Bible Study - From a non-religious kiwi

[DerKryptid]

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.

Inb4 some fedoras says "muh hercules was also morally-flawed"

Besides the wife-murder bit, Hercules' moral failings were not seen as unethical or embarassing by the time period. Neither were any of Ulysses', Achilles' or Agamemnon's flaws besides the hubris. Ethics is subjective and dependent on the host culture, and the difference between hellenistic tales and the Old Testament is that the figures from the OT were flawed even by OT standards. This fact alone makes the account all the more believable.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief.

My general understanding of the record of the incident is that it was meant as a demonstration of 1) who God was, and 2) what kind of sacrifice He wanted/didn't want. Abraham would have been aware of the Canaanite pantheon, which included Moloch-- an idol to which people would sacrifice their children. It wouldn't have been outlandish for this god that came in contact with him to demand the same, but instead God prevents him from going through with the sacrifice of his son and provides him the kind of sacrifice that He wants from Abraham (animals).

The problem with your interpretation is that you're not accounting for the fact that Abraham had a great deal of faith in God, and God told him to sacrifice his son. It wasn't an action wholly generated from Abraham's zeal, so it can't be understood as "wrong" especially given the stated aftermath. At any rate, nobody discussing Abraham in either the Christian or (general) Jewish thought continuities discusses Abraham as being wrong for doing what he did, and in fact extol his faith.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The biblical texts after Exodus are pretty good historical records of the Levantine region of the Middle East. Leviticus is essentially the civil and criminal code of Ancient Israel and gives some good insights into their culture and social practices. Kings and Chronicles are biased first hand records of the events of the day.

When reading the Bible it's important to remember that it was not written down in one go. It's actually a collection of various texts. Mythologies like Exodus, folk tales like the story of Job and Jonah, legal texts like Leviticus and historical chronicles with the suitable embellishments to make the opposing parties irredeemable monsters.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.

Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children. It's a pretty nihilistic concept that's usually true besides the religeous aspects and probably created the concept of an "Original Sin". On the other end of the scale is tales like Job that basically amout to "sometimes being the most righteous men will get you fucked regardless", which is pretty hard for a religion to approach.

At any rate, nobody discussing Abraham in either the Christian or (general) Jewish thought continuities discusses Abraham as being wrong for doing what he did, and in fact extol his faith.

It's definitely a very morally grey act, though how much is dependent on the interpretation.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I think it's important for everyone to read the bible, even if you don't believe it. So many redditors love to pick apart the bible, but they're only eating the tablescraps of something some rantsona on youtube deconstructed, who also did not read the book. I think if those faggots want to be taken seriously, they should try to have a better understanding of that which they hate so much. I can understand the reason why people TL;DR it if their only experience with Christianity is American Protestantism/Baptism, but more likely the reality is that they've probably never lived in an area like the religious south, either. Basically, I'm saying internet atheist smuggies are not valid in any way because they don't know shit all about what they're complaining about.

Even if you're a fencesitter agnostic, there's probably some insight, historical or otherwise, that could be gleaned from it. I personally enjoy it for that. There are places in that book that you can fly out and actually visit. That's really neat.

American Christians should probably believe their own bullshit, too. At least the preteens on reddit are right about that. I bet if they did that, they might have second thoughts about Our Greatest Ally.


With all that said, the Old Testament ain't canon.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

The Greatest Story Ever Told. (Actually the best stories are in the OT).

outside of the 'original' source (although you got a lot of gnostic stuff) would recommend Lebnitz.

But I think Krist almight y has some pertinent words on TBOAPW.

"Cause there's still a lotta drinks that I ain't drunk
Lots of pretty thoughts that I ain't thunk oh yeah
Lord there's still so many lonely girls
In this best of all possible worlds"

 

[Imperial Citizen]

Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children. It's a pretty nihilistic concept that's usually true besides the religeous aspects and probably created the concept of an "Original Sin". On the other end of the scale is tales like Job that basically amout to "sometimes being the most righteous men will get you fucked regardless", which is pretty hard for a religion to approach.

