Happy Atheist Forum

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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "Ephesians 5:25-33"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.

Quote from: "Genesis 2:23,24"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.

QuoteAnimatedDirt: 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.

A very enjoyable OP, Event_Horizon.  It reminded me a bit of God: A Biography (http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685) 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. (http://www.jackmiles.com/Home/books/god-a-biography)

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!"

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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;

Quote from: "Genesis 1:22"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "Ephesians 5:28,29"He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it,

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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).

Quote from: "Genesis 1:27,28"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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;

Quote from: "Genesis 2:18"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.

Quote"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...")

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "Genesis 1:22"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."

QuoteAnimals 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: "Genesis 1:27,28"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."

QuoteNotice 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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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...

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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):

Quote from: "Genesis 2:19,20"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".

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: "penfold"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.

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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

Quote from: "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.

QuoteOne 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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"

Quote from: "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.

QuoteOne 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.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"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.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

It seems to me you're doing the exact thing by limiting your view to one specific and small part when you have the answers available in the BOOK as a whole.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

As another person seemed to think this answer was proper, "Aren't we all biased?"  However, in this case you're asking, or seem to be, for clarification.  I'm offering you clarification, but you're rejecting it based on ONLY a few words and not on the whole.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The statements you make show me that you are more interested in defending your faith instead of looking at the story as literature.

I don't doubt it seems this way to you and maybe to some degree it is true.  However, once again, if you're going to critique it as "literature", then critique it as a whole, and not part...especially when the latter explains or places better light on the former.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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.

My "bias" is that I do understand the text as I am a "student" of the whole.  So when you ask, as I just mentioned, it comes from a bias in that I understand it from the whole book and not just as a stand-alone exerpt.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It seems to me you're doing the exact thing by limiting your view to one specific and small part when you have the answers available in the BOOK as a whole.

But which book? The context of the god character is within the Old Testament. The New Testament is a completely different book of literature. It is on the same level as the Qur'an - written hundreds of years after the original story, written by different people in a different setting. The passages you give from the later texts aren't even stories, they aren't actions, they are what humans SAID about God. God never built his own character in the New Testament. God is consistently characterized throughout the Old Testament as a very specific being, but that's not good for you so you go into an entirely different story, the New Testament, and look at man's quotes about him to justify your position.

QuoteAs another person seemed to think this answer was proper, "Aren't we all biased?"  However, in this case you're asking, or seem to be, for clarification.  I'm offering you clarification, but you're rejecting it based on ONLY a few words and not on the whole.

But this "clarification" isn't clarification at all. I told you, many times, why it becomes a problem when the text from the New Testament is included. If you want to include it, then fine, but then the story becomes logically impossible, and I've explained WHY. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament cannot exist as the same character because they completely contradict each other, and I've said why over and over, yet you ignore it and want to characterize him anyways. For example an all powerful God wouldn't need to rest on the 7th day, and an all perfect God would need anything. An all knowing God would not have made the tree of knowledge. An all knowing God would not let snakes talk. And all loving God would forgive man. But none of that ever happened in the story. Judging by the actions of the character, there is no way the God of the old and new Testament could be the same being. But I didn't want to go that route because it would be WAY too easy for me to simply dismiss the story. So now the choice is yours, either characterize the God with the New Testament and make completely contradictory and logically impossible, or leave out the New Testament and examine the story by itself.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"But which book? The context of the god character is within the Old Testament. The New Testament is a completely different book of literature. It is on the same level as the Qur'an - written hundreds of years after the original story, written by different people in a different setting. The passages you give from the later texts aren't even stories, they aren't actions, they are what humans SAID about God. God never built his own character in the New Testament. God is consistently characterized throughout the Old Testament as a very specific being, but that's not good for you so you go into an entirely different story, the New Testament, and look at man's quotes about him to justify your position.

Now you're making assertions about me based on what?  Your bias.  The book is called the Bible.  It's a whole piece of "literature" and should be taken as a whole, for contemporary critique.  If you don't find an answer to why God...then the answer or clues to the answer are in the whole.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"But this "clarification" isn't clarification at all. I told you, many times, why it becomes a problem when the text from the New Testament is included. If you want to include it, then fine, but then the story becomes logically impossible, and I've explained WHY. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament cannot exist as the same character because they completely contradict each other, and I've said why over and over, yet you ignore it and want to characterize him anyways. For example an all powerful God wouldn't need to rest on the 7th day, and an all perfect God would need anything. An all knowing God would not have made the tree of knowledge. An all knowing God would not let snakes talk. And all loving God would forgive man. But none of that ever happened in the story. Judging by the actions of the character, there is no way the God of the old and new Testament could be the same being. But I didn't want to go that route because it would be WAY too easy for me to simply dismiss the story. So now the choice is yours, either characterize the God with the New Testament and make completely contradictory and logically impossible, or leave out the New Testament and examine the story by itself.

All this knowledge on what God is and isn't.  So again, I leave you to your own interpretation as that is the only thing you're willing to take.  You're right however, God doesn't NEED to do anything.  Rather God, then as God, CAN CHOOSE TO DO something.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Now you're making assertions about me based on what?  Your bias.  The book is called the Bible.  It's a whole piece of "literature" and should be taken as a whole, for contemporary critique.  If you don't find an answer to why God...then the answer or clues to the answer are in the whole.

Oh but you just made an assertion based on YOUR interpretation. You say that the New Testament is relevant to the old, but the Muslims and Jews say different.That is your bias talking. However if you remove your bias and look at the God character's actions in the Old Testament, and the characterization of the New Testament, they conflict.

