RationalWiki talk:Annotated Bible/Genesis

Which translation

What translation do we use? Should we consider multiple translations? Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:32, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

I am pulling this from Project Gutenberg which only has KJV I think. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 20:34, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Notes don't line up

1:1 lines up with 1:2, 1:2 lines up with 1:3 and so on all the way down. --CPAdmin1 16:13, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yea, I will get it fixed, been in and out all day. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 20:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Section editing

Can anyone look at the table codes and see why clicking the edit section opens up the section below it? tmtoulouse ^frustrate 20:51, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

That is weird!   ^Contribs_Talk 20:57, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Purpose

I'm curious what the goal of this page is. Do you want historical analysis of Genesis? Do you want a theological analysis of Genesis? Are you going to point out the various translation errors/problems/differences that occur in each line of genesis depending on the version you use? If this is an academic game, why would you use the KJV? if it's an anti "conservative game," http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is already a rich link. --WaitingforGodot 13:38, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I'm adding my comments/notes/snark for the same reason that Everest is climbed - because it's here. I'd say that the purpose definately leans towards anti-fundamentalist. The Skeptics Annotated Bible is very good, but we'd might as well do our own since it is here. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:52, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't it be much more anti-fundamentalist to actually inform the readers about the context of the material and why it can't be interpreted literally, rather than all this pointless annotation stuff? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:08, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

@AK, yes... use links to articles? ħuman 23:26, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Genesis 2.24

It actually does not say require mother and father for this verse, because God is defining what his new beings will be and will do. In the future, babies will be born and grow up, I am god, I know this. When they grow up, I want them to cleave to their wife, and not their parents. While I understand the desire to blast the Bible out of the water (being an atheist myself, I do it with regularity), that doesn't mean that you just say "this line clearly proves that this is like all creation stories", you need to take the myth in context of the entirety of the myth. It's why I strongly dislike line by line theological annotations, because they tend to miss the context of the entire story.--WaitingforGodot 13:50, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I was actually careful not to say that it provides "clear proof". I also don't agree with the idea that God is talking about the future. I think that I've already added several comments were God's precognitive powers are more than lacking. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with WfG a bit here, especially on line-by-line critiquing. Of course, the format tends to encourage that. Oh, and "his father and his mother" could be a metaphor for "Me" (capital M, get it?) ħuman 23:23, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Genesis 2:25 Notes

I've not sure what the big deal is. If Michelangelo is at all reputable, then David didn't mind having his junk dangling in the wind either.

um... I don't think Michaelangelo ever met David, and he can't be all that reputable, seeing as the statue is not circumcised. --CPAdmin1 22:22, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

I never looked at the statue that closely... ħuman 23:20, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Note: I am a bit drunk at the time of this writing

Please take my snark with a grain (pound) of salt. My true intention is more overarching. To me, there are so many strange things in the Bible the make it much more likely to have been written by real people long after it was supposed to have been written.

People seem to take look at the Bible in a wider way. To me, it's little things that get by the 'editors' (if you will) that really take away from the credibility of the Bible.

As often, I find many noble things about the overall message of the Bible. As Ghandi is believed to have said (more-or-less): "I like you Christ very much, I don't like your Christians." and "What a wonderful thing Christianity is, what a pity it has never been tried." --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 00:16, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

May I add a quote from an old friend... "You may be an atheist, but you're a better Christian than most of the people in my church". Edge, I have no problem with what you're doing. Someone had to start, and we'll figure out what we're doing as time goes by. ħuman 01:38, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Split?

My Gahd, it's huge!!! even without the annotations. Totnesmartin 13:59, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think we can split it without breaking the thing that Trent wrote that inserts selected verses. That no one uses ;) ħuman 21:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Genesis 2:14

