Thoughts on the Bible: Genesis

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

RE: Thoughts on the Bible: Genesis

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Chapter 15

Verse 16: "...the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
I've always found it interesting that prophecies of God's Judgement involve God having to wait until a full measure of wickedness is achieved. This sort of thing is pretty common not only in the prophecies of the Old Testament, but in the New as well. I guess it makes sense; God allows people the opportunity to repent before punishing them. But this raises the question of omniscience-- if God knows everything, surely he knows whether people will repent or not, so why wait, unless He isn't really sure what's going to happen? Hmmm

Genesis Chapter 18

It's not clear whether or not Abraham treats the three men with hospitality because he knows his three visitors are supernatural beings. It could be that he would have treated any travellers with such hospitality (saying "my lord" doesn't mean "my God," it's just a term of respect). If Abraham would have seen to the needs of any traveller who passed his way, it makes a sharp contrast to the people of Sodom, who violently abuse the visitors. Since the "sin of Sodom" is pride and injustice/inhospitality towards the disadvantaged, it makes a nice theme running throughout the story.

The agreement between Abraham and God to save Sodom for at least ten righteous people does not state (or even imply) that God wouldn't have agreed to save Sodom for a fewer number of righteous. Ten is simply the number at which Abraham stopped bargaining.

Genesis Chapter 19

I don't want to spend too much time on the Sodom story, as many members of this website surely know all the interpretations to do with it. But I'll address it just a little.

As many of the people reading this would know, the story of the attempted rape of the angels is often interpreted as an implicit condemnation of homosexual actions- or even of homosexuality in general. But, as is often the case when people use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, this is an intentional misinterpretation of what is going on. Here are some of the problems with it:

-The story's real focus is on treatment of strangers (hospitality/justice issue from the previous chapter), not sexuality.
-Even heterosexual men commit hate crimes involving sexual penetration/rape - it's less to satisfy a sexual desire than it is to humiliate the victim and claim superiority/power over them.
-The story says EVERY SINGLE MAN (or person) in the town was banging on the door trying to commit this rape. Was every last person in the town a gay male-- other than Lot and his family (and his daughters' fiancees)???
-Lot offers his two virgin daughters as a substitute for the angels. What kind of alternative is that to someone who is a homosexual?
-The "sin of Sodom" is later described in the Bible as a sin of pride and injustice to the oppressed, which are key points for God. Nothing is mentioned about sexuality.

It seems clear that the intended purpose of the passage is to describe God's destruction of a hateful, violent people who oppressed anyone and everyone who wasn't as strong/rich/powerful as they were.

Moving on...

The destruction/aftermath story of Lot and his family escaping has several parallels to the story of Noah: God "rains down" destruction upon a large number of wicked people, a righteous family is saved, the patriarch becomes drunk, the children commit incest with their drunk father, and the offspring are the (cursed) neighbors and/or enemies of the future Israel.

The incest episode is extremely unflattering, true. But some would say at least Lot's daughters are allowed to "get back at their father" for offering them as a sacrifice to the violent Sodomites in place of the two strangers.

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

What happened to chapters 16 and 17?

Anyway...What you said about God's foreknowledge is true. He does know EVERYTHING that's going to happen before they do. But you have to remember that it's very hard for our little finite human minds to comprehend of what it is like having the mind of God: absolute knowledge of every little thing that will happen from the beginning of time, to the end of it. Such concepts even baffle the minds of physicists, who are just now beginning to tap into ideas of alternate time-frames, universes and "realities" (imagine...a universe where being gay is "NORMAL" and being straight is the "ABOMINATION"! Whoa!). But God both knows and created all of them! He made each one just as a pet store owner creates an aquarium with the right environment for the different kinds of fish to live in. He talked to Abraham about the coming judgment like this so as to get Abraham ready for what will come. Just as a bird tells and ant where to go to find food while avoiding the places where the predators are because it has a view of the ground that the ant can't comprehend.

Unfortunately, some preachers have tried to use "predestination" as a way of condemning gay people to hell because of our inability to go straight. "Well," one would say. "the reason why you can't go straight, son...is because God has PRE-ORDAINED you to eternal damnation to hell, regardless of whatever you think or believe about Jesus...There's just no hope for you, boy! And your homosexuality PROVES it." What hogwash!

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

TaterHead wrote:

What happened to chapters 16 and 17?

Um, and all the other chapters I skipped? If nothing in particular made an impression on me, or if it was just one little thing, I don't write it here.

Anyway...What you said about God's foreknowledge is true. (...) Just as a bird tells and ant where to go to find food while avoiding the places where the predators are because it has a view of the ground that the ant can't comprehend...

