-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GAF Reads The Bible (in one year)
- Thread starter Xeke
- Start date
- Status
I got home and was quite anxious to do a little more research on Gen. 6:2. I came to discover that the term "The Sons of God" is in fact only used in Genesis Chapter 6 and the book of Job. Notwithstanding, in the account of Job 1:4-7, the Sons of God are most definitely angels. The Hebrew term being BeNeY Ha ELoHiM. However, looking back at Gen. 6:2 and the debate in question, I still cannot surmise that the Sons of God spoken of here are anything other than the believing children of Seth.
First off, Strong gives no clear indication of one or the other. Definition 10b of the Hebrew term "ben" (1121 in Strong's concordance) states "In Gen 6:2, the phrase "sons of God" is variously understood as (10b1) members of the heavenly court, (10b2) the spiritual disciples of God (the sons of Seth, and (10b3) the boastful among mankind. Next, If they were angelic beings capable of having sexual relations with humans then they would in fact be able to produce offspring in this manner. But Matthew 22:30 tells us that "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." This tells us that angels are not sexual beings as they have no need for marriage. Bear in mind one of the reasons marriage was instituted was to satisfy man's sexual desire in a God-pleasing manner and another reason was to create children. On top of this, there is the fact that according to the Bible, Satan (to include the angels he commands) is unable to either create or take life (Deut. 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 2 Kings 5:7, Job 2:6, John 5:21). This action is reserved for God alone at His command.
As to the meaning of the word NePHiLiM, it should be noted that most Bibles leave this term untranslated. The Authorized Version translates it with the word "giants." The Hebrew word comes from the root word NaPHaL, which mean "to fall." The Septuagint translates it with "gigantes", from which we derive our word giant. But the Greek word literally means merely "earth-born." We might say "born of the world," or simply "of the world, or worldly," in other words, unbelievers! This is also then confirmation of the interpretation that "the sons of men" stands for the children of Cain.
And finally, regarding Jude 7, the Greek term for sexual immorality is ekporneuo (1608 in Strong's Concordance) which comes from ek (1537) and porneuo (4203) meaning "to be utterly unchaste: - give self over to fornication, (a stregthened form of porneuo ek, used intensively), to give oneself up to fornication, implies excessive indulgence." Porneuo is defined as "indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (fig.) practice idolatry." The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not restricted to sexual desires only. They came in all forms of fornication against the Lord including idolatry. And as verse 6 of Jude states, the angels committed the same atrocities. Not strictly sexual atrocities, as evidenced by Matthew 22:30, but all kinds of afronts to the Lord.
With all this in mind, I cannot conclude that the Sons of God spoken of in Gen. 6:2 are angelic beings. Satan's host of angels had already been cast into hell at this point which leaves the children of Cain to be the correct interpretation. There needn't be any point to make in this verse other than God telling us that believers started having children with unbelievers against His will.
teruterubozu
Member
I've been reading Genesis and it's amazing how everyone from Adam to Jacob are horrible, horrible fathers.
el retorno
Member
I'm gonna try to read it both in spanish and english to try to get a feel of how they differ. Differences in the text are really interesting to me. I'm debating which spanish translating to read though...
I'll still do the discussions in english though
I'll still do the discussions in english though
It appears that the writer of Gen. 6:4 believed that supernatural entities had sex with humans and then produced humans of really keen ability, other analysis strikes me as over complicating things.
I'm saying this an atheist, but I think it is unfair to analyze what is in Genesis through later books and especially through books in the New Testament. It's one thing to interpret the NT through the Hebrew Bible, but for now I'm going to do my best to let the Hebrew Bible speak for itself even though I come from a Christian background.
Just like everything else, this thread needs more Jews.
I'm saying this an atheist, but I think it is unfair to analyze what is in Genesis through later books and especially through books in the New Testament. It's one thing to interpret the NT through the Hebrew Bible, but for now I'm going to do my best to let the Hebrew Bible speak for itself even though I come from a Christian background.
Just like everything else, this thread needs more Jews.
I love bible.cc and have suggested it earlier in this thread too
They also have a link to a nice interlinear...edit: And to continue with some of the previous posts, I think it also has a link to Strong's concordance.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Your on a merry-go-round with this. You got to use some logic here.
For one thing, marriage between humans had been taking place for thousands of years at this point and warranted no special mention. So by drawing attention to the sexual union of “the sons of the true God” who materialized and took “the daughters of men,” the account clearly refers to something unprecedented, abnormal.
