one can Oprah-ize) about a touchy-feely, cookie-cutter, one-word-describes-all type of "God" if they wish. They should, however, bear in mind that:
* Mein Kampf is about things attributed to Adolf Hitler, and
* the Judeo-Christian Bible is about things attributed to the God יְהוּדָיֵ֔� (TWN IOUDAIWN, of the Jews) and of Judaism-influenced Christians.
Hitler was the source of Mein Kampf.

Those "credited" with authoring the original scriptures were inspired by God according to the book we are supposed to be studying:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:21)
So God is the original source of the scriptures -- not men.

Give credit where credit is due.
Then give the creidt to humans and those that did the writing and editing.
Well God sure took an odd way of writing as he used a number of authors with conflicting writings as well as a number of editors.
There is nothing except your interpretation of some passage (Timothy?) in the Bible that says it is inspired and guess what most scholars think it is a forgery written after the time of Paul. Of course inspired doesn't make God the author any more then the sunset might inspire me to write a song or poem makes the sunset the author. Even "inspired" is a metaphor sometimes using wind or breath.
But just because some late pious forgery says "all writings" are inspired doesn't make it so. It is still rather circular reasoning and dogma on your part.
The book is a collection or anthology of writings and there is no "according to the book" to appeal.

User avatar
Bio-logical
Site Supporter
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:30 am
Contact:

Post #37

Post by Bio-logical »

myth-one.com wrote:
Bio-logical wrote:The other aspect of the reading I think deserves discussion is that of the tower of Babel.

Why would God look at the accomplishment of his creations and seek to hinder it by confusing them with multiple languages?
Any thoughts?
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. (Genesis 11:1)

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they began to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. (Genesis 11:4-6)
Why was God concerned? If they could accomplish this, they might be able to accomplish anything they imagined. So what? Well, man can imagine some horrible things and the six-thousand-year plan for mankind had only begun.

For example, what if man had reached a state of development such that he produced nuclear weapons in 945 instead of 1945. What might have happened? Man would have the means to destroy himself and the earth a thousand years before God's six-thousand-year plan called for that possibility. Jesus will return for the elect's sake just in time to prevent this total destruction. The "elect" are the Christians. Man was too far ahead of schedule. Why? Because they all spoke a common language. They did not have the confusion imposed by multiple languages which we have today. What did God do?
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. (Genesis 11:7)

It was brilliant! Suppose you are in a group of one thousand people who all understand and speak English. Suddenly, eight hundred chosen at random cannot understand or speak English. Perhaps two hundred understand and speak French, another two hundred Spanish, another two hundred German, and another two hundred Japanese. What would be the effect? Instead of having one group of a thousand there would soon be five competing groups of two hundred. Each group would believe they were the only sane group as the others spoke gibberish, or babel. That is exactly what occurred:
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:8-9)

God introduced foreign languages into the world and this worked as a separator which divided mankind into many different, competing groups. It was a case of divide and conquer. Today there remain problems due to language whenever multiple countries work on one project. Anytime translations are required there is a risk of mistranslation. Even if there are no translation errors, the effort requires energy and time which could be applied directly to the project if all spoke one language.
I understand that we are moving on, which can be found here, I felt it necessary to comment on the non-sequitor of this post.

To summarize:

-God saw that man is capable of anything they put their mind to

-God (to paraphrase) "thought this might go against his plan which I have assumed to be 6000 years for absolutely no verifiable reason" so He acted to hinder their technology

-God would have done so in fear hat men would destroy each other prematurely

-God therefore created a language barrier that would confuse them and slow down their progress

Did I get that pretty well?

Okay, so now we have a god looking at the marvellous accomplishment of his people, something that is in no way inherently evil, so he fears that they wil twist this ability into the ability to kill each other. in an effort to stop the killing, he creates the biggest in-group/ out-group effect one could possibly create by causing each group to believe the other had gone nuts.

The potential for greatness would have only been reduced by a few generations to increase population size sufficiently to cause each newly formed group to reach the size of the original group since the humans are still human and would therefore have the same potential using a different language as long as enough of them spoke it.

So what, then, could possibly be the advantage to causing new and decidedly different groups as it pertains to hindering technology?

War! These groups now fear the potential of the others as God did the original and therefore do their best to overpower overthrow, subvert or otherwise hinder the advances of those that speak a different language! In effect, by confusing languages, God gave man the best reason he has ever had to create a weapon like the atom-bomb! If we all still spoke one language, there would be a lot less bickering and xenophobia and therefore more diplomacy.

