Literary Critique of the Bible

[Event_Horizon]

While I was in college I took a few classes in creative writing, and I still write in my free time. Even though I haven't read the bible in a long time, there are some elements from Genesis especially that I still remember....

And they don't make sense!

I'm not talking about specific contradictory passages. Starting from the creation story, even as a piece of literature, the story lacks logical continuity, character motivation, and is rife with plot devices. Ignore for a moment how plants were created without having the sun, or that the Earth was made in darkness, or both man being created before and after all the animals. Let's look only at Genesis 2, and how many parts of the Garden of Eden sequence don't make sense, especially in light of later chapters when they go into retroactive character development.

The bare bones story is that we have a being that makes the world. This being is obviously not all powerful because it takes him time to make everything, and then he must rest - an all powerful being has no need to rest. This also means the being is not perfect by the same reason. Once the Earth is made, it is also apparent that this being is not all present or all seeing, since he actually leaves the garden to go do something else. What that is, we don't know; why it is, we can only guess.

The first flaw I can remember from Genesis 2 is Adam having no mate. A being who has the ability to make him, and the world, and both sexes (where needed) of every species of living thing couldn't just *forget* to make a female for a human. Even in this story where God is not all powerful or all knowing, he's still pretty dense. God then uses his power to make a female, not out of ground, or any number of elements, but from the rib of the first human. Why a rib? No idea. Once again motivation isn't present, but even more striking is that there are no consequences. Adam never suffers from his rib, nor does it explain part of the human condition. Meaning that the whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness. Why not take a pinky toe? Or an earlobe?

Then we come to the tree, which for me is the dumbest plot device I have seen in the Bible. Here we have the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How it works is never explained. It has no purpose or being other than to act as a plot device for the fall from grace and original sin. Why God wouldn't just put it at the top of Everest, or at the bottom of the ocean, is beyond me. Why would he even make it at all? So we have a tree that will curse Adam and Eve forever, set within walking distance, seemingly at acceptable grabbing height, and God never tells them why. He say's they'll die, but in a world without death, what does the word mean?

The third lapse in the plot is the snake. Why the snake can talk is not explained in the story. Why the snake wants Eve to eat the apple is also never explained. Here's another character without motivation or development. Ignoring the retroactive characterization of Revelations which hints at the devil being the snake, the story only says that it's a snake, and God treats the snake as if it's only a snake. So the snake gets Eve to eat apple. Then Adam eats apple - they're in big trouble. For eating the apple God then punishes Adam and Eve for doing so, but then also punishes all of their descendants for the rest of time... Yeah, and then there's the whole thing about God lying to them about dieing. The snake was punished too - to remain a snake, and eat dust. At least the snake's descendants get to eat mice and crickets and stuff. The punishment is disproportionate to the crime right off the bat. Not only are the humans who were tricked (they didn't know what they were doing, mind you), but everyone after them is also punished, even though they are innocent. Why God would seek to do this is never addressed.

For me, that makes the origin story of the Christan mythos a little hard to accept. Some Christians say it's metaphor, or a good story, however the idea of original sin came from that story, and it gives motivation for God and Jesus later on. The story cannot simply be disregarded because it lays the foundation of Jesus' return and motivation. The entire framework of Jesus needs the earlier story to exist. Speaking of Jesus and the New Testament, the later writings also retroactively characterize God to make even less sense.

First, the God character. He is defined in later passages as all powerful, meaning he can control anything, and do anything he wants. Next, he is all seeing; he can see everything all at once. He is also all knowing, meaning he can see what happens before it happens, the internal workings of anything in the present, and remembers all of the past. He is also all good, and incapable of evil. Not even Superman can touch this. But here are the problems: an all powerful being wouldn't need to take six days to make the Earth, or need to rest on the seventh day. An all knowing being wouldn't make the sun after plants, or accidently forget to give Adam a companion. An all knowing and all good God wouldn't create a tree of knowledge of good and evil, knowing that it would lead to his creation's downfall. An all powerful and all knowing God wouldn't lie to his creations, leave the garden, abandon his creations, act shocked when they disobeyed him, or punish them eternally. And really, an all knowing and all powerful God wouldn't let the snakes talk.

