Chapter 21:
1 And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken.
2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.
After that weird little interlude that was Chapter 20 - and, before that, the Jerry Springer Show of Lot's experiences in Sodom - we're back to Abraham and Sarah and the birth of their son, Isaac. Sarah finally has a son - at age 90 - but is she happy?
9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.
13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
Abraham casts out this poor slave girl, and his own 14-year-old son, because his wife is jealous (and because God encourages him to do so).
14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
Hagar and Ishmael wander around in the wilderness until they run out of water. Then, rather than watch her child die of thirst, she puts him in the shade of a shrub and sits down to die, herself.
But God doesn't let them die. Why not? Does he feel sympathy for these two innocents? Of course not! After all, he killed every child on Earth not long ago, and children die in agony every minute, without him lifting a finger. No, it's because Ishmael is Abraham's "seed."
Abraham, that guy who twice pimped out his wife - once to the Pharaoh of Egypt and then to King Abimelech - that guy who raped his wife's slave, that guy who cast her, and her child, out into the wilderness to die,... that's God's new BFF. So God will "make a nation" of the child, just for Abraham's sake.
Of course, keep in mind what else the angel of the Lord had promised Hagar, previously, about her son: "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him..." And God specifically refuses, in Chapter 17, to "make a covenant" with Ishmael, but only with Abraham's second son, Isaac.
The rest of this chapter is just Abraham making a deal with King Abimelech of the Philistines - yes, that same King Abimelech who had the hots for Abraham's 90-year-old wife - about water wells and fair dealing.
You know, it's kind of funny how all this magical stuff is interspersed with rather mundane tribal concerns - and simple genealogies, too - don't you think? It's not so hard to imagine how such stories developed as they were retold by storytellers over the years.
Chapter 22:
1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
IMHO, this is one of the craziest parts of the Bible (and that's saying a lot, huh?). For one thing, this is God tempting Abraham. That's exactly what it says: "God did tempt Abraham." But isn't it supposed to be Satan who's the tempter?
OK, there's been no mention of Satan in the Bible, not yet. It was a serpent which tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden (and so God cursed snakes to crawl on their bellies afterwards, in this early 'just-so' story). But still, isn't this crazy, that God is tempting his worshipers?
But even crazier is Abraham's reaction. Tell me, what would you do if a god told you to kill your own son and roast him as a burnt offering?
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
This asshole doesn't even object! And when Isaac wonders why they haven't brought a lamb with them for the burnt offering, Abraham lies to his son - until they get to the place of sacrifice. Then Abraham takes young Isaac, ties him up and puts him on the wooden altar, then takes the knife "to slay his son."
But God was just joking. At the last minute, an angel stops Abraham.
You know, God acts kind of like Homer Simpson here, doesn't he? Remember when Homer surrounded the Flanders' house with police tape, and then laughed at Ned Flanders' reaction? "Hahahaha, hahahahaha. Fooled ya, Flanders! Made you think your family was dead! Hahhahahaha. You thought they were dead, didn't you? Hahahaha! Do you get it? They're not, though. But you thought they were. That's why it was so funny!"
If anything, this is even worse. What would you do if a god told you to kill and burn your own son, for a blood sacrifice? And how would you feel afterwards - whatever decision you'd made - to find out that it was just a test? God was just tempting you - or, perhaps, just having his little joke. How would you feel about that?
But Abraham passes with flying colors. He's such an obedient little slave that he's even willing to kill his own kid, if he thinks that's what God wants. How disgusting!
Or is he willing? Maybe he's just afraid of that big bully in the sky?
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Now they know that he fears God, that he fears God so much that he'll even kill his own son when ordered to do so. I've mentioned this previously. What God values in human beings - the only thing he values - is obedience. Yeah, it's fine if Abraham obeys out of fear,... as long as he obeys. Nothing else really seems to matter, not to God. That's made abundantly clear, in all of Genesis.
(Also, note that, despite what the angel says - two or three times - Isaac is not Abraham's "only son." After all, Ishmael is also Abraham's son, and although Abraham cast him out into the wilderness, he still lives.)
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
God is real happy about Abraham's willingness to kill even his own son and again makes extravagant promises about multiplying Abraham's "seed." But note that none of those promises were actually kept. The Jews have remained a small minority pretty much everywhere.