That, or of course, this is just a myth to explain why there are different languages that are shown to have common roots and to have evolved from one-another due to separation and time.
Doubt is not the end, but only the beginning of pursuit.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #38

Post by myth-one.com »

Cathar1950 wrote:Well God sure took an odd way of writing as he used a number of authors with conflicting writings as well as a number of editors.
There were no conflicts in the originals as inspired by God.
Cathar1950 wrote:Then give the creidt to humans and those that did the writing and editing.
Yes, those that did the editing and translating of the scriptures into our Bibles of today should be given credit (blame) for inserting the errors and conflicts.
Cathar1950 wrote:There is nothing except your interpretation of some passage (Timothy?) in the Bible that says it is inspired and guess what most scholars think it is a forgery written after the time of Paul.
It's not my interpretation. That's what it says:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:21)
Cathar1950 wrote:Of course inspired doesn't make God the author any more then the sunset might inspire me to write a song or poem makes the sunset the author. Even "inspired" is a metaphor sometimes using wind or breath.
Inspired or moved. The implication is that God is responsible for the original scripture -- some of which was originally oral.
Cathar1950 wrote:But just because some late pious forgery says "all writings" are inspired doesn't make it so. It is still rather circular reasoning and dogma on your part.
The book is a collection or anthology of writings and there is no "according to the book" to appeal.
I disagree. That is all there is under this thread.

It is a book study. The book being studied is the Bible. I thought the goal was trying to understand what the Bible states -- not whether it is true or false. The Bible states the scriptures were inspired by God. If so, then the original scriptures (whatever they were) contained no errors or contradictions. If we come across what appears to be an error in this Bible study, what are the possibilities?

Seems to me there are three:

1) It is not an error.
2) It is a translation error.
3) It is the translators' efforts to impose their personal beliefs on the scriptures as inspired by God.

You can claim that II Timothy is a forgery written by Tiny Tim and reccommend it be ripped out of all Bibles. Yet that verse will remain in the book we are studying.
Regarding the Tower of Babel episode, Cathar1950 wrote:The language confusion didn't happen and God or the gods didn't really act.
Reviewing the user groups to which you belong, I never really thought you believed it actually happened. :lol: Likewise, you probably assume that I believe every word. If I did, your statement above would not convince me otherwise.

Yet "according to the book" we are studying, such an event did occur. Whether fact or fiction, shouldn't we attempt to understand why such an event would even be considered?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #39

Post by Cathar1950 »

Wow, talk about reality mimicking parody.
I doubt I could write that good of a satire trying to lampoon the mind of the Bible Believer in an almost burlesque like distortion. The only thing you missed was you can only interpret scripture with scripture and I might suspect you were Easyrider or Biker returned.
myth-one.com wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:Well God sure took an odd way of writing as he used a number of authors with conflicting writings as well as a number of editors.
There were no conflicts in the originals as inspired by God. .
Yes there are conflicts even in what might be called the originals but that is a rather moot point when we don’t have any originals and we have never seen any. But I see no reason to assume “inspired� means without conflict or error. I guess you would also have to know what was actually inspired by God in the originals. Is it ever word, passage and letter or just what your selective and ritualized regurgitation of passages interpreted willy-nilly filtered through your esoteric theology or dogma?
myth-one.com wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:Then give the credit to humans and those that did the writing and editing.
Yes, those that did the editing and translating of the scriptures into our Bibles of today should be given credit (blame) for inserting the errors and conflicts.
I guess you are going to ignore the fact that there are no originals and that there are a number of combined writings with editing and redactions.
myth-one.com wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:There is nothing except your interpretation of some passage (Timothy?) in the Bible that says it is inspired and guess what most scholars think it is a forgery written after the time of Paul.
It's not my interpretation. That's what it says:
There is always you interpretation and I hardly think you are qualified(capable) to give us an unbiased plain reading of the text.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:21)
Cathar1950 wrote:Of course inspired doesn't make God the author any more then the sunset might inspire me to write a song or poem makes the sunset the author. Even "inspired" is a metaphor sometimes using wind or breath.
Inspired or moved. The implication is that God is responsible for the original scripture -- some of which was originally oral. [/quote]
How do either one of those passage imply that there is no conflict? That is hardly what the passages say. There no clause that says there can’t be any error. II Peter say they “spoke� as they were moved not wrote. II Timothy says all writings(scripture) is � profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:� not inerrant or without conflict. It doesn’t look to me like you are reading the passages as much as you are placing (foisting) some unneeded and unwarranted burden upon the material, and your creditability. The key words seem to be “spake�, “moved� and “profitable� are being confused with some magic trick you think God has preformed.

myth-one.com wrote:
Cathar1950 wrote:But just because some late pious forgery says "all writings" are inspired doesn't make it so. It is still rather circular reasoning and dogma on your part.
The book is a collection or anthology of writings and there is no "according to the book" to appeal.
I disagree. That is all there is under this thread.

It is a book study. The book being studied is the Bible. I thought the goal was trying to understand what the Bible states -- not whether it is true or false. The Bible states the scriptures were inspired by God. If so, then the original scriptures (whatever they were) contained no errors or contradictions. If we come across what appears to be an error in this Bible study, what are the possibilities?

