An Atheist Reads the Bible

An Atheist Reads The Bible

Section 1: Genesis to Psalms

Many times Christians have berated me and told me to read the Bible. The idea seems to be that if I (somebody who is clearly smarter than they are) would read the Bible I must then start to believe in it all just as they do. I have always pooh-poohed that idea often with assertions such as you don't need to go to the South Pole to know it's cold.

Recently I have been at a bit of a loose end and I had read all the books in my possession that I had any desire to read or re-read or re-re-read and I decided to take the plunge and to read the Bible. If nothing else it would be one of those things on the To Do list which I could cross off.

So far I have reached Psalms and I have had no radical transformation in my beliefs. I am still an atheist. I have learnt quite a lot and the experience has been worth the effort. I suggest that anybody who lives in a Christian country and is an atheist should try to find the time before they die to read the Bible, but not until you you have done all the essential reading you need to do for your studies and career.

I have been reading the Authorized King James Version, because I've got a copy and it is small enough to carry around with me. That is the reason I chose it, but I am glad that I did because it is in every sense a classic piece of literature. Of course it is a little hard to read but no doubt it is easier than reading ancient Hebrew the wrong way round with no vowels and no spaces between words. The slightly archaic language helps remind me of the ancient heritage of the words. There is not much world literature which is older, at the time the words were written writing was as high-tech as gene sequencing is today, only a small number of cultures knew anything of it and within them only a minority knew how to do it, and they were generally quietly smug about that state of affairs. The KJV is written in the language of Shakespeare, Early Modern English, a dialect that due to our written culture we can still understand despite the relatively vast distance in time and culture that separate us from its authors writing just before 1611. If we consider how difficult it is to read Chaucer, which is only a couple of hundred years older the ease with which a modern reader can understand the King James Version without a glossary or translation is really notable. It seems to me that this is partly due to the conservative effects of having widespread literacy in a literate culture and partly due to the special power of this particular book, which for many families was the only reading material they had, which is a chilling and saddening thought. Read this book, it really is a classic. You will get new insights into your language and culture even if your religious views don't move a cubit.

Overview

So far I have read half of the Bible, by weight of page numbers. I have only just come across the first hint that God knows what people are thinking. Satan has had one brief appearance, no, not in the Garden of Eden, that's a snake, unless you're a Muslim. Satan appears for the first time in the book of Job which is transparently intended to be taken as both fictional and allegorical. Job is not given the usual three or four paragraphs of genealogy and he is not placed in a clear geographical context either, in sharp contrast to the clearly historical characters such as King David. (Well, as historical as Shakespeare's King Richard III, a fraction less mythical than Robin Hood). The appearance of Satan in the aftermath of the captivity (of a few elite Hebrews, just before they started to call themselves Jews) in Babylon is entirely to be expected, Zoroastrianism had the idea of the good god and his almost equal nemesis, so the invention of a bad lesser deity is hardly surprising. Of course the first half of the Bible has no hint of survival, reward or punishment after death. When people die they go to sleep with their ancestors, an idea that puts across the concept of them never waking up again without having to explain where they go in any great detail. Dead Ancient Hebrews are simply dead. There is only one exception to this which is the prophet Elijah, who does not die but ascends, bodily and without first dying, into the sky/heaven while old baldy watches in awe.

And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

Who said that alien abjuction stories were new?

Here's another thing I noticed, there's a lot of rending clothes in this book. Is that why Jews make such good tailors? Lots of practice stitching up rent garments.

Not only is there no hint of survival after death and therefore no hell, damnation or eternal “reward” (praising the tyrant god you fear and cannot escape for all eternity is a reward?) there is no immortal soul. When you're dead you're dead. The story's over. All punishment by God is done to the living, and whatever is convenient to be regarded as punishment or reward from God is the work of God. Children are the reward of God, so is riches, so is longevity. That is why all the people in the early parts of the Bible were so old. Anybody who was described as virtuous in the Bible had to live well past the age of ninety, often past an hundred and a score years and ideally have children (at least two sons to each daughter) in their dotage too. The virtuous are also rich, God makes people rich in life because the meek can't inherit the Earth and the poor eat no pie in the sky.

The Bible is clearly written as religious propaganda. You would have to be mentally defective to read this stuff and simply believe it at face value. The Bible is only convincing to people who read it needing it to be convincing, people who want to be taken in by it. Reading it with normal bullshit filters in place, with the sceptic's toolkit and even with the standard issue analytical tools of reading literature it is immediately apparent that the stuff is written by many different people with contrasting styles, differing abilities and differing agendas. It is clearly not divinely inspired. If it was divinely inspired it would surely read better, be more consistent, less laughable and would be focused on a divine goal.

Genesis

There are two creation stories here, back-to-back, and they are not consistent in style or chronology. The sequence of creation is not scientifically accurate and to suggest that it is shows straw-clutching desperation on the part of Biblical literalists.

The serpent is clearly a serpent and the entire story is clearly allegory and myth. Only a cretin would believe that this literally happened! The serpent is a talking snake. In the Qur'an the tempter in the garden is Satan but this is not so here. If it was Satan in disguise God punished all snakes for no reason, it would be less unjust to lock up all skiers (and their children for all eternity) for rape because one rapist once used a ski mask. God clearly saw the snake as a snake and punished snakes (by pulling their legs off?) for this snake sin. Nobody comes out well from this story, least of all the idiots who regard it as true and more true than anything provable by science. Punishing mankind and womankind separately is ridiculous and of course unjust in the extreme. The concept that anybody can be born guilty of the sins of a distant ancestor is thoroughly obscene.

To be continued

'What would you substitute for the Bible as a moral guide?'

Words by Robert G Ingersoll

Read by Nick Gisburne

Atheism \| Politics \| Memes \| Mind \| Matters \| Interact \| Feedback \| Email \| Links \| Search \| Debate \| Home
© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited