Th Big Three

I’ve recently been having a discussion with Sadie Lou who as you can see, has an excellent and very popular blog of her own.

We’ve been discussing some inconsistencies I see in Genesis and it got a bit subject specific, so I thought I’d tackle the subject head-on. Before I get into my own version of a dissection of these chapters however, I should probably apologise to Ricky Gervais, just in case. I think also, that there’s a couple of things about  the nature of God that need to be addressed and taken into account before I start. They are “the big three”, so to speak; omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

Omnipotent: Having absolute power.

Obviously you’d need this one if you’re going to create a whole universe out of what, it doesn’t say.

Omnipresent: Present everywhere at the same time.

I’m not sure why he’d need this, but he’s got it, so deal with it.

Omniscient: Knowing everything.

Now here’s the kicker. God knows everything that was, is and will be, or so I’m lead to believe. It does however, present a few issues for me.

So, let’s take a look at the other big three, Genesis 1, 2 & 3, bearing those three qualities of God in mind. It is in these chapters, the ones that first introduce us to God, that we find some major inconsistencies that leave me doubting that any of it could possibly be “the inspired words of God.” A God that has the qualities I’ve mentioned above would never allow such mistakes, I’m sure.

Chapter 1: Ok, God creates heaven and earth, in the dark. Then God creates light and sees that it is good and we get day and night. We get six hectic days, where God gets to show off his creative abilities and flex his all knowing muscles. No stone was left unturned, quite literally. By the end of the fifth day, we have light, the sky, land, sea, vegetation including all the seed bearing plants with fruit “according to their kind” (whatever that means), a greater light to govern the day and a lesser light to govern the night, stars, fish, all the land dwelling animals including birds, in that order.

The sixth day is the biggy, well as far as we’re concerned anyway. Firstly, the living creatures, separated by groups; livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals, each according to their kind (again.. What does that mean?) and then it’s our turn. God makes us in his image. Brilliant! Then he tells us to go forth and multiply and rule over all the animals, oh and we can eat the plants. No problems there. Everything seems to be in order and “each according to it’s kind” (can someone explain that for me please?), super.

Second chapter: Well, after spending all that creative energy and of course, being quite chuffed at what he’d achieved, and rightly so, is it any wonder he has a well deserved rest? I don’t think so. It’s just after this however, that things start to get a little sticky for me.

Genesis 2:5-7 says; ⁵and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, ⁶but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground - ⁷the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There’s a problem here though. It seems that someone got confused somewhere. Correct me if I’m wrong, but he created the plants and vegetation back in 1:11. Man however, doesn’t get a guernsey until 1:26, fifteen verses after he created the plants, which in 1:30 he gives to everything to eat. But in chapter 2 he seems to have created man before the plants. Not only that, but streams had watered the “whole surface of the ground” (with no plants, I’m assuming mud would be the result here), yet God was able to find some dust.

Now, there’s probably some perfectly simple scholarly reason why it seems to get all mixed up and turned around, but I can’t work out what it would be. This is supposed to be the inspired words of God after all and God, as we’ve all been taught and/or lead to believe, is supposed to be infallible. Most books sport the odd mistake, but would an infallible God allow such mistakes? I can’t really see it myself.

Anyway, then God plants the garden and creates “Eden” and puts man there to look after it. But in 2:9 we see what seems to be another mistake. God creates yet more plants; And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. I’d contend however, that he’d already done that – see 1:11 & 1:30 – but there’s an interesting qualification here. He also creates, in the middle of the garden, two special trees; “the tree of life” and “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. He then commands man to; not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. Nothing about the tree of life though, so I guess that’s fair game.

Anyway, after that we get God’s crowning glory, woman. Ripper! Now the scene is set for chapter 3.

Things go a bit awry here though. It seems that Eve finds “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and meets a chatty serpent. It asks her if God really said they mustn’t eat the fruit of any tree in the garden. Eve, far from being surprised by a talking snake, says that no, it’s only the tree of knowledge and they mustn’t touch it or else they’ll die (just a bit of an exaggeration here, I think. God said “eat of it”, not “touch it”). Anyway, the snake sets her straight and says that they won’t die, it’s just that God knows that when they eat it, they’ll become like God, knowing good and evil. At this point, Genesis makes it very clear that Eve makes an informed decision, carefully considering all the information she has available to her, and decides to eat the fruit. She then gives some to Adam who was with her, keeping quiet, probably because it was him that told the fib about touching it, and he ate some too. Then they realise they’re naked so fig leaves become the order of the day.