This is backed up by Strongs which I already pointed out which between the two phrases:
1.Sons of God
2.Daughters of Men
There is a contrast being made between the two. It is clearly not a family line since:
A) Strongs shows that with the term "Daughters of Men" the MEN signifies "Species of Man"
B) Instead of saying "Sons of Men" or "Sons of Seth" as the bible does countless other times to show genealogy it calls them SONS OF THE TRUE GOD..
C) The sexual union created GIANTS!
Now the reason we know they are litteral GIANTS is because first STRONGS tells us but if you want to go with the 3rd definition okay doesn't matter because when the 12 Spies go to Canaan to look over the promised land they become terrified and say that the land is filled with Nephilim. Why? Because of their immense size.(Nu 13:33) -"They make us look like grasshoppers!!!!"
There is already far more evidence that I have supplied that they are sons of god over your belief that somehow its Seth's line which has NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS.
Your right that other groups of people in the bible are called Sons of God but the connection between the group is always made clear:
Adam is called Gods son, Israel and David as well. We know this because the bible tells us. Never once does it link Seth to the term "Son of God."
So right there the only thing you can go off of is conjecture. That isn't a argument at all.
I especially love this part:
Your saying that you found the evidence that this term is only used 3 times in the bible and of those 3 times 2 are definitely angels but you have doubts of the first one because.................
I don't know. I guess GIANTS isn't a big enough sway.
To your other points Matthew 22:30 is being taken out of context for this argument since we aren't talking about Angels up in heaven but those with materialized bodies on the earth. Which there are countless accounts of angels materializing bodies to walk on the earth and I would imagine you know them.
To your last point about Sodom and Gomorrah a place so sexually twisted that the whole town(From boy to old man) wants to try and rape 2 angels with materialized bodies you are going to go ahead and choose the footnote of the definition which is idolatry....
Again man if this doesn't click for you then your too stuck in a personal feeling about this. Your understanding of Hell and the timeframe the angels are in it is incorrect as well but if you want the reasoning for this we can take it to PM this is derailing the thread from more entertaining conversation I am sure so Ill bow out now.
Its extremely commendable that you have all these research tools and have a desire to really look into the bible for yourself. Just don't ever get married to a idea cause it can always be wrong.
gonna read the first 5 days now and jot down some thoughts, never read the bible before, consider myself an Atheist having been raised Catholic up until 16, i left the church not because i disagreed, but mostly because I really found it boring, I had literally spent 16 years paying lip service to something I never understood, I just liked some of the songs and had to bear through it once a week.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Hahaha! I love the drawing
I started writing stuff down and it got too long to post, short version is I went into this with an open mind and man this stuff reads as if its not meant to be taken seriously, not only flatly wrong in certain areas but even when taken metaphorically it contradicts itself. So I cant read it literally, I cant read it metaphorically, what am I supposed to take from the verses?
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
What part specifically is hanging you up the most. Creation account? Adam and Eve?
So to todays section
I cannot be the only one who let out an audible wtf at the treatment of Hagar, both by Abrams wife and the Angel, She is a servant, given to Abram to bear a child by his wife who then grows jealous and curses Abram, blaming him for her giving the servant to Abram. By this point i think we can all assume "Servant" means slave, both from the "giving" aspect and the Angels insistence that she return to them, as if she were property.
Whole lotta fucked up there.
Then we move onto the wonderful topic of Abrahamic circumcision, God gives Abraham untold future nations in exchange that all male heirs be circumcised. Apparently there need be no explanation why the penis should be altered, surely not. Not only must all male heirs, but all male servants (re: slaves). Not only this but Abrahams wife, who could not give birth, now has a son, kind of making the whole affair earlier seem utterly pointless.
Then Abraham talks god down from destroying Soddom Gamorrah if there are 10 innocent people.
What a cliff hanger
I cannot be the only one who let out an audible wtf at the treatment of Hagar, both by Abrams wife and the Angel, She is a servant, given to Abram to bear a child by his wife who then grows jealous and curses Abram, blaming him for her giving the servant to Abram. By this point i think we can all assume "Servant" means slave, both from the "giving" aspect and the Angels insistence that she return to them, as if she were property.
Whole lotta fucked up there.
Then we move onto the wonderful topic of Abrahamic circumcision, God gives Abraham untold future nations in exchange that all male heirs be circumcised. Apparently there need be no explanation why the penis should be altered, surely not. Not only must all male heirs, but all male servants (re: slaves). Not only this but Abrahams wife, who could not give birth, now has a son, kind of making the whole affair earlier seem utterly pointless.
