On Genesis and Exodus

[ghostofachance]

Hi everyone. I'm a new member and I don't know if this is the right place to post about this. I've just started reading the Bible and finished Genesis and Exodus. I'm reading it in Spanish, so sorry if places, concepts or names are translated wrong to English.

- Genesis

1) The Babel Tower: in this story, humanity, who speaks the same language, decides to build a tower that reaches heaven and God to become famous and not disperse across the earth. God came down and saw it and scattered everyone throughout the land and made them speak in different languages and they did not understand each other. A generic interpretation indicates that this passage explains the origin of all languages and cultures, as a consequence of divine punishment. But, in Hebrew they do not say “those who spoke the same language”, but rather they use the expression “the whole earth had one lip”, which has nothing to do with the question of language, but rather of power. That is, everyone was subject to an emperor who used the tax system to oppress others and maintain power. The conquerors built towers as a symbol of power, whose top floor was destined for the divinity, who came down from heaven to speak with the emperor. In this way they tried to convince the people that divinity was on the side of the oppressor. Then, could it be interpreted that God came down and destroyed the tower, a symbol of union between the oppressor and divinity, to free the people from the “one lip"? So it is not a punishment but a liberation? Reading it today, can it be a reflection on globalization? Is it suitable for all people? What role are all institutions, including religion, play in this process?

2) Joseph: After being sold by his brothers, Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams and is appointed prime minister, managing the grain impeccably in the face of the imminent famine that he himself predicts. His agrarian policy consisted of the following steps: First, all the money and purchasing power of the people who bought grain from Egypt were absorbed. Then all their belongings and livestock are demanded. Finally, having exhausted all of the above, Egypt is left with the peasants' lands and the people themselves become their properties, becoming serfs and slaves. This passage caught my attention because it could be said that thanks to the political and economic decisions of Joseph, who seeks the benefit of Pharaoh and, therefore, of the Egyptians, a system ends up being created where the same people are forced to sell themselves. to be able to eat, but then we move on to the Exodus, where slavery is criticized and denounced when it afflicts the Hebrews. But isn't Joseph partly responsible for creating a similar system?

- Exodus

1) 1 : 15-16 : Regarding the issue of the midwives, in Hebrew it is not specified exactly if they were Hebrew or if they were the midwives of the Hebrew women, that is, they were Egyptian. Does it seem like it's open to the reader's interpretation? Which is ambiguous on purpose. There are some who think they are Egyptian because Pharaoh wouldn't waste his time asking Jewish women to kill Jewish children. On the other hand, one can think that they were Hebrews and draw a good lesson from it for today: a tyrant who empowers women to murder his men. He wants to "feminize" the Hebrews. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is get rid of the figures that may be an opposing force to his system. What do you guys think?

2) The Golden Calf: Tired of waiting forty days for Moses, the people tell Aaron that they want another God, since they do not know where Moses is or when he will return. Aaron relents and builds a golden calf for them, which the people idolize and offer sacrifices to, being unfaithful to the Alliance. Moses comes down from the mountain and sees how the people dance under the golden calf. Moses, angry, throws the tables and breaks them. He destroys the calf and cremates it, forcing the people to drink the ashes. He commands the Levites, uncontaminated by the worship of the calf, to kill the unbelievers. Around three thousand people die.

The priestly line that prevailed in Israel comes from the nucleus of priests who officiated in Jerusalem when the elimination of all local sanctuaries was decreed, leaving the temple of Jerusalem as the only sacred place. A very serious religious and economic conflict occurred since the rest of the priests, most of them Levites, were left without work and without the right to officiate. They were objects of public charity, like widows and orphans. The priests of Jerusalem, Zadokite and not Levitical, managed to demonstrate their descent through the line of Aaron.

So my question is, on what grounds do the priests that say that they come from the line of Aaron (the one that commanded the Golden Calf to be built and let the people worship it) consider themselves above the priests form the line of the Levites (the only ones uncontaminated by the worship of the calf)?

