Why Genesis Is The Best Book In The Bible

[H3LL]

Why is Genesis the best book in the bible for me?

I'm thankful that Genesis is the first book of the bible.

Most people would come to the bible with some knowledge of the main characters and possibly expecting a good book with a good story and some good lessons. Not expecting puzzling questions from the off.

It starts with the very first line being a puzzle. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", whereas, surely, "In the beginning there was God.....and then he ......" would be more appropriate.

With a conundrum on how many gods there are, different versions of human's creation, god showing himself to be rather nasty and a liar ("...day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"), an honest, talking serpent, punishment for 'original sin' when humans didn't know good from evil and a mysterious land of Nod. All that, without even getting to the ridiculous story of the drunk, Noah.

All a rather excellent set-up ensuring that if you can read it all without a question in your head, you are well prepared for god appearing as himself and getting himself sacrificed to himself for a 'sin' he created in the first place and managing to blame you for it.

Why am I thankful?

Well it's at the beginning and after reading the mish-mash of cobbled together, internally inconsistent, twaddle it quickly reminds me that the rest of the book gets no better (and often worse and nastier) and that I don't really need to read it again.

If the committee that stitched it all together (and threw bits away) had put Genesis as, say, an appendix I may have become an atheist much later in life.

Thank you bible committee.

I like Genesis.

[Mister Agenda]

It is helpful to have glaring incoherence up front if you're trying to demonstrate that something is glaringly incoherent.

[H3LL]

It is helpful to have glaring incoherence up front if you're trying to demonstrate that something is glaringly incoherent.

Eloquently put.

I could have saved myself a lot of ink pixels bandwidth if I'd thought of putting it like that.

:p

[LarianLeQuella]

Well, I've always liked genesis too, although once Peter Gabriel left, I think the artistry went down, although they were still good for a Pop band.

:p

[Lithrael]

Hehe, me too Larian...

I once told some Englishmen that I quite liked Genesis and they told me not to worry as I'd soon grow out of it.

[EventHorizon]

I always preferred Super Nintendo.

[MichaelSweet]

From original post: "It starts with the very first line being a puzzle. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", whereas, surely, "In the beginning there was God.....and then he ......" would be more appropriate."



"In the beginning there was God" could be interpreted that God has a beginning. In other words, that there is a "beginning" which includes the beginning of God. That is contrary to the Eternal God, without beginning and without end. This is my first post and I sure hope it came out making sense. Typical of my luck that I couldn't have had something to post in a more lighthearted subject first. Just had to end up in one of the "heavies". Oh, well. Best wishes, Mike.

[Elizabeth I]

From original post: "It starts with the very first line being a puzzle. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", whereas, surely, "In the beginning there was God.....and then he ......" would be more appropriate."


"In the beginning there was God" could be interpreted that God has a beginning. In other words, that there is a "beginning" which includes the beginning of God. That is contrary to the Eternal God, without beginning and without end. This is my first post and I sure hope it came out making sense. Typical of my luck that I couldn't have had something to post in a more lighthearted subject first. Just had to end up in one of the "heavies". Oh, well. Best wishes, Mike.

Oh, well, welcome to the forum. :w2:

[H3LL]

From original post: "It starts with the very first line being a puzzle. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", whereas, surely, "In the beginning there was God.....and then he ......" would be more appropriate."



"In the beginning there was God" could be interpreted that God has a beginning. In other words, that there is a "beginning" which includes the beginning of God. That is contrary to the Eternal God, without beginning and without end. This is my first post and I sure hope it came out making sense. Typical of my luck that I couldn't have had something to post in a more lighthearted subject first. Just had to end up in one of the "heavies". Oh, well. Best wishes, Mike.

Welcome.

I'm very honoured to have a first poster appear in one of my crazy threads. I think it's a first for me.

I can't think of the "...Eternal God, without beginning and without end" reference off the top of my head but is sure messes up the alpha and omega quote and all the "beginning" references. It's a good job there are no contradictions or this would be a puzzler.

[pgwenthold]

Genesis is good, but it's got nothing on Leviticus.

[Wowbagger]

Leviticus is my favorite book. It comes in handy for diagnosing lepracy.

[H3LL]

Leviticus is my favorite book. It comes in handy for diagnosing lepracy leprosy.

I've always thought of Leviticus as just a list of nasty instructions. Is it really as "glaringly incoherent" (Copyright Mister Agenda, 2009) as Genesis? I forget.

Don't make me read it again.

[Nick227]

From original post: "It starts with the very first line being a puzzle. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", whereas, surely, "In the beginning there was God.....and then he ......" would be more appropriate."

Berashith berah Alhim, ath Ha-Shamaim, vath Ha-eretz = "In the beginning created Gods, the Heavens, and the Earth"

Nick

[MG1962]

every one finished feeling nice and superior?

[Whiplash]

the Genesis device > everything else. It brought back Spock.

[Bristow42]

I think they just should keep Proverbs and get rid of the rest. It would put stop these preachers quoting crap. And show them for what they are uneducated liars.

[H3LL]

every one finished feeling nice and superior?

Nope. How can it be possible not to be superior to such "glaringly incoherent" (Copyright Mister Agenda, 2009) rubbish.

Some idiot might suggest that we should get on our knees and prostrate ourselves before such nonsense.

Now that would be funny - if hardly believable. Hahahaha!


.

[MG1962]

Nope. How can it be possible not to be superior to such "glaringly incoherent" (Copyright Mister Agenda, 2009) rubbish.

.

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 5000 years ago.

You do realise that Genesis was not written for you, and the glaring lack of coherency my be your problem and not theirs.

[Elizabeth I]

every one finished feeling nice and superior?

No. I never get enough of feeling superior. Sometimes I seek out the scum of the earth just so I can spend time with them and feel superior.

Bwa-hahahaha!

[I Ratant]

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 5000 years ago.

You do realise that Genesis was not written for you, and the glaring lack of coherency my be your problem and not theirs.
.
Whyncha tell that to all the god-shouters on the electric tv box when they invoke G. as proof of anything?
Educated folks recognize the simplistic nature of that source.
I'm always surprised/amazed/appalled at those people today who refer to G. as a bedrock of faith.

[Nick227]

.
Whyncha tell that to all the god-shouters on the electric tv box when they invoke G. as proof of anything?
Educated folks recognize the simplistic nature of that source.
I'm always surprised/amazed/appalled at those people today who refer to G. as a bedrock of faith.

Personally, I think Genesis still has a certain metaphysical depth, regardless of the lunacy of the latter-day fundamentalists or the logical inconsistencies in the text itself. Of course to prove this requires a great deal of background reading and interest in symbolism and metaphysics, and anyway doesn't lead so much to hard, objective conclusions. But for me it's still there. Gnostic interpretations of the tale of Adam, Eve and the Serpent I find particularly insightful, though with the passage of time it's hard to be completely clear what the first Gnostics believed about it.

Nick

[MG1962]

.
Whyncha tell that to all the god-shouters on the electric tv box when they invoke G. as proof of anything?
Educated folks recognize the simplistic nature of that source.
I'm always surprised/amazed/appalled at those people today who refer to G. as a bedrock of faith.

I do - Because they are wrong for exactly the same reason, more so perhaps when considering they teach that man can not know God's great plan. Then proceed to explain God's great plan.

Outside the fundimentalist movement in the US - most Christians get this

[JoeTheJuggler]

"In the beginning there was God" could be interpreted that God has a beginning. In other words, that there is a "beginning" which includes the beginning of God. That is contrary to the Eternal God, without beginning and without end.

What do you make of the amended version of "in the beginning" that opens the Gospel of John?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

By your reckoning, John's saying that God isn't Eternal?

Welcome to the forum.

[MIKILLINI]

Just something else to add;

If you take "In the beginning" literally as God created itself in Genesis, then Revelation 1:8 would literally mean God's self-termination:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

As JTJ points out in John, God always existed. Revelation 1:8 confirms the God who is, who was, and who is to come.

The impression I get from this is the span of the earth's existence.

[H3LL]

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago......

That could make today's date approx. 8th February, 4611 CE.

I think you might be wrong.

Maybe it's 4380 CE instead?

Or not.

[H3LL]

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 5000 years ago.

You do realise that Genesis was not written for you, and the glaring lack of coherency my be your problem and not theirs.

I see.... so ...

"Liars when they speak the truth are not believed".
Aristotle

This wasn't written for me. :eek:

I do not have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written >2000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 3000 years ago.

What can he mean????

I can't possibly know.

What a fool I am. Thanks for the heads up.

[MG1962]

What a fool I am. Thanks for the heads up.

Happy to be of service

[H3LL]

Happy to be of service

Happy, you may be.

Of service? Never in your wildest dreams.

[MG1962]

Happy, you may be.

Of service? Never in your wildest dreams.

Well with the bar set so low, it is pretty easy to over achieve

[arthwollipot]

My personal favourites are the twin slaughterfests of Joshua and Judges.

Judges especially, because it has the story of Jael nailing Sisera's head to the ground, and also Sampson the Terminally Stupid.

[H3LL]

Well with the bar set so low, it is pretty easy to over achieve

Set by you, it would seem.

Two sentences completely full of wrong.

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 5000 years ago.

You do realise that Genesis was not written for you, and the glaring lack of coherency my be your problem and not theirs.

First we have mind reading, a power I suspect you do not have, and a claim that's only in your head and has never been claimed by me. That followed by two date references that are either wrong or refer to something else. The beginning of the second sentence makes no sense. That followed by further unsubstantiated speculation on my ability to comprehend English containing an example of your inability to write it.

Yes you have set the bar low. It's on the ground where people need to tunnel to get down to your level.

[fishbob]

. . .
You do realise that Genesis was not written for you . . . . . .

Thanks !!!

[cj.23]

Why is Genesis the best book in the bible for me?

I'm thankful that Genesis is the first book of the bible.

Same here. It immediately sets the tone with the stories of the Patriarchs, which are far more readable and interesting than anything that follows. It opens with marvellous allegory, and the two creation accounts, and makes clear we are not dealing with literal scientific writing but something far more interesting. It's a book we can read and understand as a reponse to the theology of the Atrahasis Epic and the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic, and it makes profound points about the revolutionary change in the understanding fo the relationship between God and Man that is central to teh religious revolution of the Hebrews. Epic stuff! And the narratives of the Patriarchs and the very nature of this theological response shows us we are dealing with very, very ancient texts. Genesis is a top stuff - strongly recommend this two volume commentary
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Commentary-Genesis-wenham-406pp/dp/0849902002
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Commentary-Genesis-16-50-wenham/dp/0849902010/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
#by my old Biblical Criti lecturer, and if you do not understand the currently much under review Wellhausen hypothesis or have the academic basics for approaching ANE texts then
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353
as a very basic introduction.

Genesis is awesome stuff, that really opens up our understanding of the Ancient Near East.

As to people who make the bizarre comment along lines of "great so much wrong up front" they clearlty do not know much about the way Scripture has historically been read by mainstream Christianity, and allow a moinority view of 20th century North American heretics to be considered normative. :) Here is St. Augustine --


" It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]"


cj x

[MG1962]

First we have mind reading, a power I suspect you do not have, and a claim that's only in your head and has never been claimed by me. That followed by two date references that are either wrong or refer to something else. The beginning of the second sentence makes no sense. That followed by further unsubstantiated speculation on my ability to comprehend English containing an example of your inability to write it.

Yes you have set the bar low. It's on the ground where people need to tunnel to get down to your level.

In what way are the dates wrong. It is generally believed the story began to be writen down around a 1000BC and reaching pretty much its final form around 500 - 400 BC.

Genesis mentions two characters by name, Abraham and Moses. If real it it is believed they lived around 1800 BC and 1400 BC respectively

More than a few people have considered a connection between Noah and King Gilgamesh (Who is listed in Sumerian documents from 2600 BC).

Finally, and I will admit this is a stretch. If there is any historical basis to the flood stories that litter legends of the area, I believe the flooding of the Black Sea could be a potential source. Current thinking puts this around 5500 BC

Language moves fast, suprisingly so if cultural references are removed. Dont believe me....thats fine. Grab a newspaper from a 150 years ago, and see how many items make no sense. I face this on a daily basis archiving newspapers from the time for the local historical society

One item in particular stands out - A gentlemen spoke of taking the "Big Wheel" from one town to another. The obvious assumption is he is talking about the train, till one learns, the train never ran between those towns.

[Soapy Sam]

Samuel. Now there's a bitchin' bible book. Second Samuel is better, but first Samuel 's not bad for a beta.