For Human, the initial point is actually not valid because the though the rivers have the same names they did not flow "approximately as they do today". Actually the old form of the criticism of this text is that the descriptions of the rivers and lands does not match current geography (the objectors in that case obviously not taking the flood into account). The Pison (or Pishon) name seems to have been reused, but nobody know what river it what re-used for (although there have been many candidates, across 2 continents, flowing in entirely different patterns/directions). Likewise many candidates have been suggested for the Gihon, including even the Atlantic Ocean! The name was re-used for a spring near Jerusalem. The Euphrates is only described as the "fourth river" so there is no flow/geography for comparison. Our Tigris (Hiddeqel) ran right through the middle of Assyria from the north-west to the south-east, not "towards the east of Assyria". Most critically, none of the candidates have shared (or close) sources. So the geography don't match what little we know of these 4 rivers. It appears that 2 (the least 2) of the 4 names were re-used. For a modern example of something similar, in Australia one can start in Brisbane and travel west-south-west to get to Texas. In the US, one can start in Brisbane and travel south-east to get to Texas. Or get directions from Ipswich to Perth (try google maps, for UK and Oz). Tricksy 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the remnants of the British Empire probably aren't the best examples, since they are so common (towns I live in or near: Lee Durham Dover Exeter Hampton Portsmouth York Manchester Newcastle Brentwood Epping... you get the picture). I guess the real question is, besides an old hand-me-down story, what evidence is there for those rivers being wiped out completely and then having their names re-used apres le deluge? I think that was what the comment was about, right? ħuman 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no that's not what it was saying. It is implying that those rivers are still around and still largely the same as the Gen 2 description. There are only 2 rivers that sharing a name with the Gen 2 rivers, and no rivers sharing a description, which falsifies the comment. And here I though you would just be proud that I brought it to talk! (Although the "Annotations" are mostly just comments of no set quality). Tricksy 23:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

H: why not try discussing the names of Santa's reindeer with a 5 year old? Just as informative. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tricksy, yes, of course I'm glad you brought it here ;) I guess, really, the best thing would to have cut the "claim" (whatever it was) in the commentary to here for discussion, or if you're worried about being called nasty names, copy it here. I guess I had better revisit the article to see what it says again :) Oh, and Toast, I do consider it useful to learn about mythologies and belief systems that are widespread in our culture. ħuman 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mythologies, yes, but these people think they're discussing FACT. A five year old's Tooth bloody fairy! I'm interested in myths, but I know they're myths. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) hmm. "don't seem to get hounded". :^D Tricksy 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not much anyway ;) ħuman 01:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What this was all about (cut from article):

"We're expected to believe that pre-flood, there are named water courses that flowed at least approximately as they do to the present day. This, remember, is the same flood claimed to have cut the grand canyon.

Um... Who says that the rivers are the same as any in the present day? --CPAdmin1 22:23, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Have you noticed how people go to new places and name them after old places? ^{— Unsigned, by: Tricksy / talk / contribs}

Have either of you guys noticed (as we argue by editing rather than using talk pages) that the initial point is valid? - Human"

The "commentary" seemed pretty weak, so I chopped it out. Pasted here for posterity, etc. ħuman 01:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alignment HELP

I clicked on the "edit" under notes, but when I reviewed what I'd posted it appears under the biblical quote itself. Did I booboo? --En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's probably going to look bad when you edit a single section, since the html table tags are split up between them. --  Nx/talk  23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, put your text above the tags. --  Nx/talk  23:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)\

Thanks, NX. Won't do it again. ;-)--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gen 2:21

I've cut this from gen 2:21 as it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Start cut....

If the lack of a rib on men is being passed down genetically, wouldn't there be some sort of tissue abnormaly that comes with opening up the rib as well? Or if God is good enough to grow that section of tissue back without problems, why not grow the bone back as well?

There is no reason that the lack of a rib has been passed down at all. Ribs will grow back (if the periosteum is intact). If the whole bone is removed (but the periosteum left) natural regrowth will take a couple of months. The floating rib (lowermost) can be removed relatively easily as it is not "connected" in the same manner as the others, and it is used a bone source for grafts.

End cut ....--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Purpose rehash

I'd love to work on this, but I'm not exactly sure what to do. Is it supposed to be like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, or something a bit different? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so. It's also the source for the bible tag. -- Nx / talk 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just work on it - set the tone as you wish. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy

I just noticed an error in my own math. I think I corrected it, but there might still be some errors:

Name		DoB	AoP	Son		AA	MA	DoD
Adam		0	130	Seth		130	930	930
Seth		130	105	Enosh		235	912	1042
Enosh		235	90	Kenan		325	905	1140
Kenan		325	70	Mahalalel	395	910	1235
Mahalalel	395	65	Jared		460	895	1290
Jared		460	162	Enoch		622	962	1422
Enoch		622	65	Methuselah	687	365	987
Methselah	687	187	Lamech		874	969	1656
Lamech		874	183	Noah		1057	777	1651
Noah		1057	600			1657	950	2007

DoB = Date of Birth, AoP = Age of Parenting, AA=Adam's Age, MA = Max age, DoD= Date of Death.