Not long after this, God finds out and get’s really upset and hands out some punishments: Woman to have pain in childbirth, man has to toil the fields and the snake has to crawl on its belly for the rest of its days. Not much of a punishment for a snake, but there you go.

Now that’s all very well and good, but there are some inconsistencies here too. For instance, they manage to hide from God and he has to call out to them. Really? I thought he was omnipresent and omniscient? Then it seems that he doesn’t know how it is that they know they're naked. Really? I thought he was omniscient? Then he asks what it is they’ve done. There’s that omniscience problem again.

Then there’s the whole problem with the serpent. It seems it didn’t lie or deceive anyone. It told the truth and nothing but. This can be evidenced by chapter 3:22 where God endorses everything the snake said - And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."  - yet we’re taught that the serpent lied and deceived Eve. Well, she did say so I suppose but then, she was trying to save her own skin. The whole episode just doesn’t make sense for an omnipotent, omniscient God.

So, these inconsistencies appearing as they do, all within the first few chapters, are more than enough to make me wonder if this, or any of the rest of it, could possibly be the testament of an infallible being.

3:32 PM - 2/4/2007 - post comment

Why God is a minnow

Nice one Ted.

These points nicely encapsulate why the Christian God is unworthy of my support. The label "Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil" not being a desired skill of humans points to the idea that God wanted a garden of brainless followers who didn't have the wit to think for themselves.

Granted a lot of his current supporters aren't too thoughtful or curious but surely being venerated by these folk isn't much of an achievement. Surely the enthusiasm of Thinkers would be a much more worthy target.

Another area where this clashes is with the stated objective of Jesus Christ. Apparently God was feeling sufficiently better so that if we now cowtow to his magnificence we can sit around telling him what a good chap he/she is.

How shallow does that make God's ego? Anyone that desperate for praise should probably check themself into a New Age self help program.

Me? I'm looking for a God with not so many issues.

petermcc - 5:21 PM - 2/4/2007

Minnows to whales

Jonah might disagree with you Pete...:)

Thanks for that. I have to agree that it certainly seems like god really wanted brainless followers. In some cases, as you say, that's exactly what he's got. Still, there are some that think about it.

plonka - 6:15 PM - 2/4/2007

Your right

I have heard a couple of Christians who really get into the thinking process but they are so swamped by the "by rote" members that they don't get much of a look in.

Pity. They could lift the plodders. I think the problem is that they scare the weak minded and they are the noisy ones. My observation is the louder the voice, the softer the brain, the more fierce the intolerance.

petermcc - 6:27 PM - 2/4/2007

Thanks for Ricky, Ted

Makes more sense than the fundies ever will.

snowy - 6:37 PM - 2/4/2007

Fundies

I think you're right there Pete. But I think there's also an element of not wanting your belief to be wrong as well. Some just voice it more strongly than others.

No worries Snowy, he is a funny man and he presents it extremely well...:)

plonka - 7:17 PM - 2/4/2007

the bible and other myths (yeah, I had to do it)

Part of the problem for anyone who considers themselves to be a follower of a specific religious book, is the premise that these works are inerrant.

Even though a believer may recognize intellectually that there are inconsistencies in his chosen book, he or she is premise driven, (the notion that it is inerrant), to deny or to rationalize away any part which makes them doubt the inerrancy.

Apologetic's basic job is to do this. And christian or islamic apologetics works contrary to any other academic discipline. By this I mean that in any other academic discipline one can receive kudos, respect and intellectual accreditation for actually being able to show the errors in a field of science, mathematics, physics, chemistry etc.

This can occur because what is important in these academic disciplines is that the information should not be considered truth if it can be demonstrated that it is flawed. In the religious traditions, the focus is on preserving the faith AS truth. There is the initial presupposition that it IS inerrant truth. Any attempt to indicate otherwise is seen as an attack on truth.