The rest of the chapter briefly mentions the children of Abraham's brother, Nahor. Yeah, it's another 'traditional marriage' as defined in the Bible, as Nahor has children by his wife and by his concubine. (Of course, God has no problem with that whatsoever.)
Chapter 23:
1 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.
2 And Sarah died in Kirjatharba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.
3 And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying,
4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.
This entire chapter is just Abraham negotiating for a burial site for his wife. Abraham himself lives nearly 40 more years and has another six kids (all from another concubine, apparently). But none of those people are considered important, so the story switches to Isaac, mostly, after this.
But I'll get to that in the next episode.
___
Note: Again, links to this entire series are here.
Posts
26 comments:
The idea of Satan, as we think of him, didn't come about until the New Testament. In the Old Testament he's always called the deceiver or the adversary. In the book of Job it seems like the Devil (called the prosecutor) works for God.
Of course, many beliefs changed over the years, but I'll be interested to see how this develops, John.
So far, it's been pretty clear that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was an actual talking snake (a 'just-so' story like those of Rudyard Kiplling). Certainly, God blames snakes for it: "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."
That would make no sense at all if the 'serpent' had really been Satan - or even Satan in the form of a snake, pretending to be a snake. I'm not sure it would make much sense anyway, not by modern standards, but as a primitive 'just-so' story to explain why snakes have no limbs, it fits right in.
The snake is a metaphor, not literal. In later chapters of the bible jesus speaks of that old serpent which was the devil
The crawling on belly thing and all of those are clearly a metaphor to something. Sometimes we really need to read it closely in order to understand what its talking about. God knows exactly what he is saying but because we have human minds it's going to be hard for us to understand.
At least that's the way I see it, there are videos that clearly explain what these texts mean
But again, it kind of just depends on how you look at it since (even as a Christian I'll admit) the bible is subjective, it all depends on the person reading
Thanks for the comments, Unknown, but it couldn't be more obvious that it was a snake originally. This was a 'just-so' story about why snakes don't have legs (among other things, obviously).
After all, 'God' didn't just curse that snake to crawl on its belly and eat dust (for telling the truth, note; God was the one lying to Adam and Eve), but just as with human beings, he cursed its descendants, too:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15) Why would be blame all snake species - for the rest of time, apparently - if this wasn't actually a snake? Even as a metaphor, that wouldn't make sense.
That wasn't Satan the text was talking about, because "Satan" hadn't even been invented yet, when that story was first being told. (And when he does show up in the stories, he wasn't evil at first. He was more like God's prosecutor, zealously testing humans to make sure they were worthy of God.)
Remember, the Bible is a collection of stories over a very long period of time from many different people. Beliefs changed over time and from person to person. The stories changed. Interpretations changed. New characters were added. Some of the embarrassing stuff was edited out, though certainly not all of it.
And of course there are videos which "explain" the Bible. If you take the Bible as read, it's ignorant, immoral, and quite disturbing to modern people. So of course you have Christians trying to explain away that stuff. You have that in every 'holy book.'
Of course, Christians can't even agree with each other about what it means, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world. (Luckily, few Christians bother to actually read the Bible. They just rely on what other Christians tell them about it.) And it changes over time, too.
For example, the Bible clearly supports slavery. That's why it took Christians nearly two thousand years to finally realize that slavery is wrong. But now, Christians have to find a way to explain how the Bible didn't really mean what it clearly says.
There are all sorts of things like that. The Bible can't be just an old book of tribal stories and primitive morality, right? I mean, for Christians, it just can't.
So they either have to ignore what it says or find a way to make the meaning be whatever they want it to be. Or accept reality, of course, but that's not something they really want to do. (Luckily, it's typically very easy to convince faith-based people that what they were taught to believe as children is actually true.)
Again, Christians can't even agree with each other when they do that. So, is 'God' just the world's worst communicator, then? Is he so inept that he can't even tell his own worshipers what he wants (or tell every faith-based person on Earth which god and which book are the right ones?
Or is he simply imaginary, just an invention of primitive people, just like all other gods?
Unknown, I don't write this blog anymore, but I still talk to Christians. Typically, I ask them for one piece of good evidence that their god actually exists or, alternately, one piece of good evidence that any of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Just one.
