Genesis 2
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
- The heavens are never “finished.” New stars are born all the time in gaseous stellar nurseries, and old stars either explode or collapse.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
- Since when does God need rest?! Would it not jeopardize the omnipotence of God if he requires “rest” from his activities?
- Something curious: It took God almost three full days to create the earth (a single planet) and everything on it, but then it took him less than one day to create millions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars, with many stars having planetary systems of their own! Why is there such an obscene disparity in the efficiency of God’s work? Why was God so meticulous in creating this one planet, but then so casual in creating everything else?
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
- A new author has obviously taken over at this point. A glaring example is that the word “LORD” is never used in Chapter 1, and yet it’s used everywhere in this chapter. The writing style also becomes different. (Young’s Literal Translation uses “God” in Chapter 1, but switches to “Jehovah God” in subsequent chapters, and Darby’s Translation uses “God” in Chapter 1, but switches to “Jehovah Elohim” in subsequent chapters)
- The need to write the word “LORD” in all-caps still eludes me. Perhaps it’s similar to the Jewish requirement to write “God” as “G-d,” thus omitting the “o” and minimizing the mortal sin of saying God’s name aloud.
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
- All right, it appears that this new author wants to restate the story of creation. Let’s have a listen:
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
- It appears that we’ve discovered evaporation. What happened to the firmament mentioned in the first chapter?
- So this creation story is saying that God created plants by watering the earth with a mist, not by just asking the earth to “bring forth” the plants?
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
- But this is not the way it “really” happened. Chapter 1, Verse 26 clearly states that God(s) created Man after all the plants and animals. However, in this creation story, it seems that the LORD created Man first. Which Biblical day are we in at this point? And, for that matter, which creation story are we supposed to believe?
- This verse states that man was made out of “dust.” Now, even a simple visual examination of the human body would prove otherwise. Furthermore, we have also found that the body is made up of tiny individual organisms (cells), each “alive” in their own way. Why doesn’t the Bible talk about any of this?
- Incidentally, the nostrils lead to the lungs, which are indeed essential for life, but certainly not for a “soul.” The LORD should try accessing the man’s brain.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
- So this author claims that even plants were created after man. And what Biblical day is this, again?
2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
2:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
2:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
- Who cares about “gold” if no one is living there to collect it and trade it for goods and services? There’s only one man in existence right now!
2:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
2:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
- Fascinating, but irrelevant. Did the LORD assign all these names? Or was it the people who were already living there before God began his creation?
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
- Why would the garden need to be “kept” if it is supposedly in a perfect state?
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
- If the LORD doesn’t want Adam to eat from a certain tree, then why create the tree?
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
- Why is it not good for the man to be alone? Couldn’t God create the man such that it would be good for the man to be alone? Also, by definition, how can God create something that is “not good”?
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
- So, according to this creation story, God created all the animals just to please Adam? Compare this to (1:20-25), which suggests that God created animals to please himself, and certainly before he created humans. Which story are we supposed to believe?
- Which Biblical day is this?! It appears like this whole creation story is happening in a single day, instead of seven.
- Here the LORD creates animals and fowls out of the ground, but in the first creation story the fowls were brought forth by water (1:20).
- Exactly how long did it take for Adam to name every “kind” of animal? And how many total “kinds” were there?
- Why did God have Adam name every animal if none of the original names are in use anymore?
- Since Adam and his early descendants could not write, they had to pass down the names of all animals verbally. With roughly 50 billion total species (alive + extinct), wouldn’t it take a significant portion of their lives just to teach their children the names of the animals? Supposing that each child would start to learn names of animals at age 3, and stop at age 18, the child would have to memorize about 10 animal names every millisecond. If they couldn’t accomplish this, then wouldn’t the naming of all animals by Adam have been pretty pointless?
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
- Why in the world would God think that any animal would make a suitable companion for Adam?
2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
- The male body has very specific organs that are only useful for reproduction with a female. Did God create Adam complete with such organs before God even realized that He would later need to create a female for Adam? Wouldn’t an ideal Adam have been sexless? Or did the LORD “add on” the appropriate organs after the female was created?
