Nitpicking Genesis
[read the disclaimer before proceeding]
The purpose of these pages is not to “disprove” any religions or to offend any individuals, but rather to fulfill a personal longing for the truth. In the process, however, I will be pleased if these pages can help steer potential victims away from a childishly literal interpretation of the Bible, and argue that this kind of interpretation is demonstrably harmful.
What follows is a logically and scientifically rigorous analysis of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The verses are shown in bold text, and my questions and comments are shown in plain indented text. I will continually post additions to the comments, as well as rebuttals that I may find in other websites, usenet postings, or e-mails sent to me. I will then post my responses to the rebuttals, and the process will begin again. In time, I hope this will become an all-inclusive list of inconsistencies, fallacies, and contradictions found in Genesis. This will also include lists of responses and “solutions” to the contradictions from the perspectives of believers of literal and not-so-literal interpretations of Genesis.
Please click on any of the Genesis links in the sidebar to view the commentary for a certain chapter. As you can see, the commentary is still in its infancy, but is nevertheless ready for viewing and feedback.
I am indeed aware of the existence of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (a website with a similar purpose to these pages), and have the greatest admiration for the author’s comments. However, because of the sheer volume of the SAB, the comments seen there tend to be very brief and often require further elaboration. I have also found that, if I focus on Genesis alone, I can come up with a great deal more comments than the SAB contains, especially if I am going to include responses to the comments. Therefore, at least for Genesis, this will be a more complete list.
Keep in mind that these pages offer commentary that is based on a mostly literal (and sometimes super-literal) interpretation of Genesis. If a certain comment appears absolutely ridiculous, then it must originate from a ridiculously literal interpretation. The thing to remember is that there are individuals that actually adhere to, and swear by, such interpretations.
Ethics of Interpretation
The fact that one person’s interpretation of the Bible may be abhorrent to another already conflicts with the idea of the Bible being divinely inspired. It begs the question, “Couldn’t a god do a better job of writing a book, especially if the book is supposed to be the guidebook for our lives and our key to salvation?”
Christian bookstores are overflowing with “companion” guides that attempt to enlighten the reader as to the “true” interpretation of a certain verse, or the “real” reason a certain Biblical event took place. But why is any of this necessary if it is the Bible itself that we are supposed to believe, not some biased third-party supplement?
I suspect that most Christian responses to this commentary will be appeals to interpretation. But interpretation is inherently personal, and thus inadmissible as an argument.
Literal Interpretations
I doubt that a completely literal interpretation of Genesis is even conceivable, just because of the vagueness of the language used in the first few chapters. For example, “God created the heaven and the earth” is scientifically meaningless and can only be interpreted as a metaphor. It would seem that the Bible, especially Genesis, leaves a few too many things up to the imagination of the reader.
There are, however, many individuals who claim to take the entire Bible “word for word,” despite the mental acrobatics necessary for such a feat, and the absurdity of the claim itself. I am certain that comments from such individuals will also be included in this list, and will be the primary target of this analysis.
Semi-literal Interpretations
Others (in fact, a greater number than literalists) claim to take the Bible “word for word,” but only in certain places. Quite simply, this translates to: “There are some things in the Bible that even I can’t wrap my mind around.” One would think that this kind of interpretation would begin to raise questions and suspicions in the mind of the semi-literalist. Enter the patented Christian defense mechanism, “God works in mysterious ways” — a brilliantly crafted auto-response system that suppresses any further desire to question or reason things out. A similar form of the defense mechanism is, “You just have to believe.” In the mind of the believer, mysteries (at least religious ones) are meant to be unsolved, and the believer is left simply to bask in their insolubility. In fact, the greater the mystery, the better it is not to solve it. And the more absurd the verse, the more of a virtue it is to believe it (this is covered in great detail by Richard Dawkins in Viruses of the Mind).