Thanks for reading, sorry if something is confusing or, now that I think about it, maybe this is too long, haha. But yeah, hope someone can answer me and I can learn more ))

 

[syo]

So my question is, on what grounds do the priests that say that they come from the line of Aaron (the one that commanded the Golden Calf to be built and let the people worship it) consider themselves above the priests form the line of the Levites (the only ones uncontaminated by the worship of the calf)?

Hello. I am an omnist pagan. Do you want me to answer your question?

 

[ghostofachance]

Anyone is welcome to, of course!

 

[syo]

Anyone is welcome to, of course!

Thank you. In religion there is a form that's called caste. Caste isn't meant to be broken. It devides and sets specific duties. See hinduism for example.

 

[syo]

Thank you. In religion there is a form that's called caste. Caste isn't meant to be broken. It devides and sets specific duties. See hinduism for example.

The priests are caste.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1) The Babel Tower: in this story, humanity, who speaks the same language, decides to build a tower that reaches heaven and God to become famous and not disperse across the earth. God came down and saw it and scattered everyone throughout the land and made them speak in different languages and they did not understand each other. A generic interpretation indicates that this passage explains the origin of all languages and cultures, as a consequence of divine punishment. But, in Hebrew they do not say “those who spoke the same language”, but rather they use the expression “the whole earth had one lip”, which has nothing to do with the question of language, but rather of power. That is, everyone was subject to an emperor who used the tax system to oppress others and maintain power. The conquerors built towers as a symbol of power, whose top floor was destined for the divinity, who came down from heaven to speak with the emperor. In this way they tried to convince the people that divinity was on the side of the oppressor. Then, could it be interpreted that God came down and destroyed the tower, a symbol of union between the oppressor and divinity, to free the people from the “one lip"? So it is not a punishment but a liberation? Reading it today, can it be a reflection on globalization? Is it suitable for all people? What role are all institutions, including religion, play in this process?

I think that the Mayans of South America had a culture somewhat like that. Their priests were astronomers who knew when Venus would appear and also when there would be eclipse and used these appearances to prove their connection to the gods. The majority of the population was swayed by this. When the population outgrew the food supply, human sacrifice became common. Even the kings were highly superstitious believing the gods must be appeased, and we know this because of the way they were defeated by the conquistadors. Ironically the Mayan religion used large pyramids, somewhat like towers. I think its so interesting in an artistic way. The conquering of the Mayans is like a very fuzzy image of the story of Babel to me. The Conquistadors are vaguely like the angels which scramble the language and scatter the people.

The story of the Tower of Babel could also be something else. It could be that it is a story about jealous gods or perhaps kings who don't want the common people to have access to wisdom. The ancient kings horde all power and wisdom. They keep a strong military, and they constantly attack surrounding nations to keep them weak. They hire anyone who is wise, or they kill any wise people that they cannot hire. They constantly divide people to keep us weak and disparate. Any unity that is not through them is outlawed. My guess in this case is that the angels would be servants of King Nimrod. The text names him 'Mighty hunter before the LORD' which makes zero sense as translated. Some people think it means Nimrod is a famous hunter of beasts, but I really don't that makes sense. If he were then it would say so. Instead it says he is a mighty hunter before the LORD -- a phrase that is meaningless. I therefore can only guess at it.

It may also be something else. It could be a story about angels who for our own good stop us from obtaining too much power. The secret of the story is not ours. We can read it, but we cannot demand a true interpretation: for the angels will not permit it. This corresponds to the reasoning of people who believe technology to be an evil thing: CS Lewis, Aristotle, etc. Some people believe that knowledge is evil. This is alien to you and I, because we have grown up in a culture which believes the opposite. Not everyone is taught that knowledge is good. Some cultures believe knowledge should be kept for the wise, and everyone else is better off listening to the wisdom of the wise. This could be why the angels scramble language and stop the building of the tower.

2) Joseph: After being sold by his brothers, Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams and is appointed prime minister, managing the grain impeccably in the face of the imminent famine that he himself predicts. His agrarian policy consisted of the following steps: First, all the money and purchasing power of the people who bought grain from Egypt were absorbed. Then all their belongings and livestock are demanded. Finally, having exhausted all of the above, Egypt is left with the peasants' lands and the people themselves become their properties, becoming serfs and slaves. This passage caught my attention because it could be said that thanks to the political and economic decisions of Joseph, who seeks the benefit of Pharaoh and, therefore, of the Egyptians, a system ends up being created where the same people are forced to sell themselves. to be able to eat, but then we move on to the Exodus, where slavery is criticized and denounced when it afflicts the Hebrews. But isn't Joseph partly responsible for creating a similar system?