The first story was just a simple creation myth, but now with the retroactive characterization, the whole thing becomes absurd. But one final thing that bugs me is this: why would God do it? Let's look at motivations. At the beginning of the original Genesis, God doesn't have a motivation. The story begins as he's creating the world, then creating man, and so on. We get no real introduction to his character or reasons. Later portions of the Bible retroactive address this too, replacing the lack of motivation with nonsensical characterization. God seemed to make mankind because he was lonely (I'd say bored). The first problem is that God is later defined as an all perfect being, and the attributes of loneliness and need for worship are not attributes of a perfect being. Right there is a logical impossibility. Next, God has the power to grant his own wishes to simply make himself not lonely, but he doesn't do this. Instead he makes angels who keep him company and worship him. Meeting his needs, right? Not quite, because it seems God wanted something with free will. How a perfect and good being could create something with free will, then demanded its worship is beyond me. Not to mention he punished those creatures (regarded above the angels mind you) eternally for exercising that free will.

The original story had problems, but only when the retroactive attributions are made from later works does the story become even more nonsensical. I'm not sure why people consider this story a good story when the basic mechanics of storytelling are completely absent. I know I'm looking at this from a contemporary fiction perspective, but so much is left out that I cannot take it seriously. I figure I'd add my post here and see what you all thought, or you can add onto your own. Are there other stories you all can critique? They don't have to be from the Bible, mind you. I'm sure someone could tear apart Gilgamesh.

[AnimatedDirt]

The first flaw I can remember from Genesis 2 is Adam having no mate. A being who has the ability to make him, and the world, and both sexes (where needed) of every species of living thing couldn't just *forget* to make a female for a human. Even in this story where God is not all powerful or all knowing, he's still pretty dense. God then uses his power to make a female, not out of ground, or any number of elements, but from the rib of the first human. Why a rib? No idea. Once again motivation isn't present, but even more striking is that there are no consequences. Adam never suffers from his rib, nor does it explain part of the human condition. Meaning that the whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness. Why not take a pinky toe? Or an earlobe?

So many points...let's take the above one for now.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her  to make her holy, cleansing* her by the washing with water through the word,  and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.  In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--  for we are members of his body.  "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."*  This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.  However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

So like Shakespeare in a sense, one must search for the meaning and/or beautiful metaphorical reasoning behind the details.
Could God have made a woman out of dirt?  If He did make a man, He very well could have done the same to make a woman.

But one didn't need to go all the way to the NT for the answer as Adam himself makes the connection.

The man said,
    "This is now bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called `woman,'*
      for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

[Event_Horizon]

AnimatedDirt: So like Shakespeare in a sense, one must search for the meaning and/or beautiful metaphorical reasoning behind the details. Could God have made a woman out of dirt? If He did make a man, He very well could have done the same to make a woman.

I can understand that. In regards to the metaphor, I think it is an interesting fable in the context of an ancient culture. Also,I made a mistake in my previous post when I put select parts of Genesis one, thinking they were in Genesis 2, so I mean to retract that. Genesis 1 has animals coming forth first, then man and woman both last. Genesis 2 was where I should have specifically looked.

Genesis 2 still provides a problem on a literary level. God creates man, man is a single sex. This is consistent so far because Adam is the first mortal being. However when God creates animals, no relevance is given to their sex. The story makes sense is if those animals were also only one sex because the concept of male/female hadn't been realized. However that idea is not consistent with the retroactive characterization of an all knowing God. As soon as one problem is solved, another is created. If animals were created male and female, then it means God had the foresight for them, but not for Adam. This does makes sense if you consider that Adam was made in God's image. God didn't need companions, so God probably considered Adam not to need a companion. But that doesn't explain why God felt he needed a companion. In the story, it is God who made Adam a companion; Adam never asked for one (as far as I'm aware). So why didn't God just do that first? He knew Adam would need to procreate, right? God equipped Adam to do so before Eve had been created. Sorry if I'm rambling. I know I'm getting a little sidetracked and confused. The confusion is why the narrative disconnects me from it.

Anyways, I'm open to your interpretation or explanation.