Um, Tater... I'm sorry. I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't get your overall point. All I get is "God is omniscient" and then it goes a bit fuzzy. I'm sorry!! Call me clueless

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

Sorry, dude. I was rushed for time.

Anyway, I was trying to make the point that God knows why this and that happens, and why He allows this, but not that, to happen. He knew it all beforehand...He just wants us to learn from all of the stuff that happens in our lives, both the good and the bad; to make us into the people that He wants us to be.

What good is it to watch a "Twilight Zone" marathon, if you're not going to LEARN from any of the stories?

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Chapter 21

It's interesting, the parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the abandonment of Ishmael. There is a command Abraham must obey whether he wants to or not, he gets up early in the morning to accomplish the task, the voice of an angel (or God) calls out at a critical point in the story, and a previously-overlooked possibility for salvation is revealed.

Just a side note- at the time of the story, Ishmael should have been a teenager, but is presented as a baby. Strange.

Genesis Chapter 22

The name of the site of Isaac's near-sacrifice, "The Lord will provide," is poorly-translated. In the Hebrew, the name means three things at once: "He (God) appears," "It (the ram) is provided," and "One should appear (for annual pilgrimages and festivals in later Jewish tradition)."

Some Christians would say that Abraham had no problem sacrificing Isaac because he believed God would raise Isaac from the dead. There really is no evidence of this in the text- and it's somewhat of an insult to Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith is amazing because he carried out (or would have carried out) the sacrifice even though there was NO HOPE-- not because Abraham thought there was a hope of resurrection. To me, it seems like the only point in stating Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected is to draw yet another Jesus parallel from ancient Hebrew scripture. Though there is no particular harm in this sort of creative, faithful interpretation, it is this kind of liberty with the scriptures that ultraconservatives willingly take for their own purposes, but will not allow people with other views to do the same thing in other instances (say, for example, to defend homosexuality).

The "concubine" was a secondary wife, having lower status, less priveleges, and basically serving as a secondary womb. Ultraconservatives (in defense of their definition of marriage) decry this practice as sinful, deviant behaviour, despite the fact that it was a common practice in ancient times to take concubines, and the practice is nowhere in scripture referred to negatively.

Genesis Chapter 24

Abraham's concern that his son should not marry a Canaanite woman is anachronistic; such concerns are not found until the time of Deuteronomy-- which is MUCH later.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Chapter 30

Many conservatives would blame "the sin" of having children by concubines and multiple wives for causing all the strife in Jacob's family (though the text doesn't support this). In addition to not liking the "immorality" of polygamy, these conservative voices describe Jacob's polygamy as "not trusting in God's covenant promises," but the scene in which Jacob uses the sticks to manipulate the outcome of the livestock breeding is the same kind of "not trusting" in promises of prosperity. But since this act isn't "sexually immoral," it passes under the conservative radar and is not condemned with the same zeal.

Genesis Ch. 31

Suddenly when Jacob tells his wives the story of the "miraculous" births among the livestock, he changes his story. It's now all "God's doing," and no mention is made of Jacob's own interference.

Why does Laban forbid Jacob to marry any more wives from this point on? It seems random.

My conservative study Bible says that the "Household Gods" stolen by Rachel are sinful- because idolatry is "expressly forbidden in scripture." This is ludicrous- no scripture existed at the time of the story. Even after the giving of the Mosaic law, Teraphim (household gods) are not referred to in a negative way.

Genesis Ch. 32

When Jacob's "hip" is put out of joint, this may be a euphemism for an injury to the sex organs. True or not, it is true that Jacob begets no more children after this injury (Benjamin isn't born, but has already been conceived).

Genesis Ch. 34

The "deception" of Dinah's brothers in verse 13 is neither condemned nor condoned.

Some people suggest Dinah might have been a promiscuous girl (rather than that she was raped). But the text is clear- the man lay with her "by force," not by consent.

-- Edited by Chris at 21:43, 2006-07-25

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

What the story of the life of Jacob (before his encounter with the Angel of the Lord) says is how God uses the mistakes and sins that we make in our lives over into second chances at having a closer walk with Him. Jacob, because of his father's favoritism towards Esau, grew up thinking bad about himself. This is probably why he become such a "deceiver" in the first half of his life. The Lord told Rebekah that "the older shall serve the younger", meaning that Jacob and not Esau was supposed to have been chosen to have his father's blessing, but Isaac wanted to give it to Esau because he was his "favorite" (Doctor Phil would have had a field day with this family!). This kind of "favoritism" was a curse that haunted the families of the patriarchs for generations to come, but was the way that the culture of the Middle East in those days.