I think this is an "Us vs Egypt" story. In the story: if Joseph had not done this, the Israelites would have starved. The Egyptians play the part of violent oppressors, and they constantly enslave other people from other nations. Their armies go every year to capture slaves and to pillage, so slavery is their thing. One theme to this story is that the violent oppressor becomes nothing but a tool to preserve the peaceful people. The Israelite child may wonder why the Egyptians are allowed to exist, and in this story they exist to preserve Israel. In a sense it is an argument not to destroy the Egyptians but to instead endure them, because their power will pass away. Also if the Egyptians want to be free they must join the Israelites, which they may do if they so choose. It is the Pharoah that is enslaving and killing everyone, and it is the Egyptians that help him to do so. There are many themes in the story, and these are not explicitly stated. Some require a knowledge of history and culture; and I think also that the Egypt in this story is not intended to be direct history but more like a stylized version of history. That is how it appears to me.

1) 1 : 15-16 : Regarding the issue of the midwives, in Hebrew it is not specified exactly if they were Hebrew or if they were the midwives of the Hebrew women, that is, they were Egyptian. Does it seem like it's open to the reader's interpretation? Which is ambiguous on purpose. There are some who think they are Egyptian because Pharaoh wouldn't waste his time asking Jewish women to kill Jewish children. On the other hand, one can think that they were Hebrews and draw a good lesson from it for today: a tyrant who empowers women to murder his men. He wants to "feminize" the Hebrews. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is get rid of the figures that may be an opposing force to his system. What do you guys think?

The midwives are compassionate. They lie to pharoah, so that they do not have to follow his orders. Perhaps they are Egyptian. Moses is preserved by the Pharoah's own daughter, so why couldn't these compassionate midwives also be Egyptians? I think it could be a theme. An Egyptian can be a means of preserving life. Maybe killing oppressors is not the way forward. I am projecting this theme, but I think it matches the story. It could be part of the story, depending upon who tells it.

2) The Golden Calf: Tired of waiting forty days for Moses, the people tell Aaron that they want another God, since they do not know where Moses is or when he will return. Aaron relents and builds a golden calf for them, which the people idolize and offer sacrifices to, being unfaithful to the Alliance. Moses comes down from the mountain and sees how the people dance under the golden calf. Moses, angry, throws the tables and breaks them. He destroys the calf and cremates it, forcing the people to drink the ashes. He commands the Levites, uncontaminated by the worship of the calf, to kill the unbelievers. Around three thousand people die.

The priestly line that prevailed in Israel comes from the nucleus of priests who officiated in Jerusalem when the elimination of all local sanctuaries was decreed, leaving the temple of Jerusalem as the only sacred place. A very serious religious and economic conflict occurred since the rest of the priests, most of them Levites, were left without work and without the right to officiate. They were objects of public charity, like widows and orphans. The priests of Jerusalem, Zadokite and not Levitical, managed to demonstrate their descent through the line of Aaron.

So my question is, on what grounds do the priests that say that they come from the line of Aaron (the one that commanded the Golden Calf to be built and let the people worship it) consider themselves above the priests form the line of the Levites (the only ones uncontaminated by the worship of the calf)?

I don't have an answer. I am not familiar with this story of the priests who officiated in Jerusalem.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Welcome to the forums, ghost. Are you reading the Bible all the way through? From Genesis to Revelation?

 

[ghostofachance]

Welcome to the forums, ghost. Are you reading the Bible all the way through? From Genesis to Revelation?

Yes!

 

[ghostofachance]

I think that the Mayans of South America had a culture somewhat like that. Their priests were astronomers who knew when Venus would appear and also when there would be eclipse and used these appearances to prove their connection to the gods. The majority of the population was swayed by this. When the population outgrew the food supply, human sacrifice became common. Even the kings were highly superstitious believing the gods must be appeased, and we know this because of the way they were defeated by the conquistadors. Ironically the Mayan religion used large pyramids, somewhat like towers. I think its so interesting in an artistic way. The conquering of the Mayans is like a very fuzzy image of the story of Babel to me. The Conquistadors are vaguely like the angels which scramble the language and scatter the people.