QuoteAll this knowledge on what God is and isn't.  So again, I leave you to your own interpretation as that is the only thing you're willing to take.  You're right however, God doesn't NEED to do anything.  Rather God, then as God, CAN CHOOSE TO DO something.

You misunderstand what I mean by need. God doesn't need anything because need means God is deficient in something, and if God is perfect he cannot be deficient in anything. That is a logical contradiction. Both cannot be true. One cannot be A and not A at the same time. My interpretation is from the text itself, and your interpretation is from your belief. Which one is biased then?

If we take your characterization, then we are left with logical impossibilities:

God is perfect and all powerful. God rests on the 7th day. This is a logical impossibility because an all powerful being would not need to rest, or have the desire to rest. It only makes sense if God is not all powerful.

God is all knowing. God creates Adam, then creates the animals, then creates Eve. This is a logical impossibility because an all knowing God would not need to create animals first if he knew the nature of the problem and knew of a female mate before he had even started. This only makes sense if God is not all knowing.

God is all present. God leaves the Garden of Eden. This is a logical impossibility because an all present God cannot leave anywhere because it is everywhere (which is funny because that conflicts with an all powerful God. If God is always present, and cannot leave, then he doesn't have the power to leave, and is thus not all powerful. However if he is not all present, then he is not all powerful). This only makes sense if God is not all present (or all powerful).

God is all good. God tells Adam that he will die in that day if he eats the fruit. This is a logical impossibility because God is all good and incapable of bad, and lying is bad, but God lies. "Thou shall not bear false witness." This only makes sense if God is not all good.

God is all knowing. God comes back to the garden and cannot find Adam and Eve. This is a logical impossibility because God can see everything, and yet cannot find Adam and Eve. This only makes sense if God is not all knowing (and is consistent with the rest of his actions so far).

God is all loving. God curses mankind forever. This is a logical impossibility because a being of infinite love and forgiveness would forgive them, but that doesn't happen. This only makes sense if God is not all loving.

I mean, I could go on. It's not like Genesis 2 and 3 are the only passages where God is contrary to New Testament characterization. So if you consider the New Testament, nothing makes sense! But if you disregard it and consider only the Old Testament, as the Jews do, things previously impossible now make sense. However I disregard the New Testament because it was written hundreds of years later, by completely different authors, and it tells a completely different story. It would be as if Shelly's Prometheus Unbound was canonized to the ancient Greek religion because it had the characters of the ancient Greek religion, despite it being written hundreds of years later by a different writer by different standards. If the character of God were at least matched up between the two books then I would accept it, but they don't. Different authors, different times, different languages, different character traits, different story. I'm simply going the logical route and taking the text for what it is. I look at the story itself, see what the characters do, and how those actions give information on their character traits just like every form of literature. You on the other hand are taking your preconceived notions of who this God is, despite it not being in the story, and superimposing those attributes onto that character. The wrathful, deficient, limited, emotional God of the Old Testament shows no similarities to the all knowing, all powerful, all good God of the New Testament except in name only. So why would I assume they were the same thing? Surely the writers of the New Testament wanted it to be the same God, but the character attributes do not match up.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"[God is perfect and all powerful. God rests on the 7th day. This is a logical impossibility because an all powerful being would not need to rest, or have the desire to rest. It only makes sense if God is not all powerful.

I cannot keep pointing out your same mistake over and over.  This is the last time I post in regard to this point (maybe even this thread, who knows)

You are quite willing to assert that God cannot do this and that because He is all-powerful, insinuating YOU know what all-powerful is and how it can and cannot be used.  You are right (for the second time), God does not need to rest, nor would He necessarily desire to rest UNLESS HE MEANT A LESSON OR POINT TO HIS ACTIONS TO HIS NEWLY CREATED BEINGS and as such would make an example of Himself.  If we go farther back, why didn't God just speak all into existence in the snap of a finger?  Being all-powerful one supposes He could've.  Instead He chose to do something by direct intention, for a reason.  If He is all-powerful, omni*, then He knows what is best and so acts accordingly to His purpose.

Now, again, if you want to do a literary critique of the Bible as your title to this thread suggests, lets do a critique of the Bible and not one exerpt from it and from a few words critique the whole.  Whether or not the Jews and/or Muslims regard the OT or the NT is on no relevance to this topic as you state it.  The Bible includes, and as a Christian-Protestant, the OT with the NT as God's word, "...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."

If you want the Jewish interpretation or the Muslim interpretation, or if you want the Atheist or Agnostic interpretation, then ask.  When you want the Christian-Protestant interpretation, you will always get that the Bible interprets itself very well.  The latter is the interpretation I can provide for your query.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"You are right (for the second time), God does not need to rest, nor would He necessarily desire to rest UNLESS HE MEANT A LESSON OR POINT TO HIS ACTIONS TO HIS NEWLY CREATED BEINGS and as such would make an example of Himself.

Now YOU are assuming what God meant. How would they know what rest was? Could they even see God rest? How exactly does God rest? Would they know it when they saw it? Would they know how to do it? Was God even resting on the Earth? This is exactly what I'm talking about. An all powerful God needing to rest brings up so many unanswerable questions and logical paradoxes that it is simpler, and more correct, if we disregard what some human claimed God was hundreds of years after the fact.

QuoteIf we go farther back, why didn't God just speak all into existence in the snap of a finger?  Being all-powerful one supposes He could've.

Yeah, that's my question; why didn't he?