I wouldn't say that the parent's crimes are passed onto the child, but that the punishment is passed onto the child. It's a way of saying, if you fuck up, you are only hurting your future.

Take for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV):

8 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Pay attention to the last sentence, "All Israel will hear of it". That it being the fact that two parents were unable to properly raise their son and so got the rest of the village to kill him. Being stubborn, rebellious, a glutton, and a drunkard? Are we talking about an Iron Age Jew or a modern-day lolcow? How many times have we seen someone act like a complete embarrassment to their parents and their parents allow it? Not just online but in real life? Letting the rest of the village stone the child is the parents effectively giving up as parents and terminating their future, as it is the inheritor of property that is killed.

 

[JohnDoe]

Even if you're a fencesitter agnostic, there's probably some insight, historical or otherwise, that could be gleaned from it. I personally enjoy it for that. There are places in that book that you can fly out and actually visit. That's really neat.

Proverbs alone is a gold mine of timeless and practical advice for success and happiness. And Psalms is really great too.

Even taking the extreme position (with which I do not agree) that the Bible and Christianity is just an engineered social control system leads to the inevitable conclusion; it's an amazing system that for thousands of years produced highly stable, free, and just nations unlike anywhere else in the world. Even taken at it's theoretical 'worst' it's still a book that made the world a better place.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I wouldn't say that the parent's crimes are passed onto the child, but that the punishment is passed onto the child. It's a way of saying, if you fuck up, you are only hurting your future.

Take for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV):

Pay attention to the last sentence, "All Israel will hear of it". That it being the fact that two parents were unable to properly raise their son and so got the rest of the village to kill him. Being stubborn, rebellious, a glutton, and a drunkard? Are we talking about an Iron Age Jew or a modern-day lolcow? How many times have we seen someone act like a complete embarrassment to their parents and their parents allow it? Not just online but in real life? Letting the rest of the village stone the child is the parents effectively giving up as parents and terminating their future, as it is the inheritor of property that is killed.

Hurting your own future is usually what will happen from any crime, but the future generation being hurt is repeated a couple of times:

27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

Also killing an obvious troublemaker in making is disturbing to modern sensibilities but makes a lot of sense when the amount of resources the child is enormous. Though you are right that shitty children comes from shitty parenting.

 

[Pissmaster]

Useful Charts

Anything that uses CE/BCE notations as opposed to AD/BC is using tampered data from the Clown World era, as that's a modern standard that seeks to remove Christ from the Gregorian calendar, while still being attached to the time of Christ. It's a standard that was invented in the 90s, and only came about into common usage in the late 2010s. It's a clear sign that whjat you're reading is most likely a case of history revisionism. Paying attention to any kind of researcher that uses that notation directly alongside Biblical studies is practically begging for misinformation.

That notation was visible in the very first second of the first video you posted, and that's enough to let me know that his research is unreliable and uses tainted sources.

 

[awoo]

Anything that uses CE/BCE notations as opposed to AD/BC is using tampered data from the Clown World era, as that's a modern standard that seeks to remove Christ from the Gregorian calendar, while still being attached to the time of Christ. It's a standard that was invented in the 90s, and only came about into common usage in the late 2010s. It's a clear sign that whjat you're reading is most likely a case of history revisionism. Paying attention to any kind of researcher that uses that notation directly alongside Biblical studies is practically begging for misinformation.

That notation was visible in the very first second of the first video you posted, and that's enough to let me know that his research is unreliable and uses tainted sources.

I really wish I had an autistic rating for this. A normal person would note the problem, grit his teeth, and move on to judge the whole video in an intellectually honest way.

 

[Pissmaster]

I really wish I had an autistic rating for this. A normal person would note the problem, grit his teeth, and move on to judge the whole video in an intellectually honest way.

Why's that point making you mad? That notation makes it obvious that it comes from an unreliable source. You gotta notice these kinds of details if you want to sus out the truth. There's not much point in gritting my teeth and watching anyway when there's a bare-faced obvious telltale sign that absolutely everything the flaccid-voiced videographer says should be double checked by a reliable source.

 

[DerKryptid]

Absolutely agree. Also, a massive part of the Old Testament is about the idea of parent's crimes passing into the children.