Then Abraham talks god down from destroying Soddom Gamorrah if there are 10 innocent people.
What a cliff hanger
It almost seems like a moot point because its so widely discussed but the "account" of how the world was made, the function of things in the world (From the Earths place, to mans dominion over it) is just not true if taken literally. Therefore you have to take it metaphorically. God creates humans who are experiencing the world for the first time, no mention of giving them a moral compass, explaining to them what lies and deceit are, after all the serpent is but a creature he created and for my mind if i was Adam or Eve I would reason, God created this, why would this lie to me? That is if I even knew what a lie was. Its like training a dog, if the dog bites you it doesnt think it has done anything wrong, the appropriate response is to teach the dog that biting is not acceptable, you don't sit them down and curse both them and any future offspring they create, and humans are just as infallible.
Then there is the nudity aspect, God establishes a truism, that Adam and Eve are naked, but they are unaware of it, God kept that from them until they learn and are ashamed. I really fail to understand the point here, both of God keeping this from them, or why in learning it they are ashamed. God is, in a sense, setting forth a precedent that truth is not something which is of paramount importance to humans, which is very strange to me.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
I completely understand where your coming from. It can seem pretty all over the place as your going through it. Something interesting about Genesis is the the first prophecy at Gen 3:15 sets the theme for the whole bible. Who the seed is, who the woman is play in to every book of the bible. The promise to Abraham about a nation coming through him is to establish a family line the "seed" can come through. I'm on my phone so this is probably all over the place but I can write up more in depth analysis's of the very legitimate issues you posted if your curious.
I would welcome the discussion, you have to treat me as a layman though because even though I was raised catholic I never actually read or cared about reading the bible. I am reading this today for the first time with modern eyes and trying to do so without prejudice, though that maybe fanciful. What im trying to grasp at the moment is, do I read this with the view that those who subscribe to it view it as literal, in which case do I allow myself to nitpick, or am I reading it as if it were metaphorical, somewhat fanciful in which case I give it allowances and focus on the broader themes. I have to say either way you approach it the first 5 days of reading are somewhat hard to read with any clarity, you almost have to take it metaphorically because the book already assumes huge amounts, i noted down when I read that Cain was banished by God and he had a worry that he was going to be killed in his banishment, this was the first I had heard of more people in the world, it was just automatically assumed. 100's of years fly by in an instant and before you know it there are Kings, slavery, harems, torture, punishments, covenants and both a passive god and a greatly interfering one, with no real views on what is and what is not permissible. The opening is given so much time that you think, well this must be of some grave importance so I should read it with some scrutiny, but then it mentions the place of the Earth, talks of the Heavens and stars, the Sun and Moons polar opposite, it makes the mistake however of talking beyond its station and therefore invariably it gets basic astrology wrong.
One thing I will say I actually really enjoyed reading the 5 days, so much so that I think I will expedite my reading, Im quite looking forward to the new testament, really interested in reading what Jesus had to say rather than hearing it all second hand.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Since so many people base this book as the cornerstone of over 44,000 denominations of christianity I would approach it very nitpicky if you can without driving yourself nuts. You have great questions and observations that have been asked many times. I can show you the scriptures that pertain to those issues since the bible says the way to interpret scripture is with other scriptures.
Well, you tell us.
Seriously, the way you should read it depends on why you're choosing to read it. To better understand the religion you were raised in? To investigate the accuracy or lack thereof of that religion? Just because it might be interesting?
Personally, I have little interest in the religious aspect, so I'm mostly just taking it as it comes.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Well, you tell us.
Seriously, the way you should read it depends on why you're choosing to read it. To better understand the religion you were raised in? To investigate the accuracy or lack thereof of that religion? Just because it might be interesting?
Personally, I have little interest in the religious aspect, so I'm mostly just taking it as it comes.
Yeah. Good post
Well, you tell us.
Seriously, the way you should read it depends on why you're choosing to read it. To better understand the religion you were raised in? To investigate the accuracy or lack thereof of that religion? Just because it might be interesting?
Personally, I have little interest in the religious aspect, so I'm mostly just taking it as it comes.
What I want honestly is to understand what is it about the Bible that makes believers believe and how they reconcile modern society and its expectations and tolerances with what is written in their holy book. I have read a decent amount of books from Hitchens and Dawkins in the last few years, I dont pretend their ideas are my own but the way they talk about religion and its incompatibility with modern life makes me want to understand it better, to form my own opinions and understand theirs better. I want to be able to converse with people I know about the bible and have a solid understanding of what im talking about. In this case i think the context i choose to read the bible is very important. But then i guess it all depends on who im debating with. But above all as i mentioned I really want to try and find what it is that makes it so compelling, im not going to lie I am greatly enjoying reading it at the moment but I dont feel any connection to it.