QuoteInstead He chose to do something by direct intention, for a reason.  If He is all-powerful, omni*, then He knows what is best and so acts accordingly to His purpose.

Then obviously he didn't do the best according to his purpose. If he has no limitations, then why did he limit himself? But the fact that he rested but is all powerful is only one in a line of my other examples. Not only do you have to address that, but all the others too. It. Just. Doesn't. Make. Sense. And that is my point. If in one light it makes no sense (God being all powerful), but in a different light it makes total sense (God is just a divine being), then which am I going to chose? Looking at God and seeing how inconsistent he is and saying that he had a reason, but we just don't know it, is not a reason at all, it's an excuse - a paradox too I might add (how can you claim not to know his reasons, but know he has reasons?). You can try to justify why God didn't do what an all powerful, all knowing, and all good God did, or preconceived notions can be suspended for a moment and read the text first. The convoluted, illogical, and shallow answer is that God just did what he did. The simple answer, corroborated by the text, is that God is not all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, or all good. I'm suspending my beliefs and looking at the text first. You are aligning your beliefs first and molding them around the text. That is not how you analyze something. That is the pure essence of bias.

QuoteNow, again, if you want to do a literary critique of the Bible as your title to this thread suggests, lets do a critique of the Bible and not one exerpt from it and from a few words critique the whole.

When you critique a story you start at the beginning and work your way to the end. You don't start at the end, then go back to the beginning. I'm going through, story by story, and basing God's character of his ACTIONS not what some random person said he is hundreds of years later. It would have been no problem for the Bible to define God first instead of waiting till the sequel. The Bible is a perfect example of retroactive continuity: later authors went back and rewrote or retooled existing characters to fit their objectives. And I said that, at the very beginning, in my first post. The problem is if we add the New Testament the story becomes impossible, where at least if we left it out for the moment, the story begins to make sense. To say that a character just does things to do things is void of character motivation, and that disadvantages a piece of literature. Reading from back to front, or trying to rationalize the story is not a literary critique.

It seems you are still unwilling to take and critique a piece in context of the whole and instead are insisting on treating each word on its own without context from the whole.  There is just no sense in attempting critique any work in part without having read or even agreeing to include the whole.

So as I mentioned, here ends my involvement until I see otherwise.  I suggest for now you simply g00gle "Bible Contradictions" and search in that manner.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It seems you are still unwilling to take and critique a piece in context of the whole and instead are insisting on treating each word on its own without context from the whole.

AnimatedDirt, have enjoyed your spirited defence of the bible. However I am puzzled by your insistence we take the bible as a whole. That seems to me prima facie unreasonable. First off we know as a matter of fact that there are many authors and that various parts come from different traditions. There is nothing contentious in this. Given that why should we read it as coherent?

To take a couple examples that immediately spring to mind: the story of Noah and the flood in genesis is a re-telling of the tale of Utnapishtim from the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh, which significantly predates the oldest of the old testament (in fact it pre-dates the advent of Judaism as a nation). Similarly we have found Psalm 104 in Egypt as a hymn to the Aten, once again significantly predating the advent of the Jewish nation. To say that we should ignore these kinds of facts in interpretation, because we must analyse the bible as a whole, is just bad scholarship.

I spent three years studying Christian Theology; with one exception all my tutors were Christian scholars; and even they would have balked at the idea of the bible as a coherent whole. Moreover to do so is actually to do the bible a disservice; the text, as it stands, is incredibly rich and diverse, why shy away from that fact? To go back to the Flood narrative in Genesis. Looking at the differences between that and the Gilgamesh account is fascinating and enhances our understanding of it. Moreover we can learn important things from it; for example it is now generally accepted that the Noah account was written during the Babylonian exile. We can also begin to understand it as coded discourse of an enslaved people, using the trappings of a Babylonian myth to hide a story about the Jewish God; just as black music in the US used the language of orthodox Christianity to disguise liberation songs.

It seems to me that by trying to interpret the bible as a whole you are really missing out...

peace

Quote from: "AD"So like Shakespeare in a sense, one must search for the meaning and/or beautiful metaphorical reasoning behind the details.

Quote from: "AD"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.

Quote from: "AD"The point is, God didn't "forget" to make the female, just chose to do it at a different time.

QuoteYou 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".

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

The irony...

Quote from: "penfold"AnimatedDirt, have enjoyed your spirited defence of the bible. However I am puzzled by your insistence we take the bible as a whole. That seems to me prima facie unreasonable. First off we know as a matter of fact that there are many authors and that various parts come from different traditions. There is nothing contentious in this. Given that why should we read it as coherent?

1.  Take a look at the thread topic.

2.  If the Bible does explain and interpret itself, then why not use its own interpretation or meaning?  Why insist that "things are out of order" when the order itself is really of no consequence but that to simply convey the point that God is, God made, and so God did this to show that...not that He "needed" to do anything.

Quote from: "penfold"To take a couple examples that immediately spring to mind: the story of Noah and the flood in genesis is a re-telling of the tale of Utnapishtim from the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh, which significantly predates the oldest of the old testament (in fact it pre-dates the advent of Judaism as a nation). Similarly we have found Psalm 104 in Egypt as a hymn to the Aten, once again significantly predating the advent of the Jewish nation. To say that we should ignore these kinds of facts in interpretation, because we must analyse the bible as a whole, is just bad scholarship.

I don't know enough about Gilgamesh to make a "scholarly" interpretation on the similarities and differences or on their origin, but if you'll notice, the topic was Adam and Eve...not the flood (so far).

