1And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;This one gets a bit thick with kings and countries, so you might want to opt for a more user-friendly version, like the New Living Translation.
2That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
3All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.
4Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
5And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emins in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
6And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness.
7And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.
8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;
9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.
10And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
What we learn in this chapter is that Abram got game — he wins a difficult battle. He's sassy, too, telling a grateful king that his cash is nothing but trash.
Though God is blatantly on his side, there's no implication that Abram's military success was due to divine intervention.
The relationship between God's promises to Abram and the results looks like an important question for understanding the role Yahweh is supposed to play in our lives.
Does God merely know what will happen, or does he ordain it? Free will hangs in the balance, no?
24 comments:
I've been reading your posts with interest. One thing I've noticed is that this isn't really a Bible study for Atheists, as you have described it. This is your attempt at applying your snarky preconceived notions to what the Bible says. If you want to see a real Bible study from a nonChristian, check out Slate Magazine's Blogging the Bible series written by a Jew who has never read the Bible before.
Amanda,
I'm not sure if there's an official definition of a Bible study, but to me, it's a earnest attempt to read and understand the Bible.
That's what I'm doing here.
I've long wanted to read this influential book, and hearing Julia Sweeney's story about her Bible-reading class inspired me to finally get around to doing it.
As the name, origin story, and style of the blog suggest, I do not approach the Bible with any de facto respect.
In fact, I'm quite perplexed and annoyed by the rabid religiosity in the country.
If you don't want any snark in your Bible discussion, this isn't the place to be.
However, I'm also aware that untold numbers of really fine people find inspiration and guidance in this book.
I have never read the Bible and am making a significant contribution of my time to reading and understanding it.
I'm giving my honest (and snarky) opinion of what I read, which over time may or may not fit your preconceived notions of my preconceived notions.
I just heard about the Slate blog this weekend. I'm leery of checking it out just yet, lest I find my own approach is being unduly influenced by what they're doing there.
I do hope you'll stick around here and participate in this journey, and I won't take offense that you're seeing another, and perhaps more legitimate, Bible group.
I've been reading your posts with interest...
Amanda, I think, misses the point (probably due to her preconceived notions which, admittedly, we all possess).
How you interpret what humans have written in a 2,000 year old piece of fiction is up to you. How you study the acts of genocide, jealousy, and hatred is your privilege and right.
I am an atheist, so therefore I have my own preconceptions (although I am a former Christian who attended Sunday School, Crusaders and Campaigners during my youth), but I think your exposition of the Christian myth has as much validity as any critique of a work of fiction.
I find your study is entertaining and enlighthening.
Keep up the good work on the "good" book ;-)
Well, actually I think that the Bible isn't completely fiction at all! There are many things proving some parts of the bible are true, and personally I believe that all of the bible is true because I don't think that people would write some true things and some false in the bible and mix them up like that. I say you either believe all or none and I choose to believe all. I know that this isn't the place for me but I'm just trying to get my own opion out and I would love not to get all kinds of nasty comments back. Well Happy New Years everyone!
Emma,
Why should we believe the Bible is all false or all true?
There may well have been a fellow named Jesus who philosophized in the Middle East. There probably wasn't a woman named Eve who was created out of a man's rib or a 600-year-old guy who rounded up every species on earth onto a boat.
Why not??
Emma,
When confronted with an absurd proposition, the sensible default response is "why?".
Emma,
It is possible for some books (ie. the Bible, or Encyclopedia Britannica) to contain both truths and falsehoods. Even if it is just by genuine error.
To say the bible is either ALL true or ALL false is a difficult position to take up. If it were to be proven that a particular chapter of the Bible was false, then by your own logic you would have to concede that it's ALL false. I do think that parts of the Bible have some basis in reality (although not a lot).
It is up to you what you choose to believe - I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of your logic. Sentences can be partly true and partly false:
I'm Glenn and I'm a computer programmer
I'm Glenn and I'm ruler of the universe
Both the above statements contain a truth (my name) and a falsehood (the job - I'm not really a computer programmer!)
I think your point, perhaps, is that you think that people wouldn't just 'make it all up'. Fair enough, we'll have to disagree on that. People can do a lot of nasty things.
Please don't mistake my incredulousness for being nasty.
Even if people didn't just 'make it up' they can still make mistakes.
Anyway, happy New Year to you Emma. I hope it's a good one!
Glenn.
Emma,
A large proportion of Americans and Christians as a whole believe that the Bible is entirely true. I find that position extremely naive. There are countless examples of contradictions in the Bible itself that simply destroy that claim.