So onto today's verses, gotta say as far as interest levels go this one was a real corker, incest, lies, deceit, death, punishment, slavery, it had everything.
So two angels come to Lot and tell him of the forthcoming destruction of Sodom, as they are staying at his house a group of Sodomites come and demand to have sex with them, the two angels being male (referred to as "lords") and we get our first instance of homosexuality in the bible (unless ive missed something). Lot refers to the act as "Wicked" BUT im not sure if he is referring to the rape or the act in itself. After all if people came to your house and said "bring dave out we want to fuck him" I would think that is wicked, but not because it is a wicked act that two men have sex, rather that they are forcing themselves onto another person, raping them. Therefore it is hard to have any iron clad interpretation, at this point, to what Lot is referring to as wicked, it could well be both. However one thing we do know is that non consensual sex is currently permissible, as we learn later that Abrahams two daughters rape him while he is drunk to continue their heritage, this appears pretty above board as things stand.
What is equally interesting about the scene at Lots house that he is willing to give up his virgin daughters to appease the crowd which i thought was kinda woah when i read it. This is the only person who is allowed to be saved from the destruction and he has no qualms giving his daughters to a raging mob.
One prevalent theme that I am beginning to see throughout my readings is how completely human god feels, he makes mistakes, he is quick to anger, he can be reasoned and even bargained with and while he appears to have complete knowledge of the future he is open to altering immediate plans. He is also fine with lying, fine with deception and willing to punish people who are not privy to the information he has, even if there was no way of them knowing this information. He appears fine with slavery, rape, incest, monarchy, subjugation, murder so long as it does not alter his plans.
I was also interested when Abraham pretends that Sarah is his sister, even though she actually is his sister, but once removed. The deception allows the king to take her into his Harem, believing she is unwed and God punishes the king, not for the Harem, not for taking what he thought to be his, but rather for taking someone else' wife. So the king was lied to, and is blamed for having believed the lie.
So two angels come to Lot and tell him of the forthcoming destruction of Sodom, as they are staying at his house a group of Sodomites come and demand to have sex with them, the two angels being male (referred to as "lords") and we get our first instance of homosexuality in the bible (unless ive missed something). Lot refers to the act as "Wicked" BUT im not sure if he is referring to the rape or the act in itself. After all if people came to your house and said "bring dave out we want to fuck him" I would think that is wicked, but not because it is a wicked act that two men have sex, rather that they are forcing themselves onto another person, raping them. Therefore it is hard to have any iron clad interpretation, at this point, to what Lot is referring to as wicked, it could well be both. However one thing we do know is that non consensual sex is currently permissible, as we learn later that Abrahams two daughters rape him while he is drunk to continue their heritage, this appears pretty above board as things stand.
What is equally interesting about the scene at Lots house that he is willing to give up his virgin daughters to appease the crowd which i thought was kinda woah when i read it. This is the only person who is allowed to be saved from the destruction and he has no qualms giving his daughters to a raging mob.
One prevalent theme that I am beginning to see throughout my readings is how completely human god feels, he makes mistakes, he is quick to anger, he can be reasoned and even bargained with and while he appears to have complete knowledge of the future he is open to altering immediate plans. He is also fine with lying, fine with deception and willing to punish people who are not privy to the information he has, even if there was no way of them knowing this information. He appears fine with slavery, rape, incest, monarchy, subjugation, murder so long as it does not alter his plans.
I was also interested when Abraham pretends that Sarah is his sister, even though she actually is his sister, but once removed. The deception allows the king to take her into his Harem, believing she is unwed and God punishes the king, not for the Harem, not for taking what he thought to be his, but rather for taking someone else' wife. So the king was lied to, and is blamed for having believed the lie.
Whenever I've seen somebody reference actually reading the Bible as starting them on the road to losing their belief, they tend to refer to the Old Testament and the revelation of the traits you mention in God as being key in creating seeds of doubt and concern. What God actually does in the Old Testament seems to surprise Christians not very familiar with the Bible because his "flaws" as you describe paint a picture that is much worse than the high level filtered image they have of "he was like God is now just a lot more vengeful and harsh because people did dumber stuff back then".
Well i had always heard the tales of the old wrath and vengeful god but actually reading it is quite surprising. I mentioned earlier im really looking forward to the new testament sections to come.