[dafydd]

So you claim to have complete understanding of the human mind and cultural reference for an item written 3000 years ago, and a potential oral tradition up to 5000 years ago.

You do realise that Genesis was not written for you, and the glaring lack of coherency my be your problem and not theirs.

You are right.It was written by and for a bunch of primitive Bronze Age tribesmen

[cj.23]

You are right.It was written by and for a bunch of primitive Bronze Age tribesmen

No it wasn't, you clearly know little about the Ancient Near East. That statement is almost totally inaccurate. :) The most likely dates for Genesis' redaction is around the 950-450 BCE, with some material (the Patriarchal narratives) being based upon narratives from maybe 1200BCE. The LBA (Late Bronze Age) in the region is usually considered to have ended by at 1300 BCE, a century before the earliest suggested origin dates, which are based upon certain legal and cultural forms found in the Patriarchal letters which are known to us from Mitani sources. They may have an origin back then, but the material we have and the redaction is undisputably Iron Age, and not remotely bronze age. The earlier material also predates the tribal organisation of the region, but I won't get in to the cultural antropology of the region unless you are interested - but the "bronze age myth" nonsense one hears repeated so often on sceptic sites merely shows thhe authors lack of familairity with the history and archaeology of the region, which saddens me.

cj x

[H3LL]

MG1962, if you have any 3000 year old bible manuscripts hanging around I suggest you sell them. They should be worth a bit.

Unversed in ancient languages that I am I tend to go with the copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with bits missing of a copy of a copy of a collection of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an expurgated copy of a copy of an addition of a copy of a guess of a copy of a copy of a copy of a misinterpreted copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a mistranslation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy .... etc. in English.

KJV being my favourite and that was written in 1611 but I use other flavours when I fancy, of which there are a great number.

When you let us know which is the real bible and the real Genesis and an accurate English translation I'll pay attention. I don't expect a plausible answer from you any time soon ... but you never know, you might have some sooper seekrit knowledge unavailable to the rest of Christianity and other mortals.

Until then, I'll stick with more resent fairy tale... In English and 400 years old (ish).

I'm sure any similarity with your supposed 3000 year old manuscript will be purely coincidental. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

.

[MG1962]

MG1962, if you have any 3000 year old bible manuscripts hanging around I suggest you sell them. They should be worth a bit.

Unversed in ancient languages that I am I tend to go with the copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with bits missing of a copy of a copy of a collection of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an expurgated copy of a copy of an addition of a copy of a guess of a copy of a copy of a copy of a misinterpreted copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a mistranslation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy .... etc. in English.

KJV being my favourite and that was written in 1611 but I use other flavours when I fancy, of which there are a great number.

When you let us know which is the real bible and the real Genesis and an accurate English translation I'll pay attention. I don't expect a plausible answer from you any time soon ... but you never know, you might have some sooper seekrit knowledge unavailable to the rest of Christianity and other mortals.

Until then, I'll stick with more resent fairy tale... In English and 400 years old (ish).

I'm sure any similarity with your supposed 3000 year old manuscript will be purely coincidental. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

.

I am still waiting for you to show how the dates I offered are incorrect. Funny thing about this post. It supports the reason why the book of Genesis seems incoherant to a modern reader by placing the blame of the countless re-interpretation of orginal documents

Do I take this as a sign you actually agree with me?

[Wowbagger]

I've always thought of Leviticus as just a list of nasty instructions. Is it really as "glaringly incoherent" (Copyright Mister Agenda, 2009) as Genesis? I forget.

Don't make me read it again. Nasty, yes. Incoherent, maybe. Inaccurate in light of modern medicine: definately!

Ignored by Bible Tumpers: usually. Hell, it's not even mentioned often by Bible critics. Whole long chapters about the size, color, and shape of blisters, and no one seems to care one bit about it. Why is that?!!

[grunion]

Genesis mentions two characters by name, Abraham and Moses. Nope, Moses doesn't appear until the motherlode of Bible books, that's right, Exodus.

