A few more problems with the “literal truth” of the Bible
May 12th, 2006 by grumpypilgrimFurther to my previous post about the problem of God’s attractive nuisance in the garden of Eden, here are some more questions from Genesis for readers to ponder. First, exactly where did Cain’s wife (in Genesis 4:17) come from? The book of Genesis never says God created her from scratch, as He did Adam and Eve, so we must assume Cain’s wife was a daughter of Adam and Eve; i.e., Cain’s sister. Apparently, a literal reading of Genesis indicates there was incest in the garden of Eden. And quite a lot of it, too: if all humans descended from Adam and Eve, then ALL of their grandchildren would have been the product of brother-sister incest.
Second, what should we make of Lamesh (in Genesis 4:19) who had TWO wives and had children by both of them? Apparently, God was OK with both incest and polygamy.
Third, given that God was apparently OK with sexual behaviors that virtually any Christian today would say are sinful (and the above are just two of many examples), then exactly what support is there for Christians who claim that the Bible provides an “absolute” moral code?
May 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
You need to pray more and stop actually READING the Bible!
Seriously, if you don’t quit pointing out all of those contradictions in the Bible, you’re gonna get us all smited (or smoten or smitten or whatever the right term is for God throwing lightning bolts at us).
May 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
The only unforgivable sin in the bible is to doubt the existance of the holy spirit - a crime committed by critical analysis. Therefore, the greatest crime one can commit is to think. The Bible works if you blindly accept what it says ( called “faith).
May 13th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Hey brother,
god is scarcity
wanting fruit keeps the motion
here, knowledge knows scarcity
in a garden,
god’s tree is of plenty
us, living
under her scarce branches
and yes,
eve is a companion
and my breath
of soul reflection
here,
sitting in the garden
denied a fruit of finite knowledge
i eat infinite imagination
burping holy perversions
*spring sun fills the portal, my pupil
it’s good to see you here
let’s celebrate
pR
May 14th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
I like Val’s comment. Talk about “attractive nuisance!” Why would a God give us brain that naturally tends toward skepticism but then, if we use it even once, smack us with a mortal sin that CANNOT (in theory) BE FORGIVEN, EVER! Into the flames my children!
I hope there is a Universal Family Court where Gods that neglect and abuse their “children” like this are straightened out. Maybe they’ll put us into the homes of “Foster Gods.”
May 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Grumpy, indeed we are ALL related to a common ancestor. Science has proved that her name was Lucy, not Eve, and that’s just the start!
Take your pick. Either will do fine… (?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
May 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Further to Ben’s comment, I’ve always wondered how Fundamentalist Christians imagine their god created a fully-formed Adam and Eve. It would have been quite a job to pull together the hundreds of trillions of cells needed to create two human bodies (only 10% of which contain “our” DNA, as Erich mentions here http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1286) and assemble them into two working prototypes. But here’s the problematic part: where did Adam’s and Eve’s initial *minds* come from — the initial knowledge, thoughts and memories that were in their heads? We must presume that the god-of-the-Bible put them there, right? After all, Adam and Eve needed to function as adults (e.g., tend the Garden of Eden, find food to eat, make babies, etc.), so they could not possibly have had the unformed mind of a human newborn baby — they would have needed the working minds of adults. So, if the god-of-the-Bible filled Adam’s and Eve’s brains with thoughts, memories, beliefs, etc., then why didn’t said god give them a better understanding of what death was, so that they would have known better than to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Millions of (imperfect) human parents have managed to prevent their children from drinking the toxic chemicals that are stored under the kitchen sink, so why couldn’t the (”perfect”) god-of-the-Bible prevent his children from eating the toxic fruit from the dreaded Tree? Why didn’t the god-of-the-Bible put “Mr. Yuck” stickers on those apples, put a fence around the Tree to keep his children away from it and, most importantly, give Adam and Eve the common sense that all adults need to stay alive? It was not “free will” that caused them to eat that deadly fruit, it was ignorance and stupidity, neither of which they would have had if the god-of-the-Bible had done a competent job of parenting. Thus, we must conclude that the god-of-the-Bible is incompetent; thus imperfect; thus, by definition, nonexistent.
May 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“Further to Ben’s comment, I’ve always wondered how Fundamentalist Christians imagine their god created a fully-formed Adam and Eve. It would have been quite a job to pull together the hundreds of trillions of cells needed to create two human bodies (only 10% of which contain “our” DNA, as Erich mentions here http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1286) and assemble them into two working prototypes.”
Doesn’t making a whole universe seem like a way more difficult thing to do?
“so that they would have known better than to eat from the Tree of Knowledge?”
Was it not eating from the Tree of Knowledge that entailed this insight? Or did it only make them aware that they were running around naked?
“Why didn’t the god-of-the-Bible put “Mr. Yuck” stickers on those apples, put a fence around the Tree to keep his children away from it and, most importantly, give Adam and Eve the common sense that all adults need to stay alive?”
There are a lot of people without common sense who are alive and kicking, so it doesn’t look like a conditio sine qua non to me.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:55 am
“Doesn’t making a whole universe seem like a way more difficult thing to do?”
Actually, no, because the human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe.
“Was it not eating from the Tree of Knowledge that entailed this insight? Or did it only make them aware that they were running around naked?”
No and no. The answers to these questions can be found by reading the book of Genesis and this post: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=166/. Genesis says that Adam and Eve were warned to not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, “for surely they would die,” but they could not possibly have understood this warning unless they understood what it meant to “die.” However, if they were the first humans, then they would have had no knowledge of death, except what had been put into their heads by the god-of-the-Bible.
“There are a lot of people without common sense who are alive and kicking, so it doesn’t look like a conditio sine qua non to me.”
Non-sequitur. Clearly, the god-of-the-Bible neglected to give Adam and Eve the common sense they needed to stay alive, so the above example, even if true, is not relevant. Moreover, the example is not true. People without common sense — the common sense they need to stay alive — die.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
If we are to read the first two chapters of Genesis with the assumption that every word is literally true then the serpent tells the truth and God is the liar. God tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat of the tree of knowledge they will die. The serpent tells Eve they will not die and they don’t. (I know, I know, a “Fundie” will say that God just meant they would bring death into the world but, guess what? That is interpretation which is perfectly valid but not compatible with every word being literally true.)