The story of the Tower of Babel could also be something else. It could be that it is a story about jealous gods or perhaps kings who don't want the common people to have access to wisdom. The ancient kings horde all power and wisdom. They keep a strong military, and they constantly attack surrounding nations to keep them weak. They hire anyone who is wise, or they kill any wise people that they cannot hire. They constantly divide people to keep us weak and disparate. Any unity that is not through them is outlawed. My guess in this case is that the angels would be servants of King Nimrod. The text names him 'Mighty hunter before the LORD' which makes zero sense as translated. Some people think it means Nimrod is a famous hunter of beasts, but I really don't that makes sense. If he were then it would say so. Instead it says he is a mighty hunter before the LORD -- a phrase that is meaningless. I therefore can only guess at it.

It may also be something else. It could be a story about angels who for our own good stop us from obtaining too much power. The secret of the story is not ours. We can read it, but we cannot demand a true interpretation: for the angels will not permit it. This corresponds to the reasoning of people who believe technology to be an evil thing: CS Lewis, Aristotle, etc. Some people believe that knowledge is evil. This is alien to you and I, because we have grown up in a culture which believes the opposite. Not everyone is taught that knowledge is good. Some cultures believe knowledge should be kept for the wise, and everyone else is better off listening to the wisdom of the wise. This could be why the angels scramble language and stop the building of the tower.

I think this is an "Us vs Egypt" story. In the story: if Joseph had not done this, the Israelites would have starved. The Egyptians play the part of violent oppressors, and they constantly enslave other people from other nations. Their armies go every year to capture slaves and to pillage, so slavery is their thing. One theme to this story is that the violent oppressor becomes nothing but a tool to preserve the peaceful people. The Israelite child may wonder why the Egyptians are allowed to exist, and in this story they exist to preserve Israel. In a sense it is an argument not to destroy the Egyptians but to instead endure them, because their power will pass away. Also if the Egyptians want to be free they must join the Israelites, which they may do if they so choose. It is the Pharoah that is enslaving and killing everyone, and it is the Egyptians that help him to do so. There are many themes in the story, and these are not explicitly stated. Some require a knowledge of history and culture; and I think also that the Egypt in this story is not intended to be direct history but more like a stylized version of history. That is how it appears to me.



The midwives are compassionate. They lie to pharoah, so that they do not have to follow his orders. Perhaps they are Egyptian. Moses is preserved by the Pharoah's own daughter, so why couldn't these compassionate midwives also be Egyptians? I think it could be a theme. An Egyptian can be a means of preserving life. Maybe killing oppressors is not the way forward. I am projecting this theme, but I think it matches the story. It could be part of the story, depending upon who tells it.

I don't have an answer. I am not familiar with this story of the priests who officiated in Jerusalem.

It was so interesting to read your opinion, its like a Wikipedia article of itself! So much knowledge thank you for your time

 

[wellwisher]

The modern human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is much older and is what animals have and is connected to natural selection and species DNA. The human inner self is common to all humans, regardless of culture and define us as a species; collective human propensity and human nature. The ego is much newer and appears to consolidate around the formation of civilization. This is unique to only humans and is what makes us individuals; unique ego POV. The inner self is our commonality, while the ego is our uniqueness.

The Tower of Babel, built to the heavens, is symbolic of the newly forming ego, subjectively thinking it is the new center of the brain, as important as the inner self; gods. The tower being a phallic symbol may have been connected to male ego desire. Male desire has a goal, but many possible subjective partners, instead of a focus of one.

The inner self by defining collective human nature, was common to all humans at one time; one lip. This was before the ego consolidated. The ego by being more unique was more subjective. The subjectivity of the ego caused language to shift from the unified language of the inner self, into one that was more unique and subjective to each ego.

Within any modern culture and language we have the base language, but also slang that often young people come up with, to differentiate their generation or group. This sort of separates people due to the generational confusion of meaning or sounds. This is all connected to the subjectivity of the growing adolescent ego. This ego subjectivity in Babel made it harder to relate to each other, like in the days of old; inner self. The story says they can no longer understand each other; babbling, and part their ways. They spread out to develop their own languages and cultures. It was an interesting time in human consciousness history that was describe with symbolism. I am more describing the behind the scenes of the psycho-dynamics.

As an example, I was a part of the baby boomers and hippy generation, of the 1970's. We had our own lingo such as peace and "Hey Man", etc. "Hey man", was a friendly greeting that you said to anyone, known or stranger, man or women, with the older generation woman insulted, at first, for bering called a man. Insult was not the intent, but the language confusion set up barriers between the generations; babbling. This was a unique generational ego.

Now we have cis and trans terms of of the youth. If you are not up with that fad, you may wonder what they they are talking about, that is so important to so many young people. This is more for their ego, and not for what makes us one, so the groups begin to separate. Babel was a creative but divisive time due to too much early developing ego. It would lead to human experiential degeneration; dissociate down to one. This dislocation would lead to the need foe the inner self to reboot the brain; great flood. After that, a better balance is formed between the ego and the inner self firmware, and advance cultures start to appear.

The flood of Noah is symbolic of something like a mass nervous break down due to the repression caused by the ego and dissociating and losing its natural mooring. Gather two of each animal was about restoring natural sexuality of the inner self instead of ego willful sexuality. But after the nervous breakdown ends; swallowed by the inner self, the ego reboots and it reappears with a better balance, with more respect for the gods; firmware, of the inner self.

With the inner self common to all humans, this transitional time of the flood, appeared to be synchronized; world wide; blue tooth. The symbolism of the flood has people panicking as they become submerged in the flood of unconsciousness. The old was swallowed up and a new beginning appears. This all about an update of the brain's operating system into version 2.0. Ego version 1.0 had too many bugs. We are at 3.0 and ready for 4.0.

 

[ghostofachance]

The modern human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is much older and is what animals have and is connected to natural selection and species DNA. The human inner self is common to all humans, regardless of culture and define us as a species; collective human propensity and human nature. The ego is much newer and appears to consolidate around the formation of civilization. This is unique to only humans and is what makes us individuals; unique ego POV. The inner self is our commonality, while the ego is our uniqueness.

The Tower of Babel, built to the heavens, is symbolic of the newly forming ego, subjectively thinking it is the new center of the brain, as important as the inner self; gods. The tower being a phallic symbol may have been connected to male ego desire. Male desire has a goal, but many possible subjective partners, instead of a focus of one.

The inner self by defining collective human nature, was common to all humans at one time; one lip. This was before the ego consolidated. The ego by being more unique was more subjective. The subjectivity of the ego caused language to shift from the unified language of the inner self, into one that was more unique and subjective to each ego.

Within any modern culture and language we have the base language, but also slang that often young people come up with, to differentiate their generation or group. This sort of separates people due to the generational confusion of meaning or sounds. This is all connected to the subjectivity of the growing adolescent ego. This ego subjectivity in Babel made it harder to relate to each other, like in the days of old; inner self. The story says they can no longer understand each other; babbling, and part their ways. They spread out to develop their own languages and cultures. It was an interesting time in human consciousness history that was describe with symbolism. I am more describing the behind the scenes of the psycho-dynamics.

As an example, I was a part of the baby boomers and hippy generation, of the 1970's. We had our own lingo such as peace and "Hey Man", etc. "Hey man", was a friendly greeting that you said to anyone, known or stranger, man or women, with the older generation woman insulted, at first, for bering called a man. Insult was not the intent, but the language confusion set up barriers between the generations; babbling. This was a unique generational ego.

Now we have cis and trans terms of of the youth. If you are not up with that fad, you may wonder what they they are talking about, that is so important to so many young people. This is more for their ego, and not for what makes us one, so the groups begin to separate. Babel was a creative but divisive time due to too much early developing ego. It would lead to human experiential degeneration; dissociate down to one. This dislocation would lead to the need foe the inner self to reboot the brain; great flood. After that, a better balance is formed between the ego and the inner self firmware, and advance cultures start to appear.