- Why couldn’t the LORD create the woman out of more dust? Why did he create the woman out of the man’s rib, thereby initiating a perpetual theme of sexism throughout the Bible?
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
- If the woman was created out of the man’s rib, then she would be virtually a genetic clone of the man (aside from some minor differences). For obvious reasons, this is not exactly the best genetic fodder for starting a new species.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
- What is this talking about? Fathers and mothers don’t exist yet! So who does this apply to? Also, Adam and Eve didn’t have a “mother” of any kind.
2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
- The only reason anyone would be “ashamed” to walk around naked is because our society has influenced us in that way. Clothing (apart from its survival purposes) probably became enforced when men started getting too horny at the sight of a beautiful woman. The more covered she is, the better the men behave. Whatever the reasons, notice that Adam and Eve don’t have a society to influence them. So why should they be ashamed of being naked if there’s no one else there, and Eve is already Adam’s wife?
Final Thoughts on Chapter 2
As a creation story, this chapter is startlingly different from the first. The order of creation is completely changed, as well as the purpose of creation. The story in Chapter 1 was, more or less, complete, and needed no further storyline. The author of Chapter 2, however, apparently decides to retell the story with a totally different point of view, and introduces a whole new host of Biblical difficulties.
May 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
You’re point about Adam and his reproductive organs has implications for God “himself.” After all if God is male then this implies (assuming that certain male organs which seem amazingly matched to certain femal organs are the essence of male and female) this implies the exsistence of some female to go with God. A Godess perhaps?
January 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I’m no expert on Biblical exegesis or hermeneutics, but here is a link to an interesting article regarding the ‘two creation accounts’:
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
January 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am
“The need to write the word “LORD” in all-caps still eludes me.” - The likely reason is an attempt of literal translation. In Genesis 2 the actor “elohim JHWH” is normally translated as “God the LORD” (in German “Gott der HERR”). “Elohim” means “The Gods” (plural), but in connection with a name, as JHWH, it becomes singular, as in “We the King”.
So the correct translation would be “the God JHWH”. This sounds a little funny, so most translators replaced JHWH with LORD.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“Word of God”=Inspired
God is the Author
In Genesis 2 God has told us in more detail what went on in Genesis 1. It focuses more on man and woman whom God created. Since God let us know excactly when all this took place, He does not need to re-emphasize everything in Genesis 1. If you read into it a little more, you will see that there are actually no contradictions. Some of the questions you have asked are quite pointless… Some we won’t know until we get to heaven…
You often question God’s power, and you might want to tone it down a bit. “Why didn’t God do this… why did He do this?” Chill for a sec! Because He’s God! He did it… that’s all you have to know! We can go into this all day… Why didn’t God just redeem man without sending Christ? Because He has a perfect will, and no one knows the mind of God! You act as if God is just some entity that can be figured out completely or something…
Oh and another thing… When sin entered the world… shame came with it.
If you are a believer, I would seriously reccomend that you ground your faith… because if I didn’t know better, I would say that you are some atheist attempting to disprove the Bible and God, “the Author and Finisher of our faith”.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The author of the website doesn’t have to profess his religious affiliation to critique the 2nd version of the creation myth. The assumption that a god exist is a product of belief. The author does not have to “chill for a sec.” because truth has been “chilling” for thousands of years but that won’t last long.
There is no one named “Christ”. The person who you refer to is a biblical character named “Yeshua” whose name was later changed to “Jesus”. “Jesus” may be the “author and finisher” of your faith but not of everyone’s.
I personally don’t follow a god who is a savage as Jehovah. He can’t even wrestle for Pete’s sake! But he does seem to enjoy having sex with helpless little girls. If you need the scriptures for these abominations I will happily provide. This proves that you have never read the bible.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
@Joe
You’ve done a wonderful job of justifying one of the core tenets of rational thinking. Your arguments are textbook tautology. In case you are not familiar with that term, it essentially means something which is inherently true or correct. Put another way, it refers to something which requires no justification or evidentiary support because it just is. Such claims are summarily rejected because there is no way to separate the ones with potential merit from the ones that are just plain stupid.