And how do you come to the conclusion that someone wouldn't write some true things in the Bible and then write some false things? Can you really base your whole life on that belief? Wasn't the whole idea of the Bible to convert and convince people? Isn't it conceivable that someone might want to twist certain facts to convince you of something?
When someone you don't know orders you to do something, you don't just do it without asking any questions or without thinking about whether that is something you really want to do - why should it be different with a book written thousands of years ago, partly in languages no longer spoken, whose author is factually unknown?
If some parts of the Bible are not true, then who is to decide which is which? If some parts of the Bible are not true, then it must be the work of humans. Who then can say for sure that it isn't entirely the work of humans?
I find myself incapable of understanding how a person can claim to "choose" to believe that all of the Bible is true. Santa Claus is nice, but I won't make myself believe in him only because it would be nice.
Julia Sweeney? I looked at the timing, read your blog's post that you linked to, and sure enough, I was there, sitting with the Harvard Secular Society people. (: That was a pretty good show, and actually, when I stumbled across your Bible Study for Atheists, I was inspired to read it because of her show. One thing she said, that there wasn't even an Exodus, got me to read Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein -- I highly recommend that book.
Chedorlaomer is an interesting case. Its an anomalous passage, in terms of vocabularly, style, etc. (at least in the Hebrew). Its a corruption of an Elamite name, referring to an Elamite deity, in the way that the name of a king might. Elam is a peculiar place, the language is an isolate - not known to be related to another - though there is suspicion that its vaguely connected to Tamil.
Tidal king of nations may even be a real person - Tudhaliya - the creator of the Hittite Empire. But, scholars don't think it plausible for a king of Elam to have been able to have a hittite king as vassal ally.
Even stranger is Abraham being described as "the Hebrew". Like thats something other than what the authors of the passage were.
Melchizedek's part in the narrative is crudely inserted, really obviously not meant to be there. Its a bit like reading a report in the Times about a war in the middle east, and one of the paragraphs being written in shakespearean english, and talking about three witches near the battlefield.
free will?! where do you read that anywhere there? Bible never mentions free will anywhere.. you're reading INTO the Bible.. just read what's there...
if you're a process theologian then reality is relational as there is no inner you, you are a cosmos of relationships. reality is free, meaning you can freely choose whatever is available to you through your relationships.. finally reality is constantly changing.
this is completely counter to the traditional religious view of reality, which your major arugment against religion is complete dependent on. here is where you're irresponsible. your preconceived notions getting in the way of what the bible is actually saying, so amanda is right in this instance.
atheist all have to argue AGAINST the fundamentalists and literalists out there.. you have not once strayed from preconceived notion. here's a news flash.. using various biblical criticisms we christians have known and have known since the 1940s that the bible is not a historical document nor is it meant to be read literally!!! the hebrews have known this since it's been written!!!!!
some research on alternative readings might have helped before you decided to start on this project.
Luke,
Please show me where I say that the Bible takes a position on free will one way or the other.
Almost all I've read so far suggests that God's chillun' are quite capable of defying his wishes and expectations. However, when God ordains that certain things will happen (or when he hardens Pharaoh's heart, etc.), it suggests that He is steering us, or some of us, to some extent or other.
Thus, I ponder whether the Bible generally considers us free actors or not. It is an interesting and important question, no?
My methodology and beliefs (or lack thereof) are completely transparent. If you don't find this a useful or interesting approach, that is your right (or, maybe, it's God's right to make you not find it so).
I would suggest you locate a mirror and repeat your arguments about preconceived notions.
nice strawman and then personal attack of 'i know you are but what am i'... let's not get defensive and read what i was saying.. the Bible DOESN'T ponder freewill as you stated "Thus, I ponder whether the Bible generally considers us free actors or not. It is an interesting and important question, no?"... it has come from the traditional biblical exegesis.
then i gave an example of process theology which states that humans are completely free and reality is free, relational, and changing. this is counter to the static all powerful God model that you are arguing against.
you must know the varieties of biblical interpretation before you try to argue against the entire bible.. you have yet to show me that you understand christianity has a liberal component since you are only able to argue against the fundamentalist... which i do with great zeal as well, fundies are dumb and absurd. but your stance so far has just put you right in line with the fundies.
Luke,
I'll deconstruct these last two comments of yours and then will cease to waste my time parrying with you until and unless you have something cogent to say, ideally in a civilized manner.
"free will?! where do you read that anywhere there? Bible never mentions free will anywhere.. you're reading INTO the Bible.. just read what's there...