The flood of Noah is symbolic of something like a mass nervous break down due to the repression caused by the ego and dissociating and losing its natural mooring. Gather two of each animal was about restoring natural sexuality of the inner self instead of ego willful sexuality. But after the nervous breakdown ends; swallowed by the inner self, the ego reboots and it reappears with a better balance, with more respect for the gods; firmware, of the inner self.

With the inner self common to all humans, this transitional time of the flood, appeared to be synchronized; world wide; blue tooth. The symbolism of the flood has people panicking as they become submerged in the flood of unconsciousness. The old was swallowed up and a new beginning appears. This all about an update of the brain's operating system into version 2.0. Ego version 1.0 had too many bugs. We are at 3.0 and ready for 4.0.

Love this part: "This is more for their ego, and not for what makes us one, so the groups begin to separate. Babel was a creative but divisive time due to too much early developing ego. It would lead to human experiential degeneration". Very interesting to read the passage from a psycho analytical perspective. Thank you for your time and insight.

 

[Ebionite]

But, in Hebrew they do not say “those who spoke the same language”, but rather they use the expression “the whole earth had one lip”, which has nothing to do with the question of language, but rather of power. That is, everyone was subject to an emperor who used the tax system to oppress others and maintain power.

The book of Jasher has more information about motives.

And the Lord smote the three divisions that were there, and he punished them according to their works and designs; those who said, We will ascend to heaven and serve our gods, became like apes and elephants; and those who said, We will smite the heaven with arrows, the Lord killed them, one man through the hand of his neighbor; and the third division of those who said, We will ascend to heaven and fight against him, the Lord scattered them throughout the earth.
Jasher 9:36

 

[ghostofachance]

Still have a long way to go, just started Leviticus. Thanks!

 

[Ebionite]

Still have a long way to go, just started Leviticus. Thanks!

You're welcome. There's a distinction between the children of Israel (Leviticus 1:2) and the people of Israel (Exodus 19:25-20:26).

 

[ghostofachance]

You're welcome. There's a distinction between the children of Israel (Leviticus 1:2) and the people of Israel (Exodus 19:25-20:26).

Interesting, I had no idea. I read a comment today saying something like "If God took the Jews out of Egypt, why didn't He take them out of Europe?" One could ask the same thing when they were in Egypt: why did God wait so many years? How many Jews died until “God remembered the covenant”? Could it be that God reaches you only if you want to be reached? That is to say, it was precisely the lament of the people and the fact that they decided to call on God that made him react. Perhaps God does not save individuals, but entire masses. God places a burden on us: to live as morally, ethically, and correctly as possible despite the precondition of our mortality. Is there evil in the world so that God's goodness can be revealed?

In Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov," Ivan says that he does not believe in a God who allows a young girl to freeze in the street after being thrown out of her house by her parents, for whatever reason they had. . But I believe that God allows evil, because he cannot interfere with our will. Imagine the best version of the world that can exist, is that version of the world in which no one can voluntarily do wrong, but therefore not do well either, is simply a robot, is it better than a world in which a human could do good and evil, but voluntarily chooses to do good?

 

[Ebionite]

One could ask the same thing when they were in Egypt: why did God wait so many years?

Because of what happened in Genesis 15.

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Genesis 15:13

That is to say, it was precisely the lament of the people and the fact that they decided to call on God that made him react.

Ezekiel 19 has some information about that. The call of the people doesn't necessarily resolve the reason for their affliction.

Imagine the best version of the world that can exist, is that version of the world in which no one can voluntarily do wrong, but therefore not do well either, is simply a robot, is it better than a world in which a human could do good and evil, but voluntarily chooses to do good?

Yes, Ivan didn't understand the implications of free will. Humans have their own issues though, since the human condition isn't aligned with the divine. The language of humanism began with Cicero, who wrote that those outside of the "civilization" of Rome were subhuman.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes!

Can I give you a bit of advice? Take it or leave it. I'm not saying my way is the only way, but I made much more progress skipping around from book to book. I read one book at a time, from start to finish, but I would oscillate between the Old and New Testaments. I've managed to read around 70% of the Bible so far that way.