Other academic disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as intellectually VALUABLE. Religious disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as an attack on faith.

beepbeepitsme - 10:09 PM - 2/4/2007

I know you did...:)

Thanks for that Beep. You're right of course, but I'm probably about to be taken to task over it anyway...:)

plonka - 11:37 PM - 2/4/2007

Will The Real Creator Please Stand Up?

Hi Ted,
Well done. This was a very entertaining read. I appreciate it. Thanks for letting me know you had finished it, too.
Here we go:
Your first question about the order of business is a good question but with a little digging--the answer is actually quite simple. Genesis 1 and the first part of 2 is the "sum up" of what God did in those 7 days. Then we go back in chapter 2 for the details. It's much like a movie in which something of a "Big Picture" is the preface for a much more detailed account of something significant that happened during the Big Picture.
Chapter 2 is the detailed account of when he made Adam and Eve.
Now the squabbling over when he actually did this or that--how could he have formed man out of dust when it just said streams watered the earth? Is really just word parsing. It's not inconsistant, the narrator (Moses) is just flipping back and forth from an overview account of creation to a detailed account of creation. If we had seen this played out in a movie, this would appear strange at all. We would see God doing his work and then the director would cut to the scene where God is actually in the process of creating Adam and Eve. Also, where does it explain the trees and plants growing? Did God just stick fully grown and mature plants and trees in the ground or did he allow them to grow on their own? The Bible does use the word "planted" a couple of times.

What Bible are you using for translation??
You say:
"Things go a bit awry here though. It seems that Eve finds “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” and meets a chatty serpent. It asks her if God really said they mustn’t eat the fruit of any tree in the garden. Eve, far from being surprised by a talking snake, says that no, it’s only the tree of knowledge and they mustn’t touch it or else they’ll die (just a bit of an exaggeration here, I think. God said “eat of it”, not “touch it"

I don't see a problem with any inconsistancies for recording what Eve said. If she exaggerated the command--why is that an inconsistancy?

You said...
"She then gives some to Adam who was with her, keeping quiet, probably because it was him that told the fib about touching it, and he ate some too. Then they realise they’re naked so fig leaves become the order of the day."

I think that's a great insight as to Adam's role in all of this. Good job.
That was funny. I like it.
:)

Your next problem is really absurd. It seems to me you have an idea how an all knowing, all powerful God should have handled the situation of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
How is calling out to them and asking what they did a sign of weakness?
I do this with my own children--you want to see if they are going to lie to you and Adam and Eve (behaving like bad, little children) do not disappoint. They each of them blame someone else for their disobedience.
Adam blames God for making woman and then blames Eve for "making" him sin. Eve blames the snake.

Then you go on to defend the snake because he told the truth? He was obviously trying to cause confusion by asking what it was God had said. God said they would die and the snake reasons with Eve by saying "Surely you won't die" and yet the truth is, they were booted out of the Garden which held eternal life and fellowship with God. So they did die--just like God said.
I actually have my own insight as to why God called out to Adam instead of Eve. It seems like Eve was really the troublemaker because she listened to the snake and then she ate of it and then handed some to her husband to eat but God doesn't call out to Eve first or the snake. Notice he calls out to Adam.
The command to not eat of the tree comes before Eve is even created.
So how does Eve know of the command? Do we see God telling Eve the command to not eat of the tree?
I don't.
So how does she know it? Probably Adam. Adam might have even added the bit about not touching it--just like you suggested.
So don't you think Adam should have piped up when the snake was seducing Eve with the fruit?
He was just sitting there--silent. Letting things play out and then even eating of it himself.
So make no mistake, God takes Adam to task first.

Sadie - 1:46 AM - 3/4/2007

Also...

I thought I should address what Beep said...
"Even though a believer may recognize intellectually that there are inconsistencies in his chosen book, he or she is premise driven, (the notion that it is inerrant), to deny or to rationalize away any part which makes them doubt the inerrancy."

I'm merely showing some inconsistancies in ted's response to Genesis. Who is to say that the Genesis account is literal? Many Christians observe that the scriptures have both literal applications and symbolic applications. Jesus often uses this method in his teachings. I don't know for sure if the creation story is literal or symbolic but it doesn't matter when the point is who created it--not how.