An obvious question that arises against semi-literal interpretations is, on whose authority does one decide which verses to take literally, and which to take as metaphor? There is also, of course, an infinite number of degrees of semi-literal interpretation of the Bible, where some people may adhere literally to more verses than others, which only makes the above question all the more important.
Nonliteral Interpretations
Yes, there are indeed Christians that believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. There are also Christians that go so far as saying that Genesis was not written by God, or not even inspired by God.
These kinds of interpretation would require blocking out entire chapters of the Bible and treating them as nothing but metaphor and bits of ancient wisdom. What, then, becomes left of the Bible? Why not simply take the extra step and consider “God” a metaphor as well?
In any case, it seems that a strictly literal (or as-close-to-literal) interpretation of Genesis would be fitting for this kind of analysis. This would minimize discrimination against anybody’s personal interpretation, and at the same time invite believers to examine such a literal interpretation and demonstrate how each verse breaks apart at the slightest application of reason.
October 17th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
I believe that you are not describing the ways in which literalists, semi-literalists and parabolic (non-litereral) people believe. You are simply making statements that are extremely harsh about each type and making insubstantial claims. Please back these up.
The majority of modern-day Christians are semi-literalist. The substance behind their belief (whether they know it or not) is that the hebrew word Yom is a word that is defined as “a period of time”, because hebrews did not have a specific numbering system. Modern translations of the bible will tell you in the first chapter of Genesis (as a footnote or something) that the word “day” is inappropriate, and the period of time truly could have been ages.
You say we (semi-literalists) choose not to take the Bible “word for word, but only in certain places”, but you dont mention that the true form of the Bible is in Hebrew, and it must be understood that there are parts of the Bible which dont translate directly.
I would comment on the other two views, but I do not know them well enough to have helpful insight, just illegitimate claims.
October 17th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Sorry if my statements are harsh, but it doesn’t make them any less true. In fact, you haven’t really specified which of my claims you’d like me to “back up.” Your interpretation of Genesis is just one of hundreds that are possible. Instead of explaining the “true” interpretation to me, you should try preaching it to fellow Christians who have an equally strong conviction about their different interpretation as you do about yours.
As for the Hebrew word “yom,” it is true that the word can imply several different periods of time. But, if you don’t believe that it refers to a literal 24-hour day, then what does the text refer to when it speaks of “evening” and “morning” before and after each “day”?
August 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Literal Interpretations
Just because a statement has no scientific data in it doesn’t make it a metaphor. “God created the heaven and the earth” is a statement like “I went to the store”. Neither statement is a metaphor just because no scientific proof was included. It is a fact. I did go to the store.
It is quit possible your interpretation is the wrong one - especially since I have shown the flaw in your argument. I believe you are an example of someone who wants to believe the bible is false so you see what you want to see. How else can anyone explain the silly argument that I easily exposed. How else can you explain why someone like you would spend so much time trying to disprove something?
Did you know you are in the bible?
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:43 am
hey ron this is addressing your comment
if i call you an idiot and i dont prove it does it mean its true? because that seems to be what you are saying. its not a metaphor its a fact you are an idiot. care to prove me wrong with your logic?
September 27th, 2006 at 2:51 am
PS
this was only an example i do not mean to put you down in anyway i am sure you are intelligent. If you were not then you would not have posted. I apologise for the example i realised after i posted it how it reads. Again i say this was not directed at you it could be directed at anyone. By saying someone is an idiot and not proving it does not make it a fact.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
The above article claimed the biblical statement “God created the heaven and the earth” is scientifically meaningless and can only be interpreted as a metaphor. I simply showed that a statement absent of scientific evidence isn’t always a metaphor. Thus his argument is flawed. Every day all of us make statements that are not metaphors that are “scientifically meaningless”. I used one of those statements “I went to the store”.