Quote from: "penfold"I spent three years studying Christian Theology; with one exception all my tutors were Christian scholars; and even they would have balked at the idea of the bible as a coherent whole.

I seriously doubt they were Christians, I find it hard to believe, maybe they were simply Theists...either way I don't know how you'd be able to prove that.  Actually it makes no real difference if a person that wishes to make light of a portion of a book rejects other books that shed more light.  If you take a person's interpretation that ignores other information, you simply limit yourself and knowledge.  Who studies like this?

Quote from: "penfold"Moreover to do so is actually to do the bible a disservice; the text, as it stands, is incredibly rich and diverse, why shy away from that fact?

If it is rich and diverse as you say, why disregard the whole of it and ignore the latter that sheds light on the former?

Quote from: "penfold"To go back to the Flood narrative in Genesis. Looking at the differences between that and the Gilgamesh account is fascinating and enhances our understanding of it. Moreover we can learn important things from it; for example it is now generally accepted that the Noah account was written during the Babylonian exile. We can also begin to understand it as coded discourse of an enslaved people, using the trappings of a Babylonian myth to hide a story about the Jewish God; just as black music in the US used the language of orthodox Christianity to disguise liberation songs.

I don't know.  Like I mentioned, I don't have a great understanding of the Gilgamesh acct.  I'd have to read up on that.  Something I'm not all that interested in, to say the truth, but I may just to figure out your point.  So it's okay to bring in Gilgamesh, but it's not ok to bring in other books of the Bible?

Quote from: "penfold"It seems to me that by trying to interpret the bible as a whole you are really missing out...

So what you're saying here is that it is best to take a book, take a few words from that book, and interpret them without the rest of the book?  Well, I'd say that was really poor "scholarly" study.  If the rest of the book has nothing at all to say/mention on the text in question, then it is all we have and so we must interpret it on its own.  But that is not the case, so why limit your knowledge?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"If it is rich and diverse as you say, why disregard the whole of it and ignore the latter that sheds light on the former?

AD sorry, I hate overquoting so will try and address your points as a whole. As for the nature of the topic being limited, fair enough but that should not prevent the broader point about how we interpret the bible. (By the by, before I get lost, do read Gilgamesh it is a lovely text just as a piece of literature, theology aside - though reading it side by side with the biblical flood narrative is particularly interesting. Fairly decent translation found here - http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ - the flood narrative is tablet XI)

I was particularly interested in the above quote that the 'latter sheds light on the former'. My tutors (who by the way were definately Christian, one was Professor Fiddes, a very significant voice in the Baptist Church and now professor of systematic theology at Oxford, also Dr Anderson (a devout Catholic), Professor Cross (ex-Professor of Biblical Studies at Balliol College Oxford), to name but three), would sympathise with you on this point. In terms of Christian theology it is hard to interpret Genesis without reference to John 1:1-18 which "trinitises" the Genesis account.

However, while the author of the Johannine prologue (who is generally accepted not to be the author of the rest of John's Gospel - cf Prof Robinson (another devout Christian) - Primacy of John) interpreted Genesis as trinitarian; there is no evidence that the authors of Genesis were trinitarian. In fact, they never use trinitarian language, nor for that matter does any of the Old Testament. So in literary terms (which is the topic in question), it is absurd to to argue that Genesis as authored fits neatly into a trinitarian account.

My question to you is this. In general we interpret historical texts by trying to understand the particular context of authorship; why should the bible be exempt from such analysis?

Quote from: "penfold"AD sorry, I hate overquoting so will try and address your points as a whole.

Overquoting?  Sometimes it makes for easier understanding seeing exactly what your answering.

Quote from: "penfold"As for the nature of the topic being limited, fair enough but that should not prevent the broader point about how we interpret the bible.

The topic isn't limited...that's my whole point...and if we are going to attempt to interpret the Bible, then lets allow the Bible to give its own interpretation.  I don't care too much, nor does my faith stand or fall on whether the acct of Creation is in the right "order".  The point is not scientific in nature, but rather who created.

Quote from: "penfold"(By the by, before I get lost, do read Gilgamesh it is a lovely text just as a piece of literature, theology aside - though reading it side by side with the biblical flood narrative is particularly interesting. Fairly decent translation found here - http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/ - the flood narrative is tablet XI)

I'll get to it some day, but probably not in the near future.

Quote from: "penfold"I was particularly interested in the above quote that the 'latter sheds light on the former'. My tutors [...] would sympathise with you on this point. In terms of Christian theology it is hard to interpret Genesis without reference to John 1:1-18 which "trinitises" the Genesis account.

I think I can agree

Quote from: "penfold"However, while the author of the Johannine prologue [...] interpreted Genesis as trinitarian; there is no evidence that the authors of Genesis were trinitarian. In fact, they never use trinitarian language, nor for that matter does any of the Old Testament. So in literary terms (which is the topic in question), it is absurd to to argue that Genesis as authored fits neatly into a trinitarian account.

I agree.  The authors were not necessarily trinitarian.  It's not, however, absurd that it fits neatly.  The author of Genesis used the term "us" when referring to God the Creator.  Whether or not he understood the reason is really of no real consequence until later when the point is more clear and Genesis then sheds evidence to the fact.

Quote from: "penfold"My question to you is this. In general we interpret historical texts by trying to understand the particular context of authorship; why should the bible be exempt from such analysis?

