Literary Critique of the Bible

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Event_Horizon]

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

[Event_Horizon]

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

[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.

[Event_Horizon]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.  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.

[penfold]

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

[Gawen]

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

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.

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

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".

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

The irony...

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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).

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?

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?

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?

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?

[penfold]

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?

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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.

[Event_Horizon]

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.

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.

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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).

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will consider the general context when I arrive at the general context, not before.

You are welcome to.

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.

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.

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.

[Event_Horizon]

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.

Or 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?

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.

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.

It 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?

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.

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.