[Recusant]

A very enjoyable OP, Event_Horizon.  It reminded me a bit of God: A Biography by Jack Miles.  If you haven't read it, I recommend it highly. His thesis isn't quite in line with modern biblical criticism, but that really doesn't matter, because he's looking at the singlular character of YHVH in a literary context as portrayed in the Tanakh rather than dissecting the text itself.

Jack Miles' webpage for the book.

[hismikeness]

As I was reading this (a very well written post) I was   imagining all the times that one of my Christian friends I "argue" with about his theism would dismiss these arguments with "we're not meant to understand God-logic."

"His ways are above ours, so ________________ example doesn't apply."

My favorite examination of flawed characterization of God that you pointed out was an all-knowing being needing/wanting entertainment in the form of our existence. I've never liked that God requires, in a jealous rage, us measly beings to not imagine other gods.

Bill Maher said it best in Religulous, "I know people who've gotten over jealousy!"

[AnimatedDirt]

However when God creates animals, no relevance is given to their sex. The story makes sense is if those animals were also only one sex because the concept of male/female hadn't been realized.

So what you're saying here is that God had an epiphany that He "forgot" female was needed?  Hardly the case.  Female was already created/thought of;

God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Animals were created asexual?  I would disagree.

However that idea is not consistent with the retroactive characterization of an all knowing God. As soon as one problem is solved, another is created. If animals were created male and female, then it means God had the foresight for them, but not for Adam.

The above gives evidence that God did have the foresight of female for the animal kingdom.  Not for Adam?  You're assuming to know God's reason(s) for creating woman out of man.  The Bible gives the clear reasoning why God did it in this manner.

He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it,

This does makes sense if you consider that Adam was made in God's image. God didn't need companions, so God probably considered Adam not to need a companion.

You know God and therefore what He needs?

But that doesn't explain why God felt he needed a companion. In the story, it is God who made Adam a companion; Adam never asked for one (as far as I'm aware).

So God created man in his own image,
  in the image of God he created him;
  male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Notice that God tells man to be fruitful and increase in number.  The same thing He said about the created animals a few sentences before.

So why didn't God just do that first? He knew Adam would need to procreate, right? God equipped Adam to do so before Eve had been created. Sorry if I'm rambling. I know I'm getting a little sidetracked and confused. The confusion is why the narrative disconnects me from it.

Anyways, I'm open to your interpretation or explanation.

I'm not going to quote the whole of Genesis 2, but this is where the answer is.  You'll notice that it is somewhat of a recap of Genesis 1, a sort of retelling from a different perspective.  God made the earth and heavens.  God made man.  God planted a garden in Eden.  This was man's home that God had made for him that supplied him his food. Three rivers watered the garden.  Man was to work in the garden, presumably simply gathering the food and caring for this garden.  God told the man about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that eating of it, he would die.  Now God says, as the text alludes the next thought is;

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now is it because God seems to think this and utter this mean He just thought about it?  In fact, it is more a statement than a pondering thought to which He then concludes it as a new thought.  Just because one audibly says something doesn't make the hearing of the thought the first time it was thought.

The beauty of the creation of woman is in that Adam is to rule over everything that has been created, the land and the animals.  All have come from the ground, but Adam is to be their ruler.  So God doesn't create woman from the same dirt, but rather God creates woman from a piece of the man...as an equal.  I really like this poem that illustrates this well.

"God did not take Eve out of Adam's head that she might rule over him or to be superior to him. Nor did God take Eve out of Adam's feet to be trampled upon by him or that she might be lower than him. But God took Eve out of Adam's side that she might be his equal, and from under his arm that she might be protected by him, and from close to his heart that she might be loved by him." (footnote reads: "Adapted from Matthew Henry, Commentary on Holy Scripture (1708-1710), p. 59. Henry adapted his version from Thomas Aquinas...")

[Event_Horizon]

So what you're saying here is that God had an epiphany that He "forgot" female was needed?  Hardly the case.  Female was already created/thought of;

Then why was it not in the text? If God knew of male/female, why did he have no clue that it extended to humans? Remember, in Gen 2, God creates man, then creates animals to serve man. Only when the animals fail to provide companionship does God make a female. So going by the text, no, God didn't know to make a female mate for Adam.

God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Animals were created asexual?  I would disagree.

That was from Genesis 1, which as I said is a completely different story. Read a few more lines in, and it says that man was made, male and female. Beginning in Genesis 2 God rests for a day, then creates man. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are not the same story; biblical scholars know this. You can't use one to explain the other.

The above gives evidence that God did have the foresight of female for the animal kingdom.  Not for Adam?  You're assuming to know God's reason(s) for creating woman out of man.  The Bible gives the clear reasoning why God did it in this manner.

The "clear reasoning" you cite is not in the story, but in the New Testament. Whoever wrote Ephesians did not write Genesis. It would be as if someone critiqued Gilgamesh, and someone rebutted them by saying another piece of text written hundreds of years later, completely independent of the original story, justified the story in some way. As far as the story goes, either God knew animals would need to be male and female, and didn't realize it for man, OR God didn't know about the concept of male/female and made the animals unisex. If this is absurd to you, then you also see what it's absurd for me.

You know God and therefore what He needs?

God never stated what he needs, and I addressed that in the critique. God simply makes the universe, the Earth, mankind, and animals without motivation. God has absolutely no reason to do the things he does in the original story. Only when later Christian scholars start characterizing God does it become even more of a problem. Suddenly a non-motivated God becomes a logical impossibility. For example, a perfect god wouldn't need anything, because a need is a deficiency in something, and a perfect thing cannot be deficient in anything.

So God created man in his own image,
  in the image of God he created him;
  male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Notice that God tells man to be fruitful and increase in number.  The same thing He said about the created animals a few sentences before.

But before was a completely different story. I assume you've read Genesis 1 and 2. Go read it again; they are entirely different tales. In Genesis 1, God makes animals, then finally man, both male and female. Then in Genesis 2, God makes Adam from the Earth, and they name the animals. Eve is then made after everything. Humans cannot be both made first, and last. Genesis 1 and 2 both contradict each other; they are completely different stories. You cannot justify something in Genesis 2 by Genesis 1 just as you cannot justify something in Dracula by a passage in Frankenstein.

I'm not going to quote the whole of Genesis 2, but this is where the answer is.  You'll notice that it is somewhat of a recap of Genesis 1, a sort of retelling from a different perspective.

It is not a short recap, because it is a conflicting narrative. How does saying that man named the animals shed light on the first story, when the first story says that man was made after the animals? Genesis 1 ends on the night of the sixth day, while Genesis 2 picks up at the beginning of the seventh. There is no recap going on, it is a continuation of the story and yet a completely different story.

"God did not take Eve out of Adam's head that she might rule over him or to be superior to him. Nor did God take Eve out of Adam's feet to be trampled upon by him or that she might be lower than him. But God took Eve out of Adam's side that she might be his equal, and from under his arm that she might be protected by him, and from close to his heart that she might be loved by him." (footnote reads: "Adapted from Matthew Henry, Commentary on Holy Scripture (1708-1710), p. 59. Henry adapted his version from Thomas Aquinas...")

I admit that it's a nice quote. However my point of God taking the rib within the story itself is pretty useless. If that was God's intention, the author could have stated it in the story. Considering Genesis 1, where man and woman are created together, without the extraction of the rib, it seems to me to be nothing more than a plot device. All things considered, I don't think it's that big a problem in the story. It's not that big of a plot device. Why take a rib? Well why not take a rib? I guess I was nit-picking.

[AnimatedDirt]

Genesis 2 still provides a problem on a literary level. God creates man, man is a single sex. This is consistent so far because Adam is the first mortal being. However when God creates animals, no relevance is given to their sex. The story makes sense is if those animals were also only one sex because the concept of male/female hadn't been realized.

And you know this because...

However that idea is not consistent with the retroactive characterization of an all knowing God. As soon as one problem is solved, another is created. If animals were created male and female, then it means God had the foresight for them, but not for Adam.

You seem to be taking lots of liberty of placing assertions on the text when none is made nor does it need to be so detailed.  From what I'm hearing from you on this is that since the written text does not state EXACTLY how and with all detail, you can't accept it.  You can't take some things for granted?  If God made a woman for man to procreate, then one can simply, by the power of logic, say God made all animals with the same power to procreate, male and female.  And vice versa.

This does makes sense if you consider that Adam was made in God's image. God didn't need companions, so God probably considered Adam not to need a companion.

Who said God is alone?  It's clear from the scriptures that humans are but one of God's created beings.  When robotics engineers make robots in the human image, is that robot made with every single human capacity, nook and crany?  If they don't give the robot fingers, does that then make the robot not in the human image?  Of course not.  The robot is still in the image of humans, just not EXACTLY like a human.  Likewise God can make humanity in His image.

But that doesn't explain why God felt he needed a companion. In the story, it is God who made Adam a companion; Adam never asked for one (as far as I'm aware).

Not so fast.  Let's not make hasty judgments.  The text reads (in the NIV):

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam* no suitable helper was found.

So picture the scene...Adam is actively naming all the animals...seemingly he sees each animal has its mate...male and female.  When he finishes, assuming it was when he finished, the next words are neither quoted of Adam nor of God.  It could be a thought that was stirring in Adam's mind, however that is not necessarily the case.  The point is, God didn't "forget" to make the female, just chose to do it at a different time.  It is clear that there is reason for making female the way He did if He wanted her to be special.  You see the metaphor in scripture that the Church is the bride of Christ and He loves her...she is not just another animal, but A PART of Him, like Eve is part of Adam..."bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh...become one flesh".

So why didn't God just do that first? He knew Adam would need to procreate, right? God equipped Adam to do so before Eve had been created. Sorry if I'm rambling. I know I'm getting a little sidetracked and confused. The confusion is why the narrative disconnects me from it.

It doesn't.  You're just trying to get something out of it that isn't there...every minute detail.

[penfold]

event_horizon, great OP. You're absolutely right that Genesis makes little literary sense. In fact, as you point out, within the first two chapters there are two different and contradictory narratives (called the p and e accounts if memory serves).

I think what really fascinates me about Genesis is how arcane it is. There are some things in it that really raise fundamental questions about what exactly early Judaism was. Just thought I would add a point about Genesis myself:

Gen 1:26 - Then God said "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness [...]" followed by Gen 3:22 - And the LORD God said "The man has become like one of us [...]"

What is interesting is that these plurals exist in the Hebrew, and in Hebrew there is no 'royal we'. The fact is that when the Genesis accounts were being written there seems to be at least some textual tradition of polytheism (most likely dyadism - YHWH and a female consort).

That Christians today try and fit this arcane text into a coherent biblical narrative is a little tragic. I guess it is what they call the art of apologetics...


By the by, the woman being created from a rib of Adam is surely little more than an ancient 'justification' for the slavery of women seen throughout the old testament. The argument is simple; man is, in creation terms, anterior and thus superior to woman. It's a pretty revolting notion and one that was used to justify a truly abhorrent gender politics, the shadow of which we still live with today.

[Event_Horizon]

You can't take some things for granted?

A critique doesn't take things for granted; a critique points out the flaws in a story. Whether I accept it or not is independent of that. The Epic of Gilgamesh for example has many strange plot devices and story mechanics, and I would critique that in the same way. The problem arises when a flawed story is interpreted as authored or inspired by a divine being. I'm trying not to double dip here by examining the story as a critique when it is convenient for me, and/or taken as a stance against Christianity when it also convenient. My intent is to examine the story as a story and try to leave religion out of it. Certainly if the text is important to the reader, they can take things for granted, and it's almost required when reading ancient literature. As I said I might be out of my element and not critiquing the story the correct way since I am doing so by contemporary standards.

If God made a woman for man to procreate, then one can simply, by the power of logic, say God made all animals with the same power to procreate, male and female.  And vice versa.

That is the obvious explanation for Genesis 1, but doesn't seem so from Genesis 2 by the nature of the text. Woman was created after the animals, so there's no reason to think the concept of woman existed before then. As I said, either way this causes problems.

Also, I assume that God is alone because he creates the world, and there is no statement that gives hints of other beings. You're right that there could have been other beings or something else besides him.

But that doesn't explain why God felt he needed a companion. In the story, it is God who made Adam a companion; Adam never asked for one (as far as I'm aware).