It shouldn't.  When have I said as much?  What I said to Event_Horizon is simply if latter books further enlighten certain things that are unclear, then we should certainly use the latter to form a better understanding of the former.  We can agree that the author may've not understood exactly everything God was inspiring him to write.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I agree.  The authors were not necessarily trinitarian.  It's not, however, absurd that it fits neatly.  The author of Genesis used the term "us" when referring to God the Creator.  Whether or not he understood the reason is really of no real consequence until later when the point is more clear and Genesis then sheds evidence to the fact.

You have to consider what the authors wrote at the time. If they had no concept of the trinity, then why do you interpret their writings with trinitarian aspects? To do so is to interpret the text your way and to introduce bias. The original authors of Genesis were polytheists, and Yahweh was only one God in a pantheon. Later authors edited the text to make it seem like the original God Yahweh was the single monotheistic God. The state of mind you're in is only consistent with the aspect of the Bible's editors, and not the original writers. When the God in the story refers to itself as "us", you can use your own preconceived interpretation to explain that it was referring to itself as the trinity. That however destroys the story and the idea that the authors wanted to tell. You are essentially deleting history and literature because it doesn't conform to your theology.

QuoteIf latter books further enlighten certain things that are unclear, then we should certainly use the latter to form a better understanding of the former.  We can agree that the author may've not understood exactly everything God was inspiring him to write.

That is kind of penfold's point. If you assume that God inspired these works, then it takes away from the tribal stories and deletes the cultural context in which the stories were written. You are essentially paving over aspects of the story because you prefer the text to be read that way. I try to examine the story itself, leaving my assumptions at the door. I will consider the general context when I arrive at the general context, not before. You seem to think that the original text doesn't explain itself, but it does in great detail, just not in the light that you want it to be. The original text explains a certain primitive view of the world, and even though it's been edited, portrays a classic creation myth of a God that is similar in every way to a polytheistic pantheon structure, and even demonstrates that in the text. You reject it because it's not your interpretation.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You have to consider what the authors wrote at the time.

Then likewise, you must consider what the reader understood at the time and not use 21st Century knowledge to debunk, if you will, something unknown to the reader of the day and even to some extent maybe of the author(s).

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"If they had no concept of the trinity, then why do you interpret their writings with trinitarian aspects? To do so is to interpret the text your way and to introduce bias.

Not necessarily.  The trinitarian aspect of the NT simply has OT evidence.  That's all.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The original authors of Genesis were polytheists, and Yahweh was only one God in a pantheon.

And I was under the impression that the author(s) believed in One God.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Later authors edited the text to make it seem like the original God Yahweh was the single monotheistic God.

Oh...then I must renounce my belief...

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The state of mind you're in is only consistent with the aspect of the Bible's editors, and not the original writers. When the God in the story refers to itself as "us", you can use your own preconceived interpretation to explain that it was referring to itself as the trinity.

Or that it (God) was One in at least two.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That however destroys the story and the idea that the authors wanted to tell. You are essentially deleting history and literature because it doesn't conform to your theology.

How so?  Again, if you're going to insist I limit myself to "what the author(s) wrote" then you'll likewise have to show how the reader of that time didn't understand, or better, questioned that which you are questioning now...that being that if God is a Trinity, it destroys the story and idea and delete history and literature.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"That is kind of penfold's point. If you assume that God inspired these works, then it takes away from the tribal stories and deletes the cultural context in which the stories were written.

It does no such thing.  In fact, it resonates throughout the whole of the Bible and the latter establishes consistency.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You are essentially paving over aspects of the story because you prefer the text to be read that way. I try to examine the story itself, leaving my assumptions at the door.

I don't prefer it to read any way.  I'm simply point out to you that in context of the whole, the part is consistent.  If you remove the whole and inspect it with 21st century knowledge and philosophy, maybe some questions arise.  Unanswered questions do not necessarily remove the validity of the text.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"I will consider the general context when I arrive at the general context, not before.

You are welcome to.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You seem to think that the original text doesn't explain itself, but it does in great detail, just not in the light that you want it to be.

It doesn't need to.  The original reader seemingly didn't need to know the scientific explanations of creation, nor the "us" in the text.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"The original text explains a certain primitive view of the world, and even though it's been edited, portrays a classic creation myth of a God that is similar in every way to a polytheistic pantheon structure, and even demonstrates that in the text.

Myth to you.  Something I take on faith in evidence from the texts on the whole.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You reject it because it's not your interpretation.

I don't reject it.  I say it is simply not ethical study to critique a portion of text that seems to leave out details when the whole of the text fills in more gaps.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"And I was under the impression that the author(s) believed in One God.

That's where your preconceived notions are wrong. Ancient Hebrews were polytheists, and Yahweh was just one of many Gods. Biblical scholars, historians, and archeologists have written scores of books on the subject. Genesis and Exodus were written with the Hebrews resided in Babylon, which had many polytheistic religions all influencing each other. Some aspects were incorporated into Judaism, including the story of Genesis 1 resembling the Babylonian creation myth. You won't get that from YOUR interpretation.

QuoteOr that it (God) was One in at least two.

Which doesn't make any sense because for nine hundred years, that wasn't part of the story. How should it have been read then, in that nine hundred year period? Hmm?

QuoteHow so?  Again, if you're going to insist I limit myself to "what the author(s) wrote" then you'll likewise have to show how the reader of that time didn't understand, or better, questioned that which you are questioning now...that being that if God is a Trinity, it destroys the story and idea and delete history and literature.

Yeah, exactly, it destroys literature when you take a passage written hundreds of years later, by different people, of a different area, different language, different concept of God, and use that to override the cultural context before it. If you cannot understand why it's stupid to take the word of someone centuries later to override the actions within the story, then we really have no point in talking.

QuoteIt does no such thing.  In fact, it resonates throughout the whole of the Bible and the latter establishes consistency.

Are you aware of bias is? Do you think if nobody told you what God was, and just told you to read the Bible, would you really have gotten the Trinity from the text? Would you really have gotten an all loving, all powerful, blah, blah, God? Really? Are you that consumed by your religion that you can't just put it aside for a moment, or simply let it go?

QuoteIt doesn't need to.  The original reader seemingly didn't need to know the scientific explanations of creation, nor the "us" in the text.

Who said anything about science? This is a literary critique.

First, I'm not trying to "debunk" anything. If you accept that then you have wasted your time because this is a literary critique, and not a review of your religion. A literary critique looks at aspects of story. You know, literature. This critique specifically looks at the story of genesis WHICH I SAID IN THE ORIGINAL POST. So all your arguments are basically worthless because all the information you seem to attribute to this character are not in the story. I already know what the Trinity is, and what the New Testament says about God; I used to be a Christian. Genesis is a story from a specific set of authors, and they wrote a particular story. That I will critique, not what an editor added on hundreds of years later. I've said it over and over again, but you just don't seem to get it. If you cannot understand why I take Genesis for what it is, then you have no business here. If I wanted to critique the first Dune book and only the first book, I damn well could, and if you chimed in with "but X, Y, and Z are explained in the last book, written by his sons, and they justify everything you have a problem with," then I'd say fuck off for the same reason I do so here.

For days we've gone back and forth, and yet we still go after the same points. Genesis is a story. I critiqued it. I'm not going to accept what someone said about God in a different book centuries later, because he's not a character in the story. As far as I'm concerned, his statement is non-canon.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"As far as I'm concerned, his statement is non-canon.

So then again, here ends your thread.

And it doesn't bother me one little bit. You have a good night.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "penfold"My question to you is this. In general we interpret historical texts by trying to understand the particular context of authorship; why should the bible be exempt from such analysis?

It shouldn't.  When have I said as much?  What I said to Event_Horizon is simply if latter books further enlighten certain things that are unclear, then we should certainly use the latter to form a better understanding of the former.  We can agree that the author may've not understood exactly everything God was inspiring him to write.

This is what I have a problem with in the context of a literary interpretation of Genesis. The questions asked by a literary interpretation of the text are not the same as the questions asked by a theological interpretation. Here's the difference. A literary interpretation of Genesis asks "who/what was YHWH/Elohim to the author(s) of Genesis?". A theological interpretation asks "What does it mean for God to be creator?".

The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

To take an example. If we allowed later texts to answer historical questions then we could argue that Julius Caesar's last words were "And thou, Brutus" because Shakespeare said they were. However we have no sources close to the lifetime of Caesar which says this, so historians assume that it was a later invention.

In the case of Genesis it is equally anachronistic to use an idea of Trinity to interpret Genesis when the concept of Trinity would not be around for another 2,000 years. If you are saying it can be then you are giving the bible special treatment. You are treating it in a way we would treat no other historical text.

Quote from: "penfold"This is what I have a problem with in the context of a literary interpretation of Genesis. The questions asked by a literary interpretation of the text are not the same as the questions asked by a theological interpretation. Here's the difference. A literary interpretation of Genesis asks "who/what was YHWH/Elohim to the author(s) of Genesis?". A theological interpretation asks "What does it mean for God to be creator?".

Maybe a source from the ever-present web will help.
LITERARY ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 1:1â€"2:3 (http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xgen1_1-2_3.pdf)
While the author holds to a literal 6 day/24 hr period of Creation week, I *think from his analysis he means that each day was a 24 hour period, but not necessarily consecutive days or 144 hours straight.

Quote from: "penfold"The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

Says the skeptic whose only point in it all is to debunk.  When you do a thorough investigation/critique/analysis/interpretation of anything, you must include the whole, or at least the best interpretation includes the whole.  If the NT wasn't available, then it may be slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

Quote from: "penfold"To take an example. If we allowed later texts to answer historical questions then we could argue that Julius Caesar's last words were "And thou, Brutus" because Shakespeare said they were. However we have no sources close to the lifetime of Caesar which says this, so historians assume that it was a later invention.

Of course Caesar didn't claim to be the Almighty or claim to have influenced the writers of many books/letters, so whether his last words were that or something else is really of simple general historical interest and of no lasting value.  

Quote from: "penfold"In the case of Genesis it is equally anachronistic to use an idea of Trinity to interpret Genesis when the concept of Trinity would not be around for another 2,000 years. If you are saying it can be then you are giving the bible special treatment. You are treating it in a way we would treat no other historical text.

Who is interpreting Genesis through the idea of the Trinity?  I simply made the statement that the NT, and as you mentioned earlier, specifically John 1:1-18, gives rise to God being a Trinity is referenced as early as creation.  It is simply evidence that substanciates the claim of John 1:1-18.  This fact is not needed to interpret Genesis.