Seems to me there are three:

1) It is not an error.
2) It is a translation error.
3) It is the translators' efforts to impose their personal beliefs on the scriptures as inspired by God.

You can claim that II Timothy is a forgery written by Tiny Tim and reccommend it be ripped out of all Bibles. Yet that verse will remain in the book we are studying.
The passage claims scriptures were inspired by God, it doesn’t say they are without error.
I think you left a few possibilities out.
4) They have errors.
5) You are in error.
6) You both are in error.

Unless you are going to look at much of the writings as propaganda, ideology and materials for indoctrination then it looks to me like it is 6.

I didn’t say who wrote it, like you I don’t know, but the scholarly consensus is that it was not written by Paul. I see no reason to rip it out or rip out the 6 false letters of Paul but I do think we should understand them for what they are and not look at every writing and passage as some message straight from God used to prove everything you read and interpret is “true, factual or correct�. The pseudo writing or letter “II Timothy� is a fake letter in a collection or anthology of religious writings called the Bible where there is no agreement as to which writings should even be included. The individual writings in the various Bibles, including yours, can not speak for the whole or God except as an unsupported belief that is circular in reasoning. But if it makes you feel better it is the scholarly consensus that II Peter is also a forgery. Boy do you know how to pick them.
myth-one.com wrote:
Regarding the Tower of Babel episode, Cathar1950 wrote:The language confusion didn't happen and God or the gods didn't really act.
Reviewing the user groups to which you belong, I never really thought you believed it actually happened. :lol: Likewise, you probably assume that I believe every word. If I did, your statement above would not convince me otherwise.

Yet "according to the book" we are studying, such an event did occur. Whether fact or fiction, shouldn't we attempt to understand why such an event would even be considered?
I am guessing the obvious that it was some story borrowed, as the one I presented earlier, and it amounts to a cautionary tale about pride as it gives a mythological explanation for why there are so many different languages and a pun at Babylon’s expense and not some magical confusion trick so we didn’t destroy ourselves before Jesus returned even before he showed up the first time…lol
.

I thought the goal was trying to understand what the Bible states -- not whether it is true or false. The Bible states the scriptures were inspired by God. If so, then the original scriptures (whatever they were) contained no errors or contradictions. If we come across what appears to be an error in this Bible study, what are the possibilities?
I thought the goal was trying to understand what the Bible states -- not whether it is true or false. The Bible states the scriptures were inspired by God. If so, then the original scriptures (whatever they were) contained no errors or contradictions. If we come across what appears to be an error in this Bible study, what are the possibilities?
If you are going to assume and insist they are true then you leave the question open to debate. There is no reason to think that "inspired" means "no errors or contradictions", it just doesn't follow. You are adding to “what it says�.
myth-one.com wrote:
Regarding the Tower of Babel episode, Cathar1950 wrote:The language confusion didn't happen and God or the gods didn't really act.
Reviewing the user groups to which you belong, I never really thought you believed it actually happened. :lol: Likewise, you probably assume that I believe every word. If I did, your statement above would not convince me otherwise.
I guess I should assume you believe every word it say even when it isn’t true, factual or correct and you even believe what you add to “God’s Word� what you will.
You can never convince the Believer other then what they believe or want to believe.

Exodus 22:28-29 (English Standard Version)
28(A) "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
29"You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses.(B) The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me.

Jeremiah 7:31 (English Standard Version)
31And they have built the high places of(A) Topheth, which is in(B) the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,(C) to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire,(D) which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.

Jeremiah 19:5 (English Standard Version)
5(A) and have built the high places of Baal(B) to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—

Jeremiah 32:35 (English Standard Version)
35They built the high places of Baal(A) in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,(B) to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech,(C) though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do(D) this abomination,(E) to cause Judah to sin.

Jeremiah 7:31
31And they have built the high places of(A) Topheth, which is in(B) the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,(C) to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire,(D) which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind.

2 Kings 23:10 (English Standard Version)
10And he defiled(A) Topheth, which is(B) in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,(C) that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to(D) Molech.[a]

Ezekiel 20:25-26 (English Standard Version)
25(A) Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through(B) their very gifts(C) in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7079
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #40

Post by myth-one.com »

Cathar1950 wrote:There is nothing except your interpretation of some passage (Timothy?) in the Bible that says it is inspired and guess what most scholars think it is a forgery written after the time of Paul.
myth-one.com wrote:It's not my interpretation. That's what it says.
Cathar1950 wrote:There is always you interpretation and I hardly think you are qualified(capable) to give us an unbiased plain reading of the text.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)
In plain English, what does that verse say, Cathar1950?
_______________
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Happy Birthday Martin! You were one brave man.

Post Reply