Thanks for helping to make my point. You can say I am an idiot. Without proof that statement doesn’t become a metaphor. It could be a metaphor. It could be true. It could be wrong. But you can not say it is a metaphor just because there is no scientific proof. You see we both agree the article is wrong.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
PS
If I am an idiot. What does that say about the authors argument that is so flawed an idiot can see through it?
November 21st, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Ron,
It is a fact. I did go to the store.
That is a scientifically testable statement. It is possible to collect evidence that can prove or disprove this contention.
There is no way whatsoever to scientifically prove that God created the heaven(s) and the Earth. It is simply completely out of the realm of science, and as such can certainly be considered a metaphor. That is what DB means by his statement. You are just misunderstanding the comment.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
I thought the claim was: if there is not scientific evidence offered then it has to be a metaphor. I showed that no one offers scientific evidence to every claim they make, but we don’t call those claims metaphors.
You say the author meant: because no scientific evidence can be found it has to be a metaphor. That doesn’t change my point much. My point still holds. Lack of evidence doesn’t make something a metaphor.
It is possible that a thousand years from now there will be no trace of you ever living on earth except a story written about your life. By your reckoning your story would be a metaphor. Truth does not become a metaphor because of lack of evidence.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
My comment on Genesis:
What a pathetic joke. Talking Snakes? Misogyny without question designed to hold women back and control them. Honestly, god makes childbirth painful on purpose? Absolute nonsense, no rational educated human should even waste time debating it.
EVERY culture on the planet has a Creation Tale…What does that tell you? Only that Homo Sapiens have inate curiosity and a desire to explain their predicaments.
It is truly hilarious that talking snakes and burning bushes so conveniently only spoke thousands of years ago, and never once since. Also, we can see how the Vatican now concludes something was a miracle after the fact, a transparent assumption which then is fed to sheep at a later date.
I prefer the Polynesian Creation Tale where the Demi-God Maui lassos the sun and pulls the islands up from the depths…much more entertaining and just as plausible.
Face it, what we have in monotheistic religion is a total joke. We KNOW the Big Bang happened, if you cant understand advanced mathematics and how equations are reversed than to you, Baaaaaaa-Baaaaa! Go back to school and learn something worthwhile, your education was no different than a Madrasa.
Finally, Science does not disavow a Creator in any way. The Bang’s source is unknown and we could be anything from an experiment gone awry to a cruel joke.
Wake up it is going to be 2007 next week, LEARN FROM HISTORY BUT DO NOT LIVE IN THE PAST !!!!
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Christian women are some of the freest women I know. Read the story of Jesus. He broke with many of the traditions of the time when he treated women like he did men. Don’t blame God for the way men have acted over history. Even some atheists have treated women as 2nd class.
Some of the most rational and best educated humans have disagreed with your idea that they shouldn’t spend time debating this topic. You are taking the time to debate this. Are you saying you aren’t rational or intelligent?
If people are created to be with God (like the bible says) then we would expect every culture on the planet to have a creation tale. It would be a cruel God that would create people to be with him then not give us an innate curiosity and a desire to explain our existence – a desire to seek him. It’s simple - accept Jesus. Any one can do this. It is for everyone - men and women, black and white…
If Moses heard God from a burning bush today would you believe it? No. When God chose to speak is irrelevant. It is a convenient excuse for you not to believe. You wouldn’t believe it if it happened today. You would use another excuse. Stop making excuses and ask God to reveal himself to you.
No one knows if the big bang happened. There are many non-religious scientists who don’t believe the big bang happened. You must have slept through those discussions during your vast education.
What do you suggest I learn from history that you think I don’t already know?
March 16th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I built a time machine and turned the dial back a little past 2000 years. I had my way with the virgin Mary. Jesus was my son. I am the Father. Just have faith and accept me. Stop making excuses. You can’t prove otherwise.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Ahh - you stopped taking your meds again.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:42 am
First, I ask all of you here to think of someone you love. (other than yourself ofcourse) Think of that person, child, or pet even. Someone that would truely effect the course of your life should they disappear.