I do not claim that the Bible mentions free will. I note that a God who promises us certain fate (and later, one that hardens Pharaoh's heart, etc.), implies some things about this notion we humans have of "free will." The very point of this exercise it to analyze what the words in this book mean to us as modern humans. Most of think we have free will, so if the Bible suggests elements of predestination, that's an interesting topic to consider. Also, it's funny that you say "just read what's there," because you're constantly urging me to read other background material, even as I've clearly stated that's not the approach this enterprise is utilizing.
if you're a process theologian then reality is relational as there is no inner you, you are a cosmos of relationships. reality is free, meaning you can freely choose whatever is available to you through your relationships.. finally reality is constantly changing.
After advising me to stick to the text, you throw in the construct of "a process theologian." I'm all for hearing what kinds of theologians there are, but this blog isn't focused on theologians, other than -- in a broad way -- Bible literalists of any and all stripes.
this is completely counter to the traditional religious view of reality, which your major arugment against religion is complete dependent on. here is where you're irresponsible. your preconceived notions getting in the way of what the bible is actually saying, so amanda is right in this instance.
Other than calling me irresponsible (thanks, now I've got that song stuck in my head) and railing against my "preconceived notions," I have no idea what you're saying here. Perhaps you could lose the ad hominem attacks and state clearly what you mean.
atheist all have to argue AGAINST the fundamentalists and literalists out there.. you have not once strayed from preconceived notion. here's a news flash.. using various biblical criticisms we christians have known and have known since the 1940s that the bible is not a historical document nor is it meant to be read literally!!! the hebrews have known this since it's been written!!!!!
Again, you're lashing out at me, but what your point is is not clear, except your admission that the Bible should not be taken as literal truth. If you are not a literalist, there's little reason for you to be defensive about this. The fact is, very powerful people in America are literalists, and thus evaluating how decent or valuable the Bible is when taken literally (and metaphorically) is IMHO a worthy endeavor. If you don't think so, you might find more satisfying reading elsewhere.
some research on alternative readings might have helped before you decided to start on this project.
Then, this project would have been a different project altogether. It's my blog and I'll cold-read the Bible if I want to, and I couldn't have been more explicit about that being the methodology.
Now, onto your most recent comment...
nice strawman and then personal attack of 'i know you are but what am i'... let's not get defensive and read what i was saying.. the Bible DOESN'T ponder freewill as you stated "Thus, I ponder whether the Bible generally considers us free actors or not. It is an interesting and important question, no?"... it has come from the traditional biblical exegesis.
"I know you are but what am I" is precisely what I am saying. It is you, sir, who have dragged this into ad hominem territory. Rather than sticking to the issues, you throw out terms like "irresponsible," "preconceived notions," and in the Genesis 10 thread, "ignorant people such as yourself."
then i gave an example of process theology which states that humans are completely free and reality is free, relational, and changing. this is counter to the static all powerful God model that you are arguing against.
Again, I found your "process theology" point hard to follow and in any case more extrinsic from the literal reading approach than my citation of "free will" that has upset you so.
you must know the varieties of biblical interpretation before you try to argue against the entire bible..
you have yet to show me that you understand christianity has a liberal component since you are only able to argue against the fundamentalist... which i do with great zeal as well, fundies are dumb and absurd. but your stance so far has just put you right in line with the fundies.
As an Anglican Trinidadian woman I used to know would say when someone told her what she had to do: "The only thing I have to do is die." Despite what you tell me I must know and must do, I'm not embarking on a survey of all forms of Christianity (or of Judaism, for that matter). I'm focusing on the words of the vaunted Bible.
Re: religious people not all being awful fundies, in my intro page, I note that "There are certainly lots of nice religious people, and religious groups do many good works. There are also lots of nasty religious people and terrible things done in the name of God." Literalist or no, awful or wonderful, Judeo-Christians say this is a "Good Book," or the best book. So, I'm readin' it and reviewin' it, and I invite others to comment on the readings and my interpretations. If the comments are merely insulting and hard to follow, it's a lot less fun and enlightening than it would be otherwise.
So, it's dispiriting (so to speak) that you conclude with the lame and tiresome equivalation that claims the atheist is as fundamentalist as the fundies.
If characterizing your lame and tiresome argument as such hurts your feelings, at least I didn't equate you with the "dumb and absurd," which seems to pass for discourse in some circles.
Ok, let's everyone calm down now... :)
By the way, when the posts are 2 pages long, I doubt many people bother reading through them...
i think we just talked past eachother.. i guess i jumped on the free will mention and didn't see it in the text.. so i did just as you said, and read into your comment. sorry about that..
i do get wrapped up in the scholarly business surrounding the bible that most ppl don't get.. and most churchs are afraid to preach and therefore create more idiot fundies... and idiot fundies create atheists and with good reason! this image they present and a cold reading of the bible presents is no God that i can see ever existing.