As an example, I could claim the belief that my living room is being illuminated by lots of little glowing creatures that are flying out of the lamp because it is their house and it is on fire. I doubt, however, that you would accept such a claim. Why then should we believe you when you say that God exists and provide no justification? Both of us claim our ideas are true for no reason other than we believe them to be, so why should your claim be accepted and mine not?
This is the problem with tautology. Without evidence there is no way to separate the legitimate from the crap.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
@Milo
Tautology.
I see your point: However, under what rational subjection would we evaluate your claim that your living room is being illuminated by lots of little glowing creatures that are flying out of the lamp because it is their house and it is on fire. Our doubt of this claim would be justified in that it would be an isolated incident perceived by only you, it would not be based on a mass observation that would lend some evidence to your claim. Applying utterly unobservable evidence to the mass belief in God does in no way negate the existence or possibility of God. Your Straw Man argument is fallacious in which you are attacking your opponents position with an exaggerated or caricatured version of his position. You are as wrong as he is in that fashion.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Peace be with you.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:05 am
@Paul
You are absolutely correct. Lack of evidence in support of an idea does not refute the idea, nor did I ever claim otherwise. You may choose to view my words as an attempt to refute Joe’s belief in God, but you could not be more wrong about my intentions. I am obligated to accept that God may very well exist for the simple fact that “evidence of absence” is fallacious. One can no more negate the existence of God than they can Russell’s Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My only attribution to Joe was that his argument was tautological, and my rejection of his ideas was on that basis alone.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Let me state this.
I do not believe in Flying Pasta, Fairies, Leprechauns,
Pink Space Unicorns, or mythological Greek entities.
In the non-existence of these I am sure we will agree: but, if you wish to argue as to what we do not agree upon then let us do so.
I believe in the Christian God of the Bible, and not just God but in faith on Jesus Christ.
If you find fault in these facts then please present those arguments.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
@Paul
I do not agree in the nonexistence of the things you mention. As I said, it is a fallacy to say that something does not exist. To do so is to say that one has investigated the entirety of existence (in all of its dimensions) and failed to observe the subject in question. Human beings are presently incapable of even defining existence let alone measuring it. In fact, science takes it as fundamental that we will never be able to do so. No matter how far we look, no matter how much we learn, it is always possible there is something more. On the flip-side, however, it is also possible there is not.
You claim a belief in God. You are free to hold such a belief. I will never tell a person otherwise. However, believing in something does not make it so. Likewise, the inability to disprove the existence of something does not make it so. The same can be said of the reverse. The inability to prove the existence of something does not make it false. It is for these reasons that I both do not believe in God and, simultaneously, do not believe in the nonexistence of God. I hold God in the same regard as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Great Pumpkin; as an unsubstantiated (and not refuted) possibility that may yet someday gain corroboration.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“…as an unsubstantiated (and not refuted) possibility that may yet someday gain corroboration.”
This is not atheism, it is agnosticism. Your admission that not all information can be acquired logically requires the possibility for the existence of the thing (God) being considered. Am I safe in assuming you are simply Agnostic and not Atheistic?
July 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“This is not atheism, it is agnosticism.”
I am unaware that I claimed either of these.
“Your admission that not all information can be acquired logically requires the possibility for the existence of the thing (God) being considered.”
I believe I acknowledged said possibility, in the statement you quoted no less.
“Am I safe in assuming you are simply Agnostic and not Atheistic?”
You may think of me however you wish. I prefer the term scientist, as my views are those of science in general and not limited to the subject of theism. If, however, when applied to that narrow context my views become consistent with another term, so be it.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
You are right in saying that you did not claim either position. You claim no position, this can only be defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning any given concept. It’s obvious to me what this particular sight is about and I’m sure you are aware of the concepts being discussed here. No one when faced with a concept is unaffected by the concept. This is why the no position defense of the atheists or agnostic is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize theories or concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is in our human nature to do this. We do not do nothing with information we receive; therefore we cannot remain unaffected by the concept once it is introduced to us, which is what you seem to be doing, and quite eloquently might I add.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:55 am
I’m not exactly sure why you think I’ve taken no position. I’m pretty sure I claimed the scientific position. I can only assume you do not understand what that means.