Example, my wife. She is my life, she is my world.
Now imagine if someone asked you to prove it. How would you? How would you present scientific evidence that you loved this being? How could you quantify the amount of love you feel for your children?
2nd, The big bang is currently being disproved. The latest argument is much more logical. Google it.
3rd, Genesis and many other places have loads of things human science cannot “wrap its head around”. But things will be proven, and truths will come to rise, as they always do. History shows revelation after revelation.
Just like the time when sneezing meant your sould was trying to escape your body.
We now know otherwise.
Because we cannot fathom creating the heaven and the earth, does not mean a GOD cannot acheive such a feet.
History shows, many pieces fall together and truths revealed over the course of time. This will continue. For 1 reason only. To define the believers, AND the non believers.
The believers try to convince non believers. The non believers try to convince believers.
But what to show for the whole thing?
Well, if the believers are correct, all their efforts will be rewarded beyond human capacity.
If the non belivers are correct….. what do they get….? A sense of meaninglessness…? Anyone?
To begin to define something, you must first define its parts. We as humans cannot yet even do the latter.
We were created in the image of god, but not to his equal. To know the answers and all meaning is to surrender to god. Only then you will know and understand.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
for the record.literal interpetation of the bible is FUCKING STUPID!!! and anyone who does so must be willing to admit they are not applying logic/critical thinking in this ONE aspect of thier life. the bible is about as historically accurate as a motherfucking disney movie you retatded fundamentallists. please remove yourselves from existence. and stop dumbing down the human race. or, go to your motherland (middle east) and get your asses killed. how committed are you to your beloved faith?
January 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Thanks for an example of your brilliant critical thinking and logic.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
as accurate as a disney movie? the bible was the only source to record the existence of the ancient hittites and edomites, for one example, when no secular evidence of these cultures were provided.
Max… why dont you research before you speak? instead of showing ignorance, and your low intelligence.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
So I’m reading through this for the first time and am fascinated by the well thought out opinions. An insult pops up and is deflected away as part of a bigger argument, and someone even incorporates the insult into the discussion.
Then I get to Max’s comment. DB, why don’t you remove Max’s comment? It’s offensive and adds nothing to the debate.
To Adam, if the non-believers are correct it does not result in a feeling of “meaningless”; the result is the opposite. A non-believer gets the feeling of empowerment that comes from the understanding that an individual is in control of oneself and not under the control of some unknown entity. The “church” can’t enslave a person or control a person through an elaborate series of stories. A feeling of spiritual choice.
I believe the non-believers spend far less time on the “convincing” than the believers, but this may be linked to the rewards of being right by either group. The believers are playing a bigger game than the non-believers.
One opinion from a fence sitter.
July 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
It’s funny that the believers appear to require a weekly dose of the same old story over and over in order to stay convinced or at least to stay faithful. Whats with that? You have the book, take it home and live by it line for line and you’ll be safe. Is there a point to the whole Church thing or is this just an oppertunity make a profit. Get it? Prophets, LOL. Any ways, if He needed mans help to a)spread the word and b)make it convincing, then I’d say there’s a huge problem with the entire god theory to begin with. For sure as a loving god, he would have made a convincing enough story to save all the souls of everyone who read it. I read it and I still don’t believe, has he failed me? I don’t won’t to burn in heaven, I’m a good person, please save my soul dear lord, my father!