Genesis 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."  God said that man should not be alone. Adam's thoughts and motivations were not stated in the text. It was God's judgement to make a companion for man. Only then does God start making animals for man. The concept of a female was not considered first as it logically would have if God knew Adam would need a female. If you consider the idea that God had no sex, and made Adam like himself without sex, then the passage makes sense. Sex was not a consideration at the time. However if God did know about male/female sex, then his actions do not follow logically - to make animal companions first, then a female companion last? You make a good point that perhaps Adam's mate needed to come from him, but that does not resolve the question of why it was not done first.

It doesn't.  You're just trying to get something out of it that isn't there...every minute detail.

Well, I tried getting a coherent story out of it. And the story makes kind of sense if you just take it for what it is, discounting the later works in the New Testament. That was my main point really. The story is rife with inconsistencies (if taken from a contemporary perspective, I admit) if you read it as you would read any other ancient story, like Beowulf, or the Epic of Gilgamesh. However my second point was that looking at the overall Christian narrative which retroactively characterizes God in the later works of the New Testament causes problems with that already dubious consistency. Obviously the later works and the original story have two vastly different characters for God. I can see that it's a simple creation myth with a supernatural being, somewhat limited in power, and somewhat limited in understanding, crafting a world the best way the primitive author could have understood. It's the same kind of thing you see in other creation stories, but as a story there are inconsistencies and plot holes.

The fact is that when the Genesis accounts were being written there seems to be at least some textual tradition of polytheism (most likely dyadism - YHWH and a female consort).

King James Bible - Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"

Yeah, there are little sprinklings of polytheism in there. Who was God referring to? Who else knew of good and evil? The serpent said "for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Notice he said "shall be gods", not "like god". That isn't as interesting to me as the fact that the serpent was right (and was it nowhere address how the serpent recieved that information or why it wanted to tempt Eve). God even admitted, to someone, that man had become like "us", corroborating the serpent's statement that they became gods. The idea of mortal becoming Gods is very indicative of polytheism. Not to mention that the statement seems to show that other beings like God already existed. Very interesting.

[AnimatedDirt]

So you're saying that because God said, "man should not be alone." in Genesis 2, that God had not thought of it before.  So when one reiterates their previous thinking today, it means it's the first time they've thought of it?  So when a friend asks me, "Hey, wanna go out tonight?" and I reply, "No, I gotta pay my bills."  This means that I've never ever thought before that paying bills needs to be done today or at some point?  Rediculous.  It's simply a statement of fact...not an epiphany.

As I said I might be out of my element and not critiquing the story the correct way since I am doing so by contemporary standards.

One must also look at what was understood AT THAT TIME, to the contemporary reader and what the point of the retelling of the "tale" was for.  If it was to scientifically inform the reader, one would find a more in depth story.  So I think one can use contemporary standards, in fact to do so would make one less critical taking these factors into account.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yeah, there are little sprinklings of polytheism in there. Who was God referring to? Who else knew of good and evil? The serpent said "for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Notice he said "shall be gods", not "like god". That isn't as interesting to me as the fact that the serpent was right (and was it nowhere address how the serpent recieved that information or why it wanted to tempt Eve). God even admitted, to someone, that man had become like "us", corroborating the serpent's statement that they became gods. The idea of mortal becoming Gods is very indicative of polytheism. Not to mention that the statement seems to show that other beings like God already existed. Very interesting.

You're again using your bias to interpret and removing words you even have in the text.  You say, "Notice he said 'shall be like gods', not 'like god.' "  But the text you quote plainly states, "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.".  God certainly did "admit" that humanity, which consisted of only Adam and Eve, were not like God IN THAT THEY KNEW NOT OF GOOD AND EVIL.

There is no inconsistency and in no way does it mean that the humans became gods at all.  Only that they became like God, knowing good and evil.  Full stop.

In fact the "us" factor speaks more to the truth of a triune God.

[Event_Horizon]

So you're saying that because God said, "man should not be alone." in Genesis 2, that God had not thought of it before.  So when one reiterates their previous thinking today, it means it's the first time they've thought of it?