AnimatedDirt, did you bother reading the material you linked to? The piece does not seem to address Genesis on a narrative level, but leans toward a linguistic level. Secondly this post has no intention on "debunking" the Bible, and if you think it is the purpose of the discussion, then you haven't been listening. Third, you admit over and over that we should take the text as a whole, but what literary background do you have? What are your credentials? You base your assertion on a theological level, and if the post was examining the beliefs of a religion it would be entirely appropriate, but that is not what the post is about. A literary critique has certain methodologies in which to approach the text, otherwise the text becomes something different than what the authors intended. As penfold said, when looking at a specific piece of ancient literature it is important to understand who wrote it, their culture, and the ideas of other narratives at the time which might have influenced the text. However it is not appropriate, on a literary level, to change the original text by allowing interpretations of future texts to alter the original content. You can justify and reason the actions of God all you want in a theological debate. That's perfectly fine. However a literary critique looks at elements of story in a certain methodology.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"AnimatedDirt, did you bother reading the material you linked to? The piece does not seem to address Genesis on a narrative level, but leans toward a linguistic level.

It seems to do exactly what is being questioned here.  I did read it.  Literary, linguistic, narrative...all encompass the same and influence each other.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Secondly this post has no intention on "debunking" the Bible, and if you think it is the purpose of the discussion, then you haven't been listening.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"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. [...]especially in light of later chapters when they go into retroactive character development.[...]This being is obviously not all powerful because [...]an all powerful being has no need to rest [...]This also means the being is not perfect

Just a few points made in the OP.  The evidence is against your "no intention" claim.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"Third, you admit over and over that we should take the text as a whole, but what literary background do you have? What are your credentials?

I didn't realize this was a "Peer-Reviewed" forum in which credentials, etc. were requirements prior to posting thoughts, ideas, knowledge...

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You base your assertion on a theological level,

We are critiquing the Judeo-Christian BIBLE...right?  I've not made any assertions, but rather have based my "assertions" as you claim, in line and with backing from Bible, of which Genesis is one part.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"and if the post was examining the beliefs of a religion it would be entirely appropriate, but that is not what the post is about.

Please refer to the few quotes above from the OP...if it isn't examining beliefs, then why are you claiming some beliefs are wrong or can't be right?

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"A literary critique has certain methodologies in which to approach the text, otherwise the text becomes something different than what the authors intended. As penfold said, when looking at a specific piece of ancient literature it is important to understand who wrote it, their culture, and the ideas of other narratives at the time which might have influenced the text.

Agreed.  Hence the reason I mentioned the people of the time and what they knew or were interested in knowing.  Whether the plants were made before the sun or not really is of no consequence to the point of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"However it is not appropriate, on a literary level, to change the original text by allowing interpretations of future texts to alter the original content.

I haven't changed the text, nor the meaning of the original text.

I'm going to say this once more and if you cannot understand it and continue to accuse me of doing something I am not doing, I will report your post as harrassment.

All I mentioned is that the  "...like us, ...in our image..." in Genesis simply gives evidence to the John 1:1-18 book of the NT as Penfold brought up.  That God has always been ONE in at least THREE, a Trinity.  This, however, does not change, nor does it take away from the literary interpretation or critique of Genesis in and of itself.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"You can justify and reason the actions of God all you want in a theological debate. That's perfectly fine. However a literary critique looks at elements of story in a certain methodology.

It is not me that is bringing up "reason" and actions of God...look at your points in the OP.  It is you that fails at doing exactly what you're claiming I am doing.  I'm simply following along and proposing answers to YOUR questions.

The fact of the matter is, this link, LITERARY ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 1:1â€"2:3 (http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xgen1_1-2_3.pdf) answers many of the points/questions your OP brings up.

The link you sent deals with the 7 days of creation, and not the Garden of Eden. So I can't see how you read all of it because if you did you'd know that it isn't relevant to Genesis 2 and 3. Especially since, linguistically, Genesis 2 and 3 were written separately from Genesis 1.

This also was not a debunking post. Nowhere did I bring up the Christian religion, or talk about Theology. I spoke of how if the later text were allowed in the story, the story doesn't make sense. There is no jab at religion there. If you think there was, that's your opinion, but since I wrote it, and I know my own intent, your opinion is wrong.

QuoteI didn't realize this was a "Peer-Reviewed" forum in which credentials, etc. were requirements prior to posting thoughts, ideas, knowledge...

That's a fantastic straw man. I ask for your credentials because you don't seem to understand what a critique is. You don't need to have a degree to contribute to the discussion, but you say things with such certainty and you don't understand why they're wrong.

QuoteWe are critiquing the Judeo-Christian BIBLE...right?  I've not made any assertions, but rather have based my "assertions" as you claim, in line and with backing from Bible, of which Genesis is one part.

The title of the post is says "Literary Critique of the Bible" but I should point you to the first paragraph, where it says I'll be talking about Genesis. Nowhere did I say I'd take on the Bible as a whole, but instead look at the story of Genesis, just the story of Genesis. And in the first post I explained why the rest of the Bible would be left out - because it makes the story incoherent. If you think I'm going after the entire Bible, then you misread. If you think I'm going after beliefs then that is also incorrect. I explained why story elements completely conflict when the God character (and I referred to him as a character) is characterized by later passages in the Bible. I stated that for the sake of simplicity, consistency, and to examine the story itself, I wouldn't address it. But fine. This is a critique of Genesis, and only Genesis. Now what? My post really doesn't change all that much, but your argument is gone.

QuoteAgreed.  Hence the reason I mentioned the people of the time and what they knew or were interested in knowing.  Whether the plants were made before the sun or not really is of no consequence to the point of the opening chapters of Genesis.

But the people at the time didn't know of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, so why do you ascribe those beliefs to them? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you look at archeological evidence, literary influences from Babylon, and the linguistic composition of the Torah, you would see that the evidence points to a polytheistic religion that the ancient Hebrews once believed in. Now the storyline of Genesis has the same structure as other creation myths at the time, and the character traits of the God character are similar to those in a polytheistic pantheon. If you try to justify the text with the Trinity, then you are deleting the author's views with your own.