I tried your approach several times. Genesis to Revelation. But I always got stuck at Exodus and Deuteronomy. It's because they are such a slog. I had much more success skipping ahead and reading one of the Gospels, then going back and reading Job. I even managed to make my way through Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers by sandwiching them in between two more approachable books.

Like I said, that's just what worked for me. You do you. You might have some kind of reader's discipline that I don't have, in which case, perhaps it'll be easy for you to do it start to finish.

 

[ghostofachance]

Can I give you a bit of advice? Take it or leave it. I'm not saying my way is the only way, but I made much more progress skipping around from book to book. I read one book at a time, from start to finish, but I would oscillate between the Old and New Testaments. I've managed to read around 70% of the Bible so far that way.

I tried your approach several times. Genesis to Revelation. But I always got stuck at Exodus and Deuteronomy. It's because they are such a slog. I had much more success skipping ahead and reading one of the Gospels, then going back and reading Job. I even managed to make my way through Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers by sandwiching them in between two more approachable books.

Like I said, that's just what worked for me. You do you. You might have some kind of reader's discipline that I don't have, in which case, perhaps it'll be easy for you to do it start to finish.

Hello. Thank you for the advice. I have heard from many others that they read the Bible in this way. Also when I looked only on different websites where they guide you through the reading many also recommend this approach. Right now I'll keep on reading it in a chronological order, but if I find it too tedious at some point, I'll try your style. Thanks!

 

[Kenny]

- Genesis

1) The Babel Tower: in this story, humanity, who speaks the same language, decides to build a tower that reaches heaven and God to become famous and not disperse across the earth. God came down and saw it and scattered everyone throughout the land and made them speak in different languages and they did not understand each other. A generic interpretation indicates that this passage explains the origin of all languages and cultures, as a consequence of divine punishment. But, in Hebrew they do not say “those who spoke the same language”, but rather they use the expression “the whole earth had one lip”, which has nothing to do with the question of language, but rather of power. That is, everyone was subject to an emperor who used the tax system to oppress others and maintain power. The conquerors built towers as a symbol of power, whose top floor was destined for the divinity, who came down from heaven to speak with the emperor. In this way they tried to convince the people that divinity was on the side of the oppressor. Then, could it be interpreted that God came down and destroyed the tower, a symbol of union between the oppressor and divinity, to free the people from the “one lip"? So it is not a punishment but a liberation? Reading it today, can it be a reflection on globalization? Is it suitable for all people? What role are all institutions, including religion, play in this process?

That is an interesting thought!

I would be interested in you found the "one lip" and its meaning.

In https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8175 it says two things: 11:1Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words.

Apparently a uniform in words? But I love the potential of an additional application that you shared and the being the control issue - the oppressor.

I find a couple of additional thought:

1. That the confusing of the language wasn't a creation of all languages but rather a confusion in understanding each others intentions or vision. In other words, a confusion in thought processes that caused them to be against each other which ended up with "each to his own group of thought, lip, common goal"
2. Additionally, the potential was that instead of "replenish the earth" or "spreading out", they were concentrating on being in one place in discord of God's design.

I find that applicable today in that it appears to me that large concentrated cities seem to have more issues than those smaller cities that are spread out.

 

[ghostofachance]

That is an interesting thought!

I would be interested in you found the "one lip" and its meaning.

In https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8175 it says two things: 11:1Now the entire earth was of one language and uniform words.

Apparently a uniform in words? But I love the potential of an additional application that you shared and the being the control issue - the oppressor.

I find a couple of additional thought:

1. That the confusing of the language wasn't a creation of all languages but rather a confusion in understanding each others intentions or vision. In other words, a confusion in thought processes that caused them to be against each other which ended up with "each to his own group of thought, lip, common goal"
2. Additionally, the potential was that instead of "replenish the earth" or "spreading out", they were concentrating on being in one place in discord of God's design.

I find that applicable today in that it appears to me that large concentrated cities seem to have more issues than those smaller cities that are spread out.

Yes!
"large concentrated cities seem to have more issues than those smaller cities that are spread out" totally agree!

Like Quote