There are some universally accepted platitudes that might teach those who are interested the basic tenets of how to be a decent human being, but those same concepts are expressed in many other philosophies and in widely disparate cultures. Finished, I was very disappointed to discover that the vast majority of the text seemed to be little more than a huge con job, a how-to-workbook intended for the rich and powerful so they have an easy method to control and fleece the superstitious and naive yokels.

That's my own take away, and one of several reasons that I am an atheist; your milage may vary.

was relieved when a Rabbi told me it was written for Jewish people, not me.

So, I skipped much of it and just moved on to the NT. Now I keep a Red Letter Bible around and only read what Jesus says about an issue. Not that I buy any of it, just a story.

Suggest reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, when you get there. The Professor takes an academic look at the NT.

* [4:24–26] This story continues to perplex commentators and may have circulated in various forms before finding its place here in Exodus. Particularly troublesome is the unique phrase “spouse of blood.” Nevertheless, v. 26, which apparently comes from the hand of a later commentator on the original story, is intended to offer some clarification. It asserts that when Zipporah used the problematic expression (addressing it either to Moses or her son), she did so with reference to the circumcision performed on her son—the only place in the Bible where this rite is performed by a woman. Whatever the precise meaning of the phrase “spouse of blood,” circumcision is the key to understanding it as well as the entire incident. One may conclude, therefore, that God was angry with Moses for having failed to keep the divine command given to Abraham in Gn 17:10–12 and circumcise his son. Moses’ life is spared when his wife circumcises their son.

I think if you poll any group of atheists on why they left religion, about half will say that they read the whole bible.

Some of it doesn't seem to make sense.

Some parts contradict other parts.

And the Old Testament is just full of cruelty. (Not to mention the horror movie that is The Revelation)

4:24-26: The kinship ties beween the Lord and Moses' family are acted out in this story.

4:24: It is unclear who is being attacked by the Lord during the night: Moses' son Gershom? Or Moses himself? In either case, the attack probably represents the Lord's claim on firstborn.

4:25-26: Zipporah stops the attack by circumcising Gershom and warding off the deity with the bloody foreskin. "Feet" is a euphemism for genitals. It is unclear whether Zipporah touches Moses' genitals or is making a symbolic reference to God. Her statement, "Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" eliminates Gershom as the object of her action. If Moses is the object of her action, then the story may represent an ancient understanding of circumcision as a rescue of the firstborn from the divine claim upon their lives, with Moses representing the firstborn. If the Lord is the object of her action, then the story underscores the familial bond between God and human beings. In the context of the book of Exodus, the story prefigures the death of the Egyptian firstborn and the power of the Passover blood to ward off the divine destroyer.

Perhaps it makes more sense in the original Hebrew?