Feel free to check if there's any mistakes in the table. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Worse Than Conservapedia?

many edits, none accepted, though none since 2010? RWodenoz 3/10/2013 ^{— Unsigned, by: RWodenoz / talk / contribs}

Huge screeds that belong on the talk page, if anywhere

This above text should be in the column on the left hand side.

	+	
	+	

So, here come my comment on the shift, which already has been remaked http://buchererpianos.ch/Inconsistencies-in-the-Bible.html:

	+	
	+	

Christof Bucherer, M.Div.: I have an opposite view on this thext. This text enriches the first account of creation and adds the name "Yahweh" in front of Elohim, which is the "reaveled" name of God in Ex. 3:14. Then it goes on to say, that these are the generations (plural) of the account of how Yahweh Elohim made the "heavens" and the "earths" (for the plural of earths, compare Hebrews 1:1 and 11:3!) This verse is revealed truth, which many people, including my German folk cannot read, because the turn the name of God upside down!!! How? Simply by translating in all the German Bibles: "Elohim Yahweh", which has been retained in the Enlish Bibles by rendering it "LORD God". Capitalized LORD almost always stands for "Yahweh" and God for "Elohim". So, John 1:1 is referring to this verse and also go Genesis 1:1 by stating: "In the beginning was the word "davar", and the word (davar) was with God (Elohim) and the word "davar" was God "Elohim". Now, because this verse in Genesis 2:4 states exactly the same twice in retrospect order (Yahweh Elohim created the heavens and the earths and this is how he created the eaths and the heavens - I know, you may translate earth again, but it is not consistent with heavens, since there are many heavens and many earths in the cosmos, as Hebrews has translated it rightly into Greek), because Yahweh Elohim created everything, as John 1:2 continues: "All things were created by it (the "davar" and nothing was created without it (repetition like here in Genesis 2:4), it follows, that the "davar" is "Yahweh Elohim"! In John 1:14 the "davar" was made flesh and we beheld his groly, the glory as of the only begotten son from the father, full of grace and truth ("chesed" shel "emeth" - like written on most Jewish cemetries), it follows, that the "davar" was the very "creative action" of Yahweh Elohim, the father. So, as both are the creator, the Son and the Father, they are one in Spirit, since we already see the Spirit of Yahweh Elohim hovering over the water ("water" again referes to the living water of John 4:10: "Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”" So, Yahweh Elohim, the Spirit (Ruach Elhim) and the water ("davar" (Jesus)), are very much connected already in the first few verses of the Tanach and the Berit Chadasha (Old and New Testament). And as Gen. 2:4 is connected to Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, it is also connected to the last word of the Bible: "Amen" (emeth), wich by the new NWO aganeda has been blotted out of most of the Bibles, at least of the German ones, as they did with practically all the epistles of Paul, 1.+2. epistle of John, Jude, 1. and 2. Peter, describing, the One who always used to say in the Gospels: "Amen, amen, I tell you.... " - referring to himself, who is the true "Amen" in Rev. 3:14: "These are the words of the "Amen", the faithful (chesed) and true (emet) witness, the ruler of God’s creation." So, the creation, we see from this, has not only been created, but is continuely being created, since the "true Amen" rules over it, depicting, that God in heaven rules and laughs about the nations, who rage, and God calls out "Why on earth!!!" Ps. 2 Since there is only one God, there is also only one spirit of God and hence also only one sinpiration of God of these Scriptures, wich men have tron appart and filled libraries with comments on it, why in Gen. 1:1 and in Gen. 2:4 there are diffences in the use of the name for LORD God! Because God is one LORD God and in German he is called "HERRGott"! But only being used in vernatcular this way, but they did not mangage to get it right in all their translations up to this very day! Who told me this? Nobody, I jus read and compared and found out! So, I just don't bother what theologians say about "Yahwehist" and "Elohist" and "Priestlyist" and "Nomist"! I caught my professor on it, when he lectured that Manasseh was a bad king of Israel! I told him: "Did you not read in 2. Kings"? He said, oh, this does not belong to the "Deuteronomist" (meaning the "Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk" he wrote his thesis about under "Martin Noth" who was a contemporary of Adolph Hitler and an Antisemite. Now Jew would give you the idea, that there is a "Deuteronomist" in the entire Bible!!! It's all an invention by Wellhausen, Kant and Co., who did not like what was written in the Bible, so they decided to tear it apart including it's doctrine, so, as a result, you find no "Christian Dogmatics" in German online! But I can provide you online with Bavinck, with Berkoff etc. and a whole host of commentaries on the Bible, like Mattew Henry etc. No Luther, no Karl Barth, none of them have managed to bring out such a work for the whole last 100 and more years! But what they put down the throat of students is: the "documentary hypothesis" - read well! "hypothesis" like "evolution theory" - read well: "theory"! Hypothesis and theory mean, there are no proofs, as well as there are no proofs on any doctrine or any right exposition of the Bible! That's why I say, I only leave my comment, but there is no proof, there is only an idea! An my idea is, that all is pretty much interconnected, the beginning and the end and everything as on the heavens and on the earhts and "under the earths"!