And so far, no Christian has ever had anything at all. Just vague claims that there is evidence,... somewhere else. So you can maybe see why imaginative explanations about what 'God' is actually talking about don't impress me much? (Or at all.)
Christians always have lots of excuses. They have as many excuses as they have claims. They just don't seem to have even one piece of good evidence that any of their religious claims is actually true.
Well, like I said it kind of just depends on how you look at it, since the bible is subjective
As with what you said about the bible supporting slavery and people trying to change that because they want to "avoid the truth" is kind of wrong. They aren't avoiding anything they are just reading it closely and understanding what the text really means and not assume of what it's kind of being mistaken of and understand why slavery had to be a thing
It kind of depends on how you look at slavery in the bible, when you think of slavery you might be thinking of the black slavery times, but how I might look at it is when they didn't have enough money or food so they offered themselves as a slave, they were even allowed to leave if they did not want to work. But idk we both might definitely disagree and won't convince each other on this since you have your views and I have mine
And what's with the evidence? What's really the point if there was evidence one day? You won't really care and will just shrug and continue on your day without keeping God's word. I mean I do definitely understand why but still
And also, God did not lie. He clearly said on the day that you eat you shall SURLEY die, the word SURELY is right there! the snake said they won't, they ate and they did EVENTUALLY die
"when you think of slavery you might be thinking of the black slavery times, but how I might look at it is when they didn't have enough money or food so they offered themselves as a slave, they were even allowed to leave if they did not want to work."
Sure. You can look at it that way, if you're especially desperate to defend the indefensible. Of course, I'm demonstrably right, and you're demonstrably wrong.
I mean, some slavery in the Bible might have been more like indentured servitude, I suppose - evil, but not as evil as it could have been. (You couldn't leave whenever you wanted to leave. Come on! That's just silly.)
But there's a reason why slave-owners in America's pre-Civil War south pointed to the Bible as their justification. They knew their Bible (better than you do, apparently). That was the Bible Belt even then. (That's also why Christians were fine with slavery for nearly two thousand years.)
Leviticus 25:44-46 describes America's race-based slavery precisely. It even tells Christians why they should get their slaves from foreign "clans." That's because you don't have to worry about treating them humanely:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
That precisely describes slavery in America. If your god didn't actually mean that, then he's just... unbelievably stupid (or, again, just imaginary).
And note that it doesn't matter if you think that the Bible contradicts itself somewhere else. Obviously, the Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice.
Believers pick whatever they want from it, while ignoring or rationalizing away anything else. That's why Christians can't even agree with each other about much of anything, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity.
Anyway, this part of the Bible clearly contains God's instructions for slavery in America and elsewhere around the world.
"What's really the point if there was evidence one day? You won't really care and will just shrug and continue on your day"
So, you admit that there's no good evidence that your religious beliefs are actually true? There's not even one piece of good evidence backing them up? You admit that? (I'm just going to ignore the silly idea that you know me well enough to predict what I'd do.)
So why believe it then? Is it just because that's what you were taught to believe as a child? Do you really think that's a good reason?
Remember, if that's a good reason for you, then it has to be a good reason for Muslims, Hindus, and every other faith-based person in the world who believes in a different religion and/or a different god or gods.
You can't all be right. (You can all be wrong, though.)
"God did not lie. He clearly said on the day that you eat you shall SURLEY die, the word SURELY is right there! the snake said they won't, they ate and they did EVENTUALLY die
Heh, heh. Right. And if I tell you that you'll die if you eat a banana, then I'm not lying, either, huh? After all, you'll die eventually, right? LOL
Christians tie themselves into knots trying to justify this stuff, just like Muslims tie themselves into knots trying to justify the Quran. Why? Well, typically, they were taught to believe this stuff as children, and they really, really, really want it to be true.
So they just make excuses. They seem to have zero evidence that it is true, but they've got lots and lots of wishful-thinking. And that makes up for a complete lack of good evidence, huh?
I appreciate the reply, but excuses aren't a substitute for evidence.
I'm trying my best not to make excuses, it may seem like that to you but I'm really not
The other things you said I'll have to look into and come back
Why is it that I'm wrong about everything and you seem to always be right? How could I be wrong? What if you might be wrong about the things in scripture? As you said in one of your posts ALL of us could be wrong about almost ANYTHING you know?