I'll take Exodus any day. Good story, good quotes. Jealous pharaoh orders boys killed but one slips through to be adopted by the princess herself, pshaw! Royal son discovers his slave roots, rejects life of privilege, kills a taskmaster. Retreats to the desert to find himself, "stranger in a strange land." Gets imbued with super god-powers (I AM THAT I AM) then reappears to take on the Pharaoh. Awesome plagues! "Let my people go!" Backstabbing and devastating revenge! Awesome chase scene, with chariots! Parting the sea!

Survival in the desert! Golden Calf! Idol worship and wanton licentious behavior! Ten Commandments! "An eye for an eye!" Mana from heaven! "Land of milk and honey!"

Great fricken book.

[MG1962]

Nope, Moses doesn't appear until the motherlode of Bible books, that's right, Exodus.

I'll take Exodus any day. Good story, good quotes. Jealous pharaoh orders boys killed but one slips through to be adopted by the princess herself, pshaw! Royal son discovers his slave roots, rejects life of privilege, kills a taskmaster. Retreats to the desert to find himself, "stranger in a strange land." Gets imbued with super god-powers (I AM THAT I AM) then reappears to take on the Pharaoh. Awesome plagues! "Let my people go!" Backstabbing and devastating revenge! Awesome chase scene, with chariots! Parting the sea!

Survival in the desert! Golden Calf! Idol worship and wanton licentious behavior! Ten Commandments! "An eye for an eye!" Mana from heaven! "Land of milk and honey!"

Great fricken book.

Sorry you are quite correct. I should have been clearer and encompassed my comments as including the early books of the Bible. Although there is no definitve time line for the writing of Exodus, I dont believe it is that great an intellectual leap to consider both books evolved through the same time period

If one accepts that, then Exodus was authored anywhere from several hundred years to almost a millenia after the time of Moses

[H3LL]

Do I take this as a sign you actually agree with me?


I think you have forgotten one of my posts as well as the OP


Happy, you may be.

Of service? Never in your wildest dreams.

... but feel free to ramble.

[dafydd]

No it wasn't, you clearly know little about the Ancient Near East. That statement is almost totally inaccurate. :) The most likely dates for Genesis' redaction is around the 950-450 BCE, with some material (the Patriarchal narratives) being based upon narratives from maybe 1200BCE. The LBA (Late Bronze Age) in the region is usually considered to have ended by at 1300 BCE, a century before the earliest suggested origin dates, which are based upon certain legal and cultural forms found in the Patriarchal letters which are known to us from Mitani sources. They may have an origin back then, but the material we have and the redaction is undisputably Iron Age, and not remotely bronze age. The earlier material also predates the tribal organisation of the region, but I won't get in to the cultural antropology of the region unless you are interested - but the "bronze age myth" nonsense one hears repeated so often on sceptic sites merely shows thhe authors lack of familairity with the history and archaeology of the region, which saddens me.

cj x

It doesn't matter when or where it was written,it's a load of crap either way.

[cj.23]

It doesn't matter when or where it was written,it's a load of crap either way.


Evidence? You simply make an assertion. How do I know your opinion is not a load of crap on this matter? You will have to do far better than that! :)
ETA: Given that you were wrong about "Bronze Age myths" of tribesmen I think I have little reason to be confident in your opinion on this matter, but you may surprise me. Sorry if jumping on you seemd harsjh before, but this is a critical thinking forum and I get bored with reading the same incorrect assertions.

cj x

[H3LL]

Made for this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=14&pictureid=648

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/06/arms/


:D :D


.

[cj.23]

Made for this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=14&pictureid=648

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/06/arms/


:D :D


.

It's good isn't it, but as a former lecturer in Islam and in Religions of India I don't think you can apply the critique to me -- I'd oppose rot about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism Buddhism or Zoroastrianism for example with exactly the same fervour. :)

cj x

[H3LL]

It's good isn't it, but as a former lecturer in Islam and in Religions of India I don't think you can apply the critique to me -- I'd oppose rot about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism Buddhism or Zoroastrianism for example with exactly the same fervour. :)

cj x

Let me know where the hat fits. :D

cj.23's Hat Rack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions)

[arthwollipot]

It's good isn't it, but as a former lecturer in Islam and in Religions of India I don't think you can apply the critique to me -- I'd oppose rot about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism Buddhism or Zoroastrianism for example with exactly the same fervour. :)

cj xHaaaa, haha ha ha ha ha ha...

*Ahem*

Sorry, that was really funny. Carry on.