Chrisof Bucherer, M.Div.: What does it mean that “God rested on the seventh day”? The Bible states clearly that he did not! Read: “Gen. 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.” It does not say, when on the senventh day he ended his work, since every new Dday in Genesis 1 starts with the morning and not with the evening! Read! Gen. 1:31a“ And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”!!! So, when did the day end in Genesis? In the morning, and God was still ending it! Besides, Jesus, who is the LORD of the Shabbath was working on the Shabbath, since Jesus means “Savior” and Savior or “Saviour” is being found equally in the Old as in the New Testament for God and for Jesus! And to prove, that he was God, Jesus healed on the Shabbath, because Saviour also means “healer” which has gone lost in the Enlish language but not in the German: “Heiland”! So, I pove it to you and it is very stunning! https://www.bibleserver.com/search/KJV/saviour/1 (39 hit for “Saviour” in the entire Bible equally distributet on God and on Jesus! https://www.bibleserver.com/search/KJV/saviour/1 Mt. 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.“ And Jesus main proof was: Mt. 2:10 “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he said to the paralytic - 11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” – So, this verse shows clearly that there is this connection between healing and forgiving our sins (saving us from our sins – the original sin and each individual sin – Gen. 4: 7 “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”).” Note! Sin is not being mentioned in the whole of ch. 3 in Genesis, when Adam and Eve sinned! Jesus clearly is the Saviour, whe entertains the whole cosmos and has any leght of time and space to continue with his creation, not needing to rest even in the morning, when he went for a nice walk in the Garden of Eden, in Paradise! The whole thing is rich imagery and not meaning that God created everything in a hurry in seven days (seven, since he continued his creation, as I proved to you on the seventh day). God rests in himself, since Jesus showed us the Father (God) and since he is the LORD of the Shabbath, as he told the Pharesees and Saducees, the LORD rested in "Himself" God was his own Shabbath and not an old man which men have found in the desert with the Midianites, as ome have invented, but certainly not the Jews! Only the Antisemite theologians. In German "Theologe" can be rendered in "Theo-Lüge", which means, don't believe anyhthing they say, do or where they invite you to! For God does not live in houses made by men! Does he? That why Jesus said about the huge temple of Herod the Great: "Not one stone will be left on top of each other", meaning: "Jesus is the stone the builders rejected" (1. Peter 2:7 "Now to you who believe, this stone (Jesus Christ) is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become a rock of offence, and “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” - "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (1. Kor. 1:18)!

(ctrl-x'd from mainspace by Sophie) 159.15.129.71 (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Land of Nod

Current (December 2019) article says, "What the hell? Suddenly it seems we have a brand new land called Nod, possibly populated by people who got there somehow ... Meanwhile Cain doesn't seem to properly grasp what being a "fugitive and a vagabond" actually means, as he seems to have settled down fairly promptly."

"Nod" is from the Hebrew word for "wander" or "roam." The "Land of Nod" is a metaphoric or poetic way to write, "Condemned to wander the world without a home." You know, exactly like Genesis says explicitly almost immediately after?

I'm all for light-hearted Biblical exegesis, but I am also in favor of, well, being correct. Vivisectionist (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)