Another fine example of how your very worst of enemies often come from within your own home.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Genesis Ch. 37

Verse 35, when Israel mentions going "down to Sheol," he's referring to the ancient Hebrew concept of Sheol as a huge holding tank for all the dead. He doesn't mean that he's going to a place of eternal punishment, the way many people think of "Hell" today. This is the typical view of the afterlife in the Old Testament-- if you're righteous, you have a good life, and if you're unrighteous, you have a bad (and short) life, but both righteous and unrighteous go to Sheol when they're dead. There was no concept of eternal punishment/reward.

Genesis Ch. 41

When Joseph marries Egyptian women, it's a sign of God's favor towards him. The inter-mingling of Israelite men with women of other cultures/heritages/nationalities is not consistently condemned until much later. However, remember Chapter 24, where marrying outsiders IS a bad thing? Many would cite such inconsistencies as further proof of multiple authorship in Genesis.

Genesis Ch. 44

Joseph states several times that his silver cup is used "for divination." Divination is expressly forbidden in later Mosaic Law. But the practice is in no way portrayed negatively here- and there are no negative consequences later on that can be retraced to Joseph's divining cup. It's interesting to me that my conservative study bible was so quick to condemn the teraphim in chapter 31, but says nothing about this form of divination...

Another study bible of mine brought my attention to the fact that Judah has been so prominent throughout the Joseph cycle. I never thought much of it, but it is rather strange that Judah so consistently is the spokesman for his brothers, and has little episodes in which he is portrayed like a patriarch-- when in reality he wasn't the eldest brother! Why wouldn't Reuben be given a more prominent role?

If (as many scholars suggest) Genesis was written much later, in the time of the divided kingdom of Israel/Judah, that would account for Judah's prominence in this re-telling of Joseph's life, since Judah was the namesake (and ancestor) of the tribe of Judah, which grew to become the (more faithful) southern kingdom in the divided monarchy.

-Chris

-- Edited by Chris at 11:35, 2006-08-04

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Heck, I might as well finish it.

Genesis Ch. 45

Look at verse 24, where Joseph tells his brothers "Do not quarrel." It's an interesting thing to say. It's kind of funny, after all that he's been through- especially since Joseph's being sold into slavery was the end result of a quarrel. Whether it's supposed to be funny or not, it does sort of round off the old quarrel, and signify that in the future there will be no more quarrelling between them.

Genesis Ch. 47

When Joseph was dealing out the grain during the famine, he didn't just hand it out ala Socialism; he took payment from the hungry people of Egypt. When they had no more money, he still didn't just give it away for free; he took their property, then their land, then their very lives by selling them into slavery to Pharaoh. Many people look at this as cruel- as extortion. At any rate, the enslavement of the Egyptians to Pharaoh, combined with the preferential treatment received by Joseph's family, foreshadow and perhaps justify the future enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt. It's at least something to think about.

-Chris

-- Edited by Chris at 11:45, 2006-08-04

TaterHead · Defender of Truth, Justice and the American GAY!

In order to understand why the bible sometimes justifies slavery, you have to remember that the kind of slavery that was going on in these days was an agreement made by the person that was owed money and/or property (the "lender") to have the person who owed it (the "borrower") do work and services until the agreed time of payment was up. Joseph didn't "enslave" the Egyptians, he just made a deal with them that said that they would trade their time and labor working for Pharoah in exchange for food. This probably explains how the Great Pyramids were built by so many people without forced labor.

However, as will be seen in Exodus, the use of this labor will be turned into the kind of enslavement that we know of today when the Egyptians begin to enslave the Israelites. God told Abraham that this will happen, but that He will later bring them all back to Canaan as a great nation. This shows that whatever bad things happen in our lives, God is still in control and is just using these times as a means to make us better Christians.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

Yes, there was certainly a form of indentured servitude in ancient cultures; we see evidence of it in the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy- in fact there are specific laws that apply to such situations.

Even so, it was questionable to force someone into this kind of slavery when their only other choice was starvation. Even the present-day United States doesn't do THAT. It would be like saying,

"Ok... we know there's been a 7-year drought, and no food has been produced for that whole time except our own government stockpile. But all of you, the citizens of the United States, are now being granted access to our government stockpile of food supplies, to keep you from starvation. All you have to do is sign your life away. Whatever career you were doing before, we will decide your new career. Whatever property or possessions you had previously, they now belong to the United States government. ...but it's better than starvation, right? So hooray! Let's all sign away our lives to George Bush, who's on a mission from God to "save" us all with the new Will Work For Food program. Praise be to Bush!"

Suddenly it doesn't sound like Joseph was such a good guy.

Chris · Why can't my life be more like the Ainulindalë?

(oh- by the way, even though I'm done posting new material for now, feel free to continue posting genesis-related thoughts if you want, or you can of course make your own thread entirely devoted to your topic. Doesn't matter to me)

-- Edited by Chris at 12:09, 2006-08-05