And I wasn't really providing any evidence, just my personal thoughts the same way you bring your personal thoughts
(So, you admit that there's no good evidence that your religious beliefs are actually true? There's not even one piece of good evidence backing them up? You admit that?)
No, please dont twist my words to fit in your negativity. I'm just saying that if there were to be evidence you wouldn't really care, so there would be no point
There will be good evidence one day but for now there are no sources and for us we have faith on only him
Also there's no need to get aggressive with me about this stuff you know by bei g prideful and saying (im better than you) im being civil about this and just trying to discuss this kind of topic between an atheist and a Christian
I still would like to discuss these kind of topics with you and try my best, I do like a challenge
"The slave owners knew their Bible (better than you do, apparently)
No, they were hateful people that foolishly used God's words to fit their wicked ways. Also its pretty uncalled for to say "they knew their bible better than you" as if to say I'm stupid and your better than me, clearly insulting me for some reason. Why are you so hateful against Christians that try being civil with you?
I mean look if you really want to believe what you read about slavery in the bible then I honestly dont think I'll convince you since you seem to wanting to have it Stay negative in your mindset
I mean I might not convince you or anything but I'm still gonna try
I mean, do you expect me to take EVERYTHING you say true?
Just because you SAY it's true because it's your negative view?
I think your just assuming I'm wrong because I look at the bible differently while you look at it negatively. These are clearly called opinions so in a way, we could BOTH be wrong or right
"I'm trying my best not to make excuses, it may seem like that to you but I'm really not"
Sorry. When I said "they," I meant Christian apologists in general, not you in particular. After all, I don't even know you.
But then, you say this:
"I'm just saying that if there were to be evidence you wouldn't really care, so there would be no point"
You are talking about me, someone you don't even know.
Yeah, I "wouldn't really care" if death wasn't the end, huh? I "wouldn't really care" if my family and friends - nearly all of them Christian - would be laughing it up in Heaven, instead of dead (or soon to be dead)?
I "wouldn't really care" if some god was planning to torture me forever and ever? After all, that would be bad, but would avoiding eternal torture really be worth spending an hour in church on Sundays (or kneeling on a prayer rug five times a day)?
Come on! I ask for evidence because I do care about the truth, not because I don't. How would I even pick which god and which religion to believe in, without evidence that one of them was actually real?
"What if you might be wrong about the things in scripture? As you said in one of your posts ALL of us could be wrong about almost ANYTHING you know?"
True. But why should I believe Christian claims instead of the claims of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, Moonies, Raelians, or any of the other religions in the world? That's why I ask for evidence.
Note that I don't really care what 'scripture' says, since 'scripture' - in every religion - is just the claim. And my whole point is that it can say pretty much anything believers want it to say.
That's why there are thousands of different denominations of Christianity. That's why modern Christians can be certain that the Bible doesn't support slavery, while past Christians were just as certain that it did.
Shouldn't a god be smarter than that? After all, Muslims are just as certain that the Quran is God's word, not the Bible. When believers can't even agree on which 'holy book' to follow, let alone what any particular one actually means,... well, can a god really be that inept?
"I still would like to discuss these kind of topics with you and try my best"
Good. I find these discussions interesting, and contrary to your assumptions about me, I really do want to know if I'm wrong. I don't like to be wrong, but if I am, I want to know that, so I can change my mind.
I don't expect that either of us will convince the other, but it can still be interesting. I like talking to people who disagree with me about this stuff. (And I never try to be insulting, although it might seem like that sometimes. Feel free to call me out on anything that you feel is a personal attack.)
This is awkward having a discussion here, though. How about taking it to email? It's up to you, but my address is billg AT inebraska DOT com
Email would be a good place to talk
And I apologize if I was assuming anything about you
Anonymous, if you sent me an email, I didn't get it. Make sure there's no typo in the address. (Or just go to the "Contact" link at the top right of any page on my blog and click on "Email.")
If you haven't sent anything yet, no problem. Obviously, there's no hurry. I just thought I'd mention this in case you did send something.
Oh I'll send you a note soon, I'm just busy at the moment
What was your Gmail again sir?
It's billg AT inebraska DOT com
Or just go here and click on "email."
Post a Comment