I have to assume that the author of the text considers this a righteous act. The daughters are, after all, Lot's sexual property to be utilized for any legal purpose he chooses. As unfortunate as it may be for them, their use by the mob would accord to propriety and contract, whereas the rape of free male citizens is a barbaric abomination.
fatty
Member
I'm coming in to this thread kind of late, but count me in. Want to say thanks to Xeke (the OP) for starting this. As a Christian I have read sections of the Bible quite a bit but I have never read the whole Bible front to back, and for me it is about time.
I'm on Genesis 8 right now but looking to catch up in the next couple of days. Looking forward to discussing with everyone. Lot of great things (and also a lot of difficult passages) to digest.
I'm on Genesis 8 right now but looking to catch up in the next couple of days. Looking forward to discussing with everyone. Lot of great things (and also a lot of difficult passages) to digest.
One thing I will admit, something that really kicked in while reading about Soddom was how weird it was to read passages that have so often been spoken of in films and media. I couldnt help today thinking about Dogma and the Angel of destruction.
fatty
Member
I don't think that we can assume that just because the act is recorded that the author condones it. One of the major themes of the Bible is how God is able to use people despite the horrible mistakes they've made (i.e. David and Bathsheba, Paul/Saul and persecution of Christians, etc.)
As for Lot, he offers his daughters as a substitute and the people outside refused, at that moment the angels intervene and bring Lot back into the house while blinding those at the door. Is what Lot did acceptable to the author, I don't think so but I honestly don't know. But I look later at the same chapter and the author makes it a point to mention that Lot was not aware at each time when his daugthers went to sleep with him (vs 33 and then vs.35). And from what I understand, the sons they both gave birth to in verses 37 and 38 (Moab and Ben-Ammi) would greatly trouble Israel in the future.
So the way I read it is if it wasn't cool to do that to continue the family lineage, then it definitely wasn't OK for Lot to offer his daughters off to the crowd.
The thing that troubles me is that in one sentence we have Lot offering his daughters, to no chigrain from the Angels or God, a God who is sparing him, and in a latter sentence God is threatening a man who believed a lie he had no idea was a lie in the first place (The King who took Sarah into his Harem). In other sections god is punishing Adam and Eve for succumbing to a temptation yet later on incest seems to be fine. As of yet I havent got a picture of a God who really knows what he thinks is permissable or not, just one that intervenes from now and then when he deems it worthy. I mean two of the people he has placed the most faith in, Lot and Abraham have been subject to things I do not associate with any Christian teaching, and yet God seems to passively tolerate their actions and the actions of those around them. God feels like someone who has a deck of cards and is kind of seeing where things lie.
fatty
Member
Interesting thoughts, and I would love to respond to some of those great questions raised. And I'll admit there are sections I struggle with and so many things I don't know, but some of those same questions I had where I found an answer. I'm heading out for the rest of the day but I really love the discussion in this thread.
The reason im posting is because id love a debate, if the questions are answered elsewhere in the bible then I can live with that, if they rely on interpretation id love hear it. One thing that I have to continually remind myself is that I am reading this for the first time and, though I re-read the sections, I have not got the experience of the book as a whole to cite back and forth so Id love to hear from more knowledgeable people.
The Bible makes for some fantastic fiction, if nothing else.
Very interesting thread. I've already read the Bible, but in butchered modern English form.
I think I'll grab a copy of King James and catch up to where we are now sometime this week.
This is something I've always had trouble with. How do you get behind a God who is, quite bluntly, a shameless misogynist? Granted, misogyny in the Church has always been pretty par for the course (until recently), but I'm still curious as to how it's justified by modern Christians.
xxjuicesxx
Member
Stupid question?
Who actually wrote the bible? God?
A multitude of people right?
Or these chapters thats whos writing them? Genesis John and so on?
I guess I just dont get it. It seems like this book would have gotten lost and or destroyed before all this could be written down...and it would be in a ton of languages since its over such a timespan and earlier than they even had written word...
How am I sitting here reading this is what I'm asking?
Who actually wrote the bible? God?
A multitude of people right?
Or these chapters thats whos writing them? Genesis John and so on?
I guess I just dont get it. It seems like this book would have gotten lost and or destroyed before all this could be written down...and it would be in a ton of languages since its over such a timespan and earlier than they even had written word...