I judge by his actions. He stated that Adam needed a companion. That was in the text. Then he created animals as companions for Adam. That was also in the text. Then when the animals fail, God creates woman. Now why does God go through all that trouble in the first place if he knows a female human would do the trick? I can see what you're saying, because the God character talks to himself a lot for no real reason. However what he said coincides with his actions, that he had no idea what he was doing.

One must also look at what was understood AT THAT TIME, to the contemporary reader and what the point of the retelling of the "tale" was for.  If it was to scientifically inform the reader, one would find a more in depth story.  So I think one can use contemporary standards, in fact to do so would make one less critical taking these factors into account

Well I can critique contemporary stories on logical continuity, general plot, setting, and character motivation, but that's from a modern standpoint. When I look at an ancient story, I have to look at it differently, and I freely admit that. For example why are there scorpion people in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Where did they come from? Etc. These questions aren't applicable to ancient texts because storytelling has changed over the centuries. The same thing applies to Genesis, and I made a disclaimer about that. The problem is, is that even from the perspective of ancient literature, there are still things that don't make sense. It wouldn't necessarily be a problem if an entire religion wasn't based on it. You'd be right if you said that critiquing it from a modern standpoint isn't fair, but even as a basic story things don't follow logically.

Also you cannot bring the trinity into the story because once again you're trying to retroactively explain God from texts written hundreds of years after the original story. If we allow the trinity, and justify God talking to himself (even though that becomes another convoluted mess), you open up a whole new can of worms about an all powerful God suddenly taking time to create the universe, and needing to rest, and an all knowing God having no idea that man needed a female first before he made the mistake of creating animals instead. You also have the problem of an all present God leaving the garden, an all knowing God seeing what the serpent would do yet being unable to see Adam and Eve do it or find them when he returns. And the problem of an all loving God being unable to forgive his creations for following the truth instead of a lie, considering that they had the minds of children with no concept of death. So fine, if you want to bring the New Testament and the Trinity into this, you can, but it only becomes impossible to justify the text. That was why I wanted to avoid the New Testament in the first place and look at the Genesis story from a purely literary secular perspective.

The thing about the serpent is that his claim of knowledge from the tree, and becoming as gods, is consistent with God's own claim that they gained the knowledge and became like him. The serpent uses the plural "as gods". This could mean that Adam and Eve would both be a god, hence the two of them would be plural - gods, or Adam and Eve would be like the pantheon of many gods. The former is inconsistent with God's claim that they are "like us", us being plural, and the latter is consistent with God being part of a pantheon. That of course is from the King James, where as Genesis 3:(22) in the Revised Standard says: "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'." The other translation gives more of a presence to this collection of Gods. If you really think about it, God's limitations in the story of Genesis are consistent with the aspects of Polytheism: where Gods are limited in power. The fact that God obviously cannot see the future (impact of the tree of knowledge), must create life from the Earth or other substance (rib) instead of simply creating it out of nothing, is unable to be everywhere at once (leaves the garden), see everything at once (cannot find Adam and Eve), and is not understanding or forgiving (cursing humans forever), etc. shows the classic tropes a God or demigod within the classic pantheon structure. The traits that God shows in Genesis are ubiquitous in almost every polytheistic religion. If you try to look at the text from the point of view that God was a single divine being, part of a pantheon, with supernatural limitations, everything starts to make sense.

[AnimatedDirt]

So you're saying that because God said, "man should not be alone." in Genesis 2, that God had not thought of it before.  So when one reiterates their previous thinking today, it means it's the first time they've thought of it?

I judge by his actions. He stated that Adam needed a companion. That was in the text. Then he created animals as companions for Adam. That was also in the text. Then when the animals fail, God creates woman. Now why does God go through all that trouble in the first place if he knows a female human would do the trick? I can see what you're saying, because the God character talks to himself a lot for no real reason. However what he said coincides with his actions, that he had no idea what he was doing.

One must also look at what was understood AT THAT TIME, to the contemporary reader and what the point of the retelling of the "tale" was for.  If it was to scientifically inform the reader, one would find a more in depth story.  So I think one can use contemporary standards, in fact to do so would make one less critical taking these factors into account

Well I can critique contemporary stories on logical continuity, general plot, setting, and character motivation, but that's from a modern standpoint. When I look at an ancient story, I have to look at it differently, and I freely admit that. For example why are there scorpion people in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Where did they come from? Etc. These questions aren't applicable to ancient texts because storytelling has changed over the centuries. The same thing applies to Genesis, and I made a disclaimer about that. The problem is, is that even from the perspective of ancient literature, there are still things that don't make sense. It wouldn't necessarily be a problem if an entire religion wasn't based on it. You'd be right if you said that critiquing it from a modern standpoint isn't fair, but even as a basic story things don't follow logically.

Also you cannot bring the trinity into the story because once again you're trying to retroactively explain God from texts written hundreds of years after the original story. If we allow the trinity, and justify God talking to himself (even though that becomes another convoluted mess), you open up a whole new can of worms about an all powerful God suddenly taking time to create the universe, and needing to rest, and an all knowing God having no idea that man needed a female first before he made the mistake of creating animals instead. You also have the problem of an all present God leaving the garden, an all knowing God seeing what the serpent would do yet being unable to see Adam and Eve do it or find them when he returns. And the problem of an all loving God being unable to forgive his creations for following the truth instead of a lie, considering that they had the minds of children with no concept of death. So fine, if you want to bring the New Testament and the Trinity into this, you can, but it only becomes impossible to justify the text. That was why I wanted to avoid the New Testament in the first place and look at the Genesis story from a purely literary secular perspective.

The thing about the serpent is that his claim of knowledge from the tree, and becoming as gods, is consistent with God's own claim that they gained the knowledge and became like him. The serpent uses the plural "as gods". This could mean that Adam and Eve would both be a god, hence the two of them would be plural - gods, or Adam and Eve would be like the pantheon of many gods. The former is inconsistent with God's claim that they are "like us", us being plural, and the latter is consistent with God being part of a pantheon. That of course is from the King James, where as Genesis 3:(22) in the Revised Standard says: "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'." The other translation gives more of a presence to this collection of Gods. If you really think about it, God's limitations in the story of Genesis are consistent with the aspects of Polytheism: where Gods are limited in power. The fact that God obviously cannot see the future (impact of the tree of knowledge), must create life from the Earth or other substance (rib) instead of simply creating it out of nothing, is unable to be everywhere at once (leaves the garden), see everything at once (cannot find Adam and Eve), and is not understanding or forgiving (cursing humans forever), etc. shows the classic tropes a God or demigod within the classic pantheon structure. The traits that God shows in Genesis are ubiquitous in almost every polytheistic religion. If you try to look at the text from the point of view that God was a single divine being, part of a pantheon, with supernatural limitations, everything starts to make sense.

You seem to understand and know what God is.  I leave you, then, to your own thoughts as it is apparent you cannot waiver from your bias opinion in wanting to understand.  You can't seem to get that whether God was ONE or ONE in Three was of no real consequence at the time it was written.  Anyway, it really seems you're not willing to discuss, but put your own "logical" parameters around these things that are very broad initially, yet very specific as knowledge of God increases.

[Event_Horizon]

You seem to understand and know what God is.  I leave you, then, to your own thoughts as it is apparent you cannot waiver from your bias opinion in wanting to understand.  You can't seem to get that whether God was ONE or ONE in Three was of no real consequence at the time it was written.  Anyway, it really seems you're not willing to discuss, but put your own "logical" parameters around these things that are very broad initially, yet very specific as knowledge of God increases.

Well I don't understand who or what God is, so I'm ONLY looking at the text for clues. I've tried to remove my biases as to who or what God is and instead only looked at the story to establish the God character. If you cannot suspend your faith/belief and look at the text as a story, without putting in your own justifications or characterizations then it is you who is biased. The statements you make show me that you are more interested in defending your faith instead of looking at the story as literature. I certainly cannot blame you for defending your beliefs, but there is a time and place for that, and if you don't wish to suspend them for a moment, then you will be unable to analyze the story at a certain level. I am very willing to discuss aspects of Bible stories in a literary sense because that is what this post is about. That is, my intent is not to attack anyone's beliefs, but to analyze a story. I bring no biases or beliefs to the table, only you do.