Contrary to popular belief, science is noncommittal. While the average person may find value in concepts such as truth or fact, science does not. Science deals only with possibility. An idea may be right and it may be wrong. Only two things are rejected: contradiction (inherent falsehood) and tautology (inherent truth).
This is entirely consistent with your acceptance/rejection scale but with the added restriction that the extremes of totality are limits (i.e. unattainable). As evidence in support of an idea becomes available, a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it. Likewise, as evidence in refutation of an idea becomes available, a scientist will tend to shift toward the rejection end but they will never completely reject it. In certain cases, a scientist will feel there is no credible evidence either way and will hold in the neutral position at the middle of the scale.
To put this all back into the context of Dmitry’s article, my position is exactly as I said in my original comment. I reject the tautology that God did what he did for no reason other than because he is God.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
“While the average person may find value in concepts such as truth or fact, science does not. Science deals only with possibility. An idea may be right and it may be wrong.”
I find this to be an illogical statement and a contradiction of terms.
You are trying to give a new definition of science.
You are right in saying that the popular belief is that science is committal.
That’s because the accepted definition of science is that it is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
Science is indeed dedicated to proving facts as truths.
“a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it.”
Your comment is to broad and not based on actual evidence. If a theory is not proven then yes, a scientist may shift towards acceptance, but once a theory is proven as fact it is accepted scientifically.
Grab any college level science text book and look inside. It is filled with accepted facts taught as science.
To place yourself outside of poplar belief does not in fact make your statement a truth.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
“While the average person may find value in concepts such as truth or fact, science does not. Science deals only with possibility. An idea may be right and it may be wrong.”
I find this to be an illogical statement and a contradiction of terms.
You are trying to give a new definition of science.
You are right in saying that the popular belief is that science is committal.
That’s because the accepted definition of science is that it is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
Science is indeed dedicated to proving facts as truths.
“a scientist will tend to shift toward the acceptance end but they will never completely accept it.”
Your comment is to broad and not based on actual evidence. If a theory is not proven then yes, a scientist may shift towards acceptance, but once a theory is proven as fact it is accepted scientifically.
Grab any college level science text book and look inside. It is filled with accepted facts taught as science.
To place yourself outside of popular belief does not in fact make your statement a truth.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
oops, sorry for the duplication.
My bad.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Nobody can make you believe anything you do not wish to believe. However, in the interest of the dissemination of knowledge, I will attempt to guide you to the “evidence” you seem to think does not exist. I would start by suggesting that you read those college textbooks very carefully, specifically the parts that deal with the philosophy of science, not just the day-to-day practice of it. I would recommend a study of the works of Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher and scientist who first put forth the idea of falsification back in the 1930’s. Finally, I would suggest a trip to Google (try searching for ‘irrefutable science’) to see the many, many pages discussing this very subject.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
In addition to the above, I could put you in touch with various big names within the scientific community and you can discuss the matter with them.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:54 am
I will look at your websites and your information.
And give it real consideration.
But I do not need to talk with “big names in science”.
This is a another fallacy argument, it’s called Appeal To Anonymous Authority.
It is the comments that you and I have made that we are discussing.
I think we can reason through this matter by ourselves.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:17 am
I am not convinced that we can reason through this, and at some point I will give up. I am not trying to establish any new way of thinking nor am I presenting any novel information. I also have no desire to “convert” you or make you see my way. All of the things I have said thus far are the ideas and philosophies of those who were working in this field long before my grandparents were alive. There are large bodies of literature on the subject should you care to read any of it. If after doing so you still disagree, I suggest you take it up with the authors of the works themselves or other individuals within the scientific community that are far more qualified than myself.
Remember, appealing to authority is only fallacious if the party to which one appeals is not in fact an authority on the subject.