How am I sitting here reading this is what I'm asking?
teruterubozu
Member
Biblical scholars divide the authorship sources into "P" (Priestly Text), "J" (Yawhist Text) and "E" (Elohist Text). The arrangement and collection of the texts are highly complex - I tried reading some of the studies on it and it's too much to comprehend for me. Basically, each of the P, J and E authors are attributed to "schools" or groups where multiple voices were likely collated into one text to represent "that school". It's very much like the "Q Gospel" scholarship surrounding the 4 Gospels.
Or it could just be God.
el retorno
Member
Tradition (at least jewish) says Moses wrote the first 5 books
Scholars don't think thats true obviously
Some believe the Bible is the direct Word of God, while other suggest it written by man but inspired by God, while others believe it written by man alone.
That is undisputed once you take the God factor out of the equation.
The Bible brings together separate works from a variety of authors, spanning a period of centuries.
To learn more, you might like to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible
Something interesting to note is that while the Gospels of the New Testament are named after disciples, they are all authored anonymously and decades after the claimed events, and are mostly considered second or third hand accounts by most modern scholars (well, John is in dispute still I believe).
Also arent half of the gospels in the new testament discarded? I remember hearing that there was a council under Constantine where they literally decided which gospels were to be followed because there were too many sects with differing views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
"A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[59][60] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[61]
In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[62][63][64] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures"."
fatty
Member
With the example of Lot, you're right in that it doesn't state the feelings of the angels, but I don't know that it means that they didn't care. To me, reading it, it seems like Lot tries to handle the situation (horribly) and the angels step in and intervene.
For King Abimelech (ch. 20), God is threatening...but another word I would also use is warning:
King Abimelech: "But God, I didn't know, he even said 'sister'!"
God: "Yes, you didn't know and that's why I did not let you touch her. But now you know. So don't.
I understand what you are saying though. In many cases God does tolerate their actions, but I wouldn't say He condones them. The Bible does not put many of these people in a positive light but I'm glad we get a picture of the whole person including the terrible mistakes they've made. Because we get to see them at their lows and their highs, I think it puts things in a better perspective.
Since we are starting with the Old Testament, some of this stuff is going to be tough to digest, and I'm talking about myself. But I'm glad we're doing it. I really love the New Testament, though.
Only Matthew and John were disciples.
Mark was more a missionary and apostolic helper. Luke was not there first hand during the events surrounding Jesus but was with Paul during some of the events in Acts (he is also the author of the book of Acts). The authorship of John is taken from chapter 21:19-24, vs. 24 is basically John's signature.Now I need to start catching up with where everyone else is.
Only Matthew and John were disciples.
Yes. Sloppy post on my part. Still, the Gospels are thought not authored by those they were named after, John still being in dispute. Something to think about when reading them in the distant future.
xxjuicesxx
Member
Whats with these people living so long? Sarah lived to 127. I think Abraham was around the same age as her too right? Isaac must have been pretty old when he was tied up to be sacrificed. Why does the lord test him in such a way? Seems insane. Also a ton of lineage for I dont know what reason, they just go on and on about who gave birth to who and name a bunch of names all the time, then you never hear about them again.
Also didnt God say Humans were not to live past 120 anymore a few days back?
Also didnt God say Humans were not to live past 120 anymore a few days back?
CitizenCope
Member
Man as an agnostic and reading this for the first time I thought it was going to be torture. It is not. I've been warned it very well could be later.
I believe this only applied to those living just before the flood as humanity at that time had become extremely vile and wicked.
That 120 years referred to the number of years man had left on the earth before God was going to destroy it with the Flood.
Bachner0000
Neo Member
Something that helped me read through the old testament was to observe it in context. In Genesis you see people without much history. You know how we say, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? Well, they don't have much of a past to learn from. They make mistakes and the Bible's historical account doesn't hide it. They're not special people.
I like this comment. It was mentioned up above as well how Abraham seems ordinary. Yes. Many people see these Patriarchs as shining beacons of perfection but they were no different from you or I. They hated, they lusted, they got drunk, they committed adultery, they worried, they cheated, etc...but their faith set them apart which is really the point of the Bible.
Junior Asparagus
Member
There sure is a lot of--I guess it's not adultery if everyone is ok with--but a lot of extramarital sex in the past few days' worth of readings.
I don't really get Genesis 30...so they're basically saying if sheep are around speckled branches while mating, their offspring will be speckled? OK.
...and that was the first and last time a whole town of men agreed to be circumcised.
I don't really get Genesis 30...so they're basically saying if sheep are around speckled branches while mating, their offspring will be speckled? OK.
...and that was the first and last time a whole town of men agreed to be circumcised.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll