weaver wrote:Are you confusing religion with nationality? There's only two tribes living. Take your pick.

I believe that in order to emmigrate to Israel, and become a citizen, you have to demonstrate that your family is Jewish, so if you convert you aren't legit. Also, it isn't enough to say you are Jewish, and observe the law of Moses, unless you can assert tribal association, you are somewhere between gentile and Jew.

As Christians we claim adoption. We'll get to that in Romans.

Dwill said "I'm confused here. God said he had to prevent the humans from eating of the Tree of Life, so they wouldn't live forever like gods. This must mean they weren't created immortal."

No reason to be confused, that's exactly what it says. However Adam & Eve were originally allowed to eat of the Tree of Life (but didn't do so) and were prohibited only after disobeying the rule about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So it's likely God originally intended humans to become immortal eventually.

Dwill said "The lifespan issue I think is simply one of exaggerating qualities of legendary forebears. It's the "There were giants in the earth in those days" syndrome (though not referring to actual giants when Hamlin Garland used it in a book title)."

That's what I thought too, however as I already quoted:

When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." Gen 6: 1 - 3

This indicates God got ticked off and deliberately chopped our lifespan waaay down...

Reading about the flood, I'm especially curious to know what functions a story like this would have had for its audience. It's not a simple question, because we have to take into account that it's not this exact story that would have been familiar to generations of many different tribes in the Midlde East, but some variant of it. But it's important to think about the audience because what is written and told will be shaped to the audience's needs. It seems that what these Genesis stories do is to combine myth and history or myth and the elements of daily life, unlike many other mythologies that deal only with supernatural beings. They are related in my view to tale tales or legends, but are in the service of something more important.

Still, I have to believe that entertainment was no small part of their purpose: let's hear about the wondrous events of the past, like the time God wiped out the earth! A moral to each story justified the entertainment. And, just as with the fantastic fictions and films so many people enjoy today, the standards of plausibility become very relaxed. Was it really the purpose to convince listeners that these stories were literally true? I don't believe so, not until a priestly class decided to make the stories scriptural. Then the ante may have been raised.

One particular comment about the flood story: it's often said that God acts arbitrarily and even irrationally in these stories, and of course this is true. But this seems to reflect the general standard of rationality, which extends to the humans as well. Noah does something very "God-like" when he punishes not Ham (and for what?) but Ham's son, Canaan. Noah, of course, has the power, somehow, to make the curse on Canaan work.

Does this "style" of thinking reflect the style of a still fairly primitive social system, or is it a less reality-based mode employed in storytelliing? That would be hard to answer.

I've tried to read the Bible several times - I've never come further than Corinthians, but I'll try again, but there's one question I keep asking myself every time I read Genesis:

How could Abel have any children without incestious relations arising? Or is incest allowed when there is no alternative - as somewhat further Lot's daughters sleep with Lot because they think they are the only ones left?

lottebeertje wrote:I've tried to read the Bible several times - I've never come further than Corinthians, but I'll try again, but there's one question I keep asking myself every time I read Genesis:

How could Abel have any children without incestious relations arising? Or is incest allowed when there is no alternative - as somewhat further Lot's daughters sleep with Lot because they think they are the only ones left?

If you started with Genesis and made it all the way to Corinthians you were almost finished, why did you give up there? Unless you meant Chronicles.

Incest was not prohibited at that point.

stahrwe wrote:

lottebeertje wrote:I've tried to read the Bible several times - I've never come further than Corinthians, but I'll try again, but there's one question I keep asking myself every time I read Genesis:

How could Abel have any children without incestious relations arising? Or is incest allowed when there is no alternative - as somewhat further Lot's daughters sleep with Lot because they think they are the only ones left?

If you started with Genesis and made it all the way to Corinthians you were almost finished, why did you give up there? Unless you meant Chronicles.

Incest was not prohibited at that point.

Oh, okay... it just made me wonder.
I think I did mean Chronicles then, sorry...

lottebeertje wrote:

stahrwe wrote:

lottebeertje wrote:I've tried to read the Bible several times - I've never come further than Corinthians, but I'll try again, but there's one question I keep asking myself every time I read Genesis:

How could Abel have any children without incestious relations arising? Or is incest allowed when there is no alternative - as somewhat further Lot's daughters sleep with Lot because they think they are the only ones left?

If you started with Genesis and made it all the way to Corinthians you were almost finished, why did you give up there? Unless you meant Chronicles.

Incest was not prohibited at that point.

Oh, okay... it just made me wonder.
I think I did mean Chronicles then, sorry...

The problem with Chronicles is that it is divided into two books with the first book opening with 8 chapters of geneology. If you don't quote me I'll tell you that unless you are specifically interested, you can skip the geneologies.