QuoteI'm going to say this once more and if you cannot understand it and continue to accuse me of doing something I am not doing, I will report your post as harrassment.

Oh please.

QuoteIt is not me that is bringing up "reason" and actions of God...look at your points in the OP.  It is you that fails at doing exactly what you're claiming I am doing.  I'm simply following along and proposing answers to YOUR questions.

A critique doesn't look for answers. A critique is a critical evaluation. If you don't like it, leave. I am so done arguing back and forth.

Quote from: "Event_Horizon"But the people at the time didn't know of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, so why do you ascribe those beliefs to them? This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you look at archeological evidence, literary influences from Babylon, and the linguistic composition of the Torah, you would see that the evidence points to a polytheistic religion that the ancient Hebrews once believed in. Now the storyline of Genesis has the same structure as other creation myths at the time, and the character traits of the God character are similar to those in a polytheistic pantheon. If you try to justify the text with the Trinity, then you are deleting the author's views with your own.

Holy Mother of God...I'm not ascribing any beliefs to them at all.  All I'm simply saying is that Jesus, in the NT, claims be to the "I AM" of the OT.  He claims to be the Creator...of Adam and Eve...the God of the OT.  The NT claims a God that has "split", if you will, from ONE to Three, but clarifies ITSELF as ONE in Three.  Father, Son, and Spirit.  None of this changes the text you are referring to.  NONE WHATSOEVER.  You are right, the people of God did, in captivity (and at other times), for the most part, depart from the worship of the God that they originally followed and did get influenced by their captors.  Not a point of contention at all.
It is Penfold that brought up the point of John 1:1-18 here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6706#p101651) and here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6706&start=15#p102201).

I have no need to "justify the text with the Trinity".  That point is not made known until the NT, however the OT, and Genesis in particular, gives evidence to the NT claim.  That is all.

Now...you may disagree that the link doesn't discuss your critique, but it does.  A few of your OP points are directly dealt with in that link.

The link goes into Genesis one, and barely into Genesis two, where as my critique looked at Genesis two and three. On the first post I made a mistake, and in a later post I stated I made a mistake, explaining where and what it was. Genesis one and the creation of the Earth isn't a problem for the narrative as much as the later parts in the story because it is literally setting up the world within the narrative. The character interactions afterwards take place in Genesis two and three, which is what I focused on most.

You are looking at the story in the context of a Christian, but the original writers weren't Christians. By all accounts they worshiped completely different Gods. For you to say that it is your God in their story means to are dissolving any intent the authors might have had. The original writers had no concept of the trinity, so when the character of God speaks to itself in plural, I have no reason to assume it's the trinity. The author who wrote the trinitarian character attribute was not the same author who wrote the original narrative. The writers of the Old Testament didn't attribute benevolence or justice to their God - as seen from other passages in the OT. There is little reason to believe that the God character of the OT and the NT are the same person since they are given fundamentally different character attributes and written by different authors, at different times, with different concepts of the God character.

In a theological sense, it causes problems for believers when they confronted with absolute grotesque acts perpetrated by an all knowing and all loving God. The Christian has to justify God commanding slavery, murder, genocide, etc. in the Bible. However those problems don't exist if you imagine for a moment that the God of the OT and the God of the NT are two different Gods. Everything then falls into place and makes perfect sense when it is recognized that there are two sets of authors writing two accounts hundreds of years apart, especially if the original authors came out of a polytheistic era in which Gods were mean and nasty and killed people on a whim.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "penfold"The former question is asking about historical truth. The latter is asking something about divine truth. In answering historical questions we must have a strict methodology. Central to historical method is that we look at texts in the historical and literary context in which they were written. That means to understand a text I can look to anything written before it, as it is reasonable to assume that it was an influence upon the author. It is unreasonable to use a text written generations later in interpret a text.

Says the skeptic whose only point in it all is to debunk.  When you do a thorough investigation/critique/analysis/interpretation of anything, you must include the whole, or at least the best interpretation includes the whole.  If the NT wasn't available, then it may be slightly more difficult, but not impossible.

The point of scepticism is not merely to debunk. I am sorry if your experience of sceptical method has been that. The point of scepticism is to determine facts about the world. Three people sit in a room, the first says "I believe objects will rise when dropped", the second says "I believe objects will fall when dropped"; the third is a sceptic, he takes an apple and drops it. So doing he established which of the two others were correct. The first two guys were just talking, the sceptic discovered how the world works.

Everyday you rely on sceptical method. All the technology you use was arrived at by sceptical process. Your government, with its constitutional system of checks and balances, was borne of sceptical thinking. The medicine you take, the logistical systems that give you food, the fact you look both ways when crossing a street; these are the products of sceptism. Do not underestimate its benefit.

As for the particular issue of the literality of Genesis. I fear that if you reject historical method we will never come to agreement. I would just say this. I have met many people of deep, impressive, faith who do not believe the bible to be literal. Many of these people have spent thier lives studying these texts and the history of 1st Century Palestine. I get the impression you are not desperately interested in engaging with these ideas, but they do not merely "debunk", they also enrich. There is a whole world of biblical scholarship out there written, mostly by Christians, who aren't afraid of asking deep questions. Faith in a literal bible, it seems to me, lacks this depth. Simply put, it is too easy; a child's answer.

peace