"evaluating how decent or valuable the Bible is when taken literally "
--I think we're in the same place here, a literal read is nonsense, absurd, and rather ignorant (ignorant meaning unaware of other methods, not stupid for clarification).
hope this helps and sorry to jump on you about it.. i just came from discussing process theology with a fundie classmate and i was rather hot. so forgive me on this. i hope to post something on my blog about process theology.. i think you'd really jive with what it has to say about the bible and a christian view of the world. it is completely counter to the rather inane view of the fundies.
peace!
Luke, you say "idiot fundies create atheists".
Even if all religious people were moderate, there'd still be atheists...
Luke,
I appreciate the apology.
I am curious, if you view the Bible as imperfect or even distasteful at times, what do you base your religious devotion on? The church's concept of God? Your own?
Fervent,
"Even if all religious people were moderate, there'd still be atheists..."
what i am arguing is that fundies create atheists as well. with their "leave your brain at the door" approach of the bible really does the opposite of what they intend. take genesis for example. the argument of science v.s. the creation story wouldn't be grounds for dismissing the bible if it were read as a story rather than the literal truth.
i'm not saying that there wouldn't be atheists. i'm saying that the reasons to become atheist would be different.
VLWC,
thanks for your question! i belong to the UCC, a very liberal branch of protestant. it was here that i came back to christianity after being a buddhist for 4 years. buddhism and christianity meld quite nicely... and the UCC constantly pulls from other world religions, so it is a very dynamic church.
the UCC does not view the bible as inerrant. the church views it as infallible, meaning if you are looking for guidance, this book will not let you down. not only does the bible answer the given problem but it provides a couple other counter solutions completely different from the original solution. this is a middle eastern tradition of putting two opposing viewpoints side by side. so when you're reading the bible and it seems to contradict itself, IT DOES!
also we recognize that although we believe the bible to be God inspired, God is not powerful enough to overcome humanity's freewill and therefore there is some stuff in the bible that isn't of God. like bashing babies' heads in during war.. or where jesus calls a semaritan woman a dog. if you come across something that doesn't show a relational, free, and changing God, then it's the human editors fault. i'll explain this in greater detail when i post about process theology (sorry to keep beating a non-existent horse ;-))
this may seem like we're playing loose and fast with the bible... or that it's dangerous to pick and choose bible stories.. i'd counter that ppl have ALWAYS picked and choose their canon within the canon. when reading sermons or listening to any christian "authority" be aware of where the loci of authority comes from. does this dude quote paul, cause james and peter contradict paul most of the time. do they quote leviticus, because some deuteronomy and numbers dismiss those laws.
so the bible itself has errors and one must use methods of discernment to figure out the truth. that's the deal in a nutshell. it's a simplistic and rather not well written account, but that's as close as i get with it without going into massive complex details. my post on my blog should help explain this in a litte greater detail... i hope this satisfies:
http://toothface.blogspot.com/2007/10/further-down-rabbit-hole.html
thanks for the questions and you have a loyal reader to your site!
i guess the moral is "context". like that poster on the other story that says jacob is a woman.. this is nonsense and out of context nor can i find it anywhere in my resources (even the women's bible commentary).
this is responsibility we have to context.. just as i took your comment out of context, it did a great diservice to you and to me the reader. a cold reading of the bible is your context and i must remind myself of this while reading your posts.
Luke,
Thanks for describing your approach to faith.
FWIW, I personally couldn't swallow the "infallible" approach, as it suggests an endless blank check for "No True Scotsman" arguments (a term, as it happens, coined by an atheist who has recently "gotten religion").
I know some very nice UCC folks, and I appreciate their relative liberalism, but to these eyes there is still too much sleight-of-hand in the validation of the old hokey dogma. Speaking of, I'll try to knock out commentary on the dogma -- Leviticus 5 to be precise -- this PM....
""No True Scotsman" arguments "
yeah.. that's what we really try to avoid through scholarship. if we say "no true scotsman" we have a valid argument with support behind it as evidence. so others can argue the methods and evidence. i think that's what being responsible means. i can't come to you and say "the bible says xyz" without showing you the tradition, oral tradition, where else this is echo'd in the bible, what the thematic devices used in created xyz, etc... it's a lot of work but it helps prevent the "no true scotsman" arugments.
which is another reason why UCC is considered a hostile liberal crusading force in the christian community. we support minorities, gay marriage, immigration, and oppose the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general.
it's good to be rebels. but we're logically researched and scripturally supported rebels.
so there is a lot left up to personal choice and little dogma. there is ritual, but i'd consider us the most Dogma lite aside from the Unitarians.
hope this clarifies.
Post a Comment