I'm not clear as to how many people are actually reading/participating in this forum. Even if you are not interested in religion, you should be reading because you will find out where the Jews and Arabs came from, and why they are fighting to this day.

Does it not strike any of you as odd that the first thing Noah does after exiting the ark is to get drunk and pass out naked?

In another forum a particular individual disparraged the story of Abraham and Isaac but perhaps others might find it interesting that Abraham was over 100 years old while most scholars believe that Isaac as 15-19 and would have easily overpowered his father. Also, the place where Abraham took Isaac for his sacrifice was the same place where Jesus would be crucified.

DWill wrote:Reading about the flood, I'm especially curious to know what functions a story like this would have had for its audience. It's not a simple question, because we have to take into account that it's not this exact story that would have been familiar to generations of many different tribes in the Midlde East, but some variant of it. But it's important to think about the audience because what is written and told will be shaped to the audience's needs. It seems that what these Genesis stories do is to combine myth and history or myth and the elements of daily life, unlike many other mythologies that deal only with supernatural beings. They are related in my view to tale tales or legends, but are in the service of something more important.

Still, I have to believe that entertainment was no small part of their purpose: let's hear about the wondrous events of the past, like the time God wiped out the earth! A moral to each story justified the entertainment. And, just as with the fantastic fictions and films so many people enjoy today, the standards of plausibility become very relaxed. Was it really the purpose to convince listeners that these stories were literally true? I don't believe so, not until a priestly class decided to make the stories scriptural. Then the ante may have been raised.

One particular comment about the flood story: it's often said that God acts arbitrarily and even irrationally in these stories, and of course this is true. But this seems to reflect the general standard of rationality, which extends to the humans as well. Noah does something very "God-like" when he punishes not Ham (and for what?) but Ham's son, Canaan. Noah, of course, has the power, somehow, to make the curse on Canaan work.

Does this "style" of thinking reflect the style of a still fairly primitive social system, or is it a less reality-based mode employed in storytelliing? That would be hard to answer.

That's an interesting point that that many of these texts encompass a blend of history and myth and I can imagine that as such they were more or less accepted as factual. In these ancient times, people didn't have much control over their environment. Drought would bring famine, earthquakes or a plague of locusts bring devastation and it could happen anytime and for no apparent reason. I think the notion of an angry and capricious god (or gods) would make sense to them. Likewise, a sense of fate was strongly instilled in the denizens of this time period.

Myths typically explain phenomenon, but also to reinforce social structures and institutions. I see this variation of the flood story as reinforcing both. For one it explains the cruel nature of the world—a role given to an omniscient and angry deity. The story of the flood is iconic and is seen repeated in many cultures. A very similar story emerges in the epic of Gilgamesh. So are the notions to appease the gods by making sacrifices to them. And also the idea that one god could favor one tribe over another. There's a great example of this on Easter Island where the inhabitants formed cults and competed with one another in an attempt to appease the gods, eventually cutting down every last tree in order to make statues for their respective tributes.

Not only were people at the mercy of the weather, they were dependent on each other and in the cohesiveness of their tribes. Cutthroats and thieves would have been ostracized in these primitive societies. And the stories in the Bible reinforce a moral code for people to be good to one another and also the opposite, that those who steal or kill must be dealt with harshly, for they represent a danger to the tribe. So we see God dealing harshly with all of the denizens of the earth for being bad, exempting Noah who is seen as good. And in much the same way Noah becomes an arbiter for god, dealing harsh punishment to Canaan. And it all seems arbitrary, but that's the way the world was too. People didn't have much control over their lives and I think the flood story reinforces this fact while also giving them some sense of control in the sense that if they are good and honor the god(s) that their lives will be better.

stahrwe wrote:I'm not clear as to how many people are actually reading/participating in this forum. Even if you are not interested in religion, you should be reading because you will find out where the Jews and Arabs came from, and why they are fighting to this day.

Does it not strike any of you as odd that the first thing Noah does after exiting the ark is to get drunk and pass out naked?

In another forum a particular individual disparraged the story of Abraham and Isaac but perhaps others might find it interesting that Abraham was over 100 years old while most scholars believe that Isaac as 15-19 and would have easily overpowered his father. Also, the place where Abraham took Isaac for his sacrifice was the same place where Jesus would be crucified.

Well, he did have to wait until his grapes were ripened and made into wine, so getting smashed wasn't the first thing he did. Not to jump ahead, but I feel that the relationship pictured in the Bible between Jews and Muslims is more useful as a basis for establishing their common ground than explaining their enmity.

That might have been me disparaging God for his test of Abraham. I'm skeptical of using such facts as you cite to buttress an interpretation. Abraham would still have 75 years to go, so he was still hale and hearty, but even so I just don't think your implication here can be more than speculation. What is your basis for saying the two locations are identical? Even if they were, would it matter?