It's quite the opposite. It's a cautionary tale of the consequences of children rebelling against their parents and refusing to wisen up and take responsibility for their shortcomings. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, Cain blamed Abel, Esau blamed Jacob, Joseph was made the scapegoat by everyone he had ever come across, Saul blamed David, David blamed Uriah, Daniel projected all his frustrations on the entire city of Nineveh, etc. etc.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

It's quite the opposite. It's a cautionary tale of the consequences of children rebelling against their parents and refusing to wisen up and take responsibility for their shortcomings. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, Cain blamed Abel, Esau blamed Jacob, Joseph was made the scapegoat by everyone he had ever come across, Saul blamed David, David blamed Uriah, Daniel projected all his frustrations on the entire city of Nineveh, etc. etc.

Now I've "Pepper" by Butthole Surfers going through my head.

 

[A Very Big Fish]

I find it interesting that the human characters of the Bible are morally flawed, especially for the principal Jewish characters. Abraham, for instance, was so devoted to God that he would have gone through with killing his son, Isaac, until an angel intervenes. Something to note is that Isaac does not follow Abraham afterwards and Sarah dies soon after. There is a possibility that Abraham's attempted killing of his son was wrong and that it ruined his family. Isaac leaves him and Sarah dies out of grief. More to the point is that Abraham gets another wife and fathers several children that will be the progenitors of nations that war with the Jews later in the Bible.

Another character would be King David. After David becomes King, he is infatuated with a woman, Bathsheba. He impregnates her, which may or may not have been consensual. David sends Bathsheba's husband to the frontlines so he can be killed, allowing David to marry Bathsheba. While David acknowledges that this was sinful, his repentance does not absolve him of future suffering from the loss of several of his children, including the son he had with Bathsheba.

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws. Maybe it is to highlight that even those that are in high esteem with God are not perfect, that they are just like everyone else.

Well, they're still just as human as the rest of us. That's why the intercession of God and Jesus is worth anything.
General thought is that the human machine went bust when we were kicked out of paradise, and we're being prepared for the Lord to fix us so to speak.

But to your point about David, Uriah and Bathsheba, there are characters who oppose even David when he's in the midst of making his mistakes. His court prophet Nathan basically gets a tip off from God about what David does, and Nathan confronts David, using a parable for the situation to get David to condemn himself. And while his life definitely takes a nose dive, God also blesses David with Solomon from his union with Bathsheba, so I always read that as a measure of forgiveness for David's contrition. In the end David was a leader, but he wasn't the messiah. Even in the New Testament, several of the major players are far from pure, Peter denies Christ three times, and Paul literally executes members of the early Christian church. But Jesus didn't come to save the pure and holy, he came to save the rest of us poor bastards.

 

[awoo]

I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?

 

[Kosher Dill]

What fascinates is me is trying to understand why the Jewish writers of the Old Testament give the "father of the nation" and the supposed progenitor of the messiah such character flaws.

David's contemporaries (including the originators of the David stories passed down to us) may not have actually liked him that much. An interesting book on the subject is The Demise of the Warlord. In a nutshell: while today we might think of conquering and occupying a city as heroic, it was considered weak and decadent according to the nomadic warrior ethos of David's time. Warlords were supposed to keep the show on the road and go around sacking and pillaging, not settle in and rule cities.
Various other aspects of his behavior, including his treatment of Uriah, were also considered textbook "bad king" material.

 

[PuffyGroundCloud]

I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?

His repentance is basically leading the new church.
not to mention he got crucified upside-down.

 

[A Very Big Fish]

I recently learned about the denial(s) of Peter. I know he cried at the end - does that count as repentance?

Well its definitely the start of it. After Christ is resurrected though, he asks Peter if Peter loves him three times, and that's usually seen as the moment of redemption.

 

[Crux]

Well its definitely the start of it. After Christ is resurrected though, he asks Peter if Peter loves him three times, and that's usually seen as the moment of redemption.

Three is a 'magic' number, its the Holy Trinity, you see it pop up all over in Christian history, art, teachings etc, its all over the Bible. Look at any Cathedral, three main entries.