But to the point at hand. What was the point in having a book published to represent you (Him), knowing it would be disputted and frankly very flimsy in the company of science, reason, and logic. Maybe science is the tool of the devil as is reason, logic, and intelligence? Oh wow, so he’s just fucking with us now, testing us, putting us through a maze and seeing what comes out (even though He already knows). He just has a lot of time on his hand and is very disrespectable of our right to know the truth, I mean this is a serious subject right? Hell for ALL eternity and everything. I would expect more loyalty from an enemy than it seems he’s willing to give me. God how stupid can one get. I’m looking at eternity in hell and all he’s willing to offer is a terrible story. Goddamn you God, you sick fuck! Wake up Ron.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
What I don’t understand is the intense anger of most non-believers. Do they go after children with such disdain for believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Do they assault Greek Mythology or Fables and Fairy Tales with such a degree of virulence ? Why would they? these are just careless imaginations of simple minds. If the description of Christianity is no more than this , then why not let them believe? what can it harm? What makes the subject of God so different? so much more important?
They will say it is because of the past atrocities committed in the name of God by men. And that this must all be stopped for the good of mankind. That self power comes from freedom; freedom from the evil naivety of religion and the empirical churches.
But bad people have been doing bad things in the name of something good as long as history has been recorded. Men do evil in the name of many things: conquest, money, love, land, oil, family, opinion, democracy, race, beauty; but mostly ignorance. But even so, what say they to these things? If some one commits a horrible act in the name of something moral or valuable does it then become immoral or invaluable? or loose it’s meaning as a positive social value? Should its existence be erased from the present history of man?
Could it be that the anger is from somewhere much deeper?. Could it come from the undeniable self realization that God cannot just be explained away with scientific evaluation? Is it an anger caused by the fear of the unknown? Is it in the nagging fact that even with all the science and our most intellectual arguments, the very reality that God may exist is quite possibly true? Is it eschatological? knowing that in the end, we will only be left to be judged in our own stupidity and that we will be well deserving of it.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Paul,
Just because the statements of non-believers are in strong disagreement with your beliefs doesn’t make non-believers angry people.
I find it ironic that you compare arguing against god to arguing against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Are you admitting that the former is equally easy to debunk?
You are correct that people have committed evil in the name of conquest, money, land, etc. But at least those things EXIST. What angers non-believers is when people commit evil in the name of which fairy tale they believe in.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“Just because the statements of non-believers are in strong disagreement with your beliefs doesn’t make non-believers angry people.”
This thread is not the only source that I have drawn my conclusions about angry non-believers from.
I did not state that “all” non-believers are angry, but I will not deny that many fall into this category.
A brief review of the previous posts would lend credence to my observation.
“I find it ironic that you compare arguing against god to arguing against Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Are you admitting that the former is equally easy to debunk?”
You miss interpret the meaning of my comments, and I can only assume you do this intentionally.
It wasn’t difficult to understand the intent.
“You are correct that people have committed evil in the name of conquest, money, land, etc. But at least those things EXIST. What angers non-believers is when people commit evil in the name of which fairy tale they believe in.”.
In your opening statement you claim what motivates the non-believer is not anger, and then contradict yourself in your closing statement by pointing out what angers a non-believer, and then apply it to the very topic of God. You also assert the atheist “Fairy” defense. If millions of people claimed to hear, see, and be affected by fairies, then we might give some credibility to that presupposition . But we know that fairies do not exist; therefore, both you and I can ignore that observation and move on to a non aggressive debate.
I look forward to your reply.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:05 am
@Paul
With regard to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, these are subjects which society in general agrees are fantasy. Little attempt is made to hide this fact. Wars are not fought over it. Most children come to understand the reality in due time. One does not generally find grown adults professing a belief in these things. Those that do are typically found residing in mental health facilities.
In contrast, Christianity is not a subject that society in general agrees is fantasy. Much effort is expended to defend the faith against accusations of falsehood. Many wars have been fought over it. Children do not necessarily grow out of it. A great many adults profess a belief in the subject, and they are not commonly found in mental facilities.
As for fairies, how is it that you know they do not exist? Have you seen evidence of this that you might share with us? I could ask the same thing of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Is there any evidence of their nonexistence? Granted, there is evidence that our understanding of these things is based upon fiction or fictionalizations of actual events, but that does not refute the existence of these beings. It just means our stories are not based upon them.