Sadie - 1:57 AM - 3/4/2007

Well said, Beep.

Interesting to see the twists and turns adopted by the defenders of religious faith against scientific reason.

snowy - 8:15 AM - 3/4/2007

the evil atheist trap (and other theistic perceptions of the use of reason)

sadie:

You have just demonstrated the theistic methodology and its inherent difference to any other academic process.

Academic disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as intellectually VALUABLE. Religious disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as an attack on faith.

You have a vested interest in the belief that your chosen "holy book" is inerrant, therefore your responses will only ever be limited to rationalizations as to how perceived errancies are not significant, or that they are not errors in the first place.

beepbeepitsme - 10:52 AM - 3/4/2007

Fibs and reason

Thanks for that Sadie, I appreciate it...:)

"Now the squabbling over when he actually did this or that--how could he have formed man out of dust when it just said streams watered the earth? Is really just word parsing."

That makes it worse, purely from the aspect of comprehension. Obviously, the author didn't refer to 1 in the penning of 2 and consequently got the order wrong. That being the case however it means, to me at least, that it cannot be the inspired words of an infallible being, which is what we are taught the bible is. Infallibility means "incapable of error" and those are errors, no matter how you look at it.

Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so."

And it was so... So the land produced all these things when god told it to.

"What Bible are you using for translation?"

Purely NIV for this one, but the New King James is pretty much the same. I usually mix them up, sometimes with a bit of the Amplified or the Jerusalem, thrown into the mix, but as I said, purely NIV here (I used BibleGateway's NIV for quick copying and pasting references...)

"I don't see a problem with any inconsistancies for recording what Eve said. If she exaggerated the command--why is that an inconsistancy?"

Neither do I Sadie, just that little exaggeration which may or may not have been her fault, as you say, god doesn't tell her about the fruit that we know of, so I can only assume Adam. That may well be wrong of course, but it would easily explain the fact that that's wrong as well, hence my little insight...:)

The word "planted", according to my Strongs, doesn't appear until the garden in 2:8.

"Your next problem is really absurd. It seems to me you have an idea how an all knowing, all powerful God should have handled the situation of Adam and Eve's disobedience."

Well, for an omnipotent, omniscient being who already knew what was going to happen, the charade does seem a little pointless. How about our truthful loving God just tells the truth from the start?

"So they did die--just like God said." - Yet Adam lived for nearly 1000 years. The snake didn't lie or try and deceive anyone. It was curious and asked a question, that's all. That doesn't sound like the instant death that god implies. He doesn't say he'll boot them out of the garden, he doesn't say "by that I mean you'll no longer fellowship with Me.", he says "you will surely die". They didn't. Any intimation that they would have lived forever is wrong too. 3:22 makes it clear that they hadn't eaten from the tree of life yet, so they couldn't live forever.

I think that just appearing next to Adam and saying something like "Don't think you can hide from me, young man!" would have had much more impact. I have to admit, I don't go out of my way to give my kids the opportunity to lie. Mind you, should I catch them in one they hear about it.

"So don't you think Adam should have piped up when the snake was seducing Eve with the fruit?"

Indeed I do! It would have made a lot more sense but then, they would never have eaten the fruit, never have been kicked out of the garden and god would have mindless worshippers which by his actions here, seems to be exactly what he wanted until the snake stuffed everything up.

plonka - 11:06 AM - 3/4/2007

Biblical inconsistency

Sadie, you're one of the nicest theists to appear on Ted's (and also BeepBeepIt'sMe's) blog.

You don't get judgemental, you appear to be patient and you don't seem to mind that you're performing to the de-converted. I really had to dig deep to find a word other than 'preaching', there, cause you don't appear to do much of that.

Having said that, I do love Christian apologists - for that is what you are. The Skeptics' Annotated Bible section on contradictions and absurdities is one of the funniest reads ever - not for pointing out all the errors, but for the links down below each one, where Christian apologists attempt to reconcile the mistakes.

There's one who always finishes up with the phrase, "there is no contradiction" even when the rationale they've given for the apparent contradiction is completely lame and silly.

I love it!

And Sadie - might I suggest that you have a read of these? You may like to have a go at responding to some of the ones that haven't got responses from other Christian apologists just yet.

Excellent post, Ted, by the way.

dikkii - 12:17 AM - 5/4/2007

Replying Back to 3 People

Beep said...
"sadie: ??You have just demonstrated the theistic methodology and its inherent difference to any other academic process. "

You demonstrate this as well. It matters not what proof I give you that my particular faith in God is different than your assumptions of what it is and yet you consistantly apply your reasonings and logic to my Christian walk as if you know it better than someone that actually lives it.??"Academic disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as intellectually VALUABLE. Religious disciplines see the process of being potentially shown to be wrong as an attack on faith. "

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.??"You have a vested interest in the belief that your chosen "holy book" is inerrant, therefore your responses will only ever be limited to rationalizations as to how perceived errancies are not significant, or that they are not errors in the first place. "

Too bad the Bible has to be judged worthless because so many people try to bring their ideas to it rather than challenging their minds and reading it for what it says.?
ted said...
?"Thanks for that Sadie, I appreciate it...:) "

I give credit where credit is due. :)??"That makes it worse, purely from the aspect of comprehension. Obviously, the author didn't refer to 1 in the penning of 2 and consequently got the order wrong. That being the case however it means, to me at least, that it cannot be the inspired words of an infallible being, which is what we are taught the bible is. Infallibility means "incapable of error" and those are errors, no matter how you look at it. "

I'm just not willing to write off the multitudes of 'right' in the Bible in exchange for perceived 'wrongs'. I just don't have the time nor the energy to squabble over a couple of phrases that should or should not be swapped around or edited. God used Moses to record the creation story so be it. Do you expect Moses to use knowledge that we didn't have at the time just so that advanced peoples would understand it better? Reading the Bible means understanding the audience--the audience is going to be readers over the course of 2,000 years. Perhaps God was allowing people in the 21st century the opportunity to question these things because of the wisdom he gave us instead of confusing the people 2,000 years ago that didn't have the knowledge or wisdom of today to back it up???"Well, for an omnipotent, omniscient being who already knew what was going to happen, the charade does seem a little pointless. How about our truthful loving God just tells the truth from the start? "

Like I already said. You are looking at this story with prejudices and biases and so am I. The most important things we could talk about are on topics where we can bridge that gap and I'm willing to try.??"Indeed I do! It would have made a lot more sense but then, they would never have eaten the fruit, never have been kicked out of the garden and god would have mindless worshippers which by his actions here, seems to be exactly what he wanted until the snake stuffed everything up."

The Fall of Man happened exactly the way God designed it to. I can't offer you anything else. I can't change history to suit your opinion of what an all powerful, all knowing God should be like. If you had written the Bible, things would be different and if you were god, life would be different, yes--I get that. Can we move on?
:)

DIkkII said...?"Sadie, you're one of the nicest theists to appear on Ted's (and also BeepBeepIt'sMe's) blog. ??You don't get judgemental, you appear to be patient and you don't seem to mind that you're performing to the de-converted. I really had to dig deep to find a word other than 'preaching', there, cause you don't appear to do much of that. "

Thank you. I appreciate your saying such encouraging words to me.??"And Sadie - might I suggest that you have a read of these? You may like to have a go at responding to some of the ones that haven't got responses from other Christian apologists just yet. "

You can suggest it, sure. I don't like approaching a situation and saying, "Well, Christian apologists have already covered this ground so I'm going to have to come up with something new in order to be original." I approach every question and problem as if I had never heard anyone else's response to it--I'm working it out in my mind as I go. It helps me.?

Sadie - 4:22 AM - 5/4/2007

meme

TAGGED

The Thinking Blogger Award
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/04/thinking-blogger-award.html

beepbeepitsme - 7:01 AM - 5/4/2007

Whoa!

Thanks for the vote of confidence Beep...:)

You've tagged just about everywhere I lurk and I've got school holidays to deal with this week. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

Thanks again...:)

plonka - 8:06 PM - 5/4/2007

Moving on

No worries Sadie. I've enjoyed this discussion though...

"The most important things we could talk about are on topics where we can bridge that gap and I'm willing to try."

So am I so I'll make a point of dropping in at your place to see what's on the table...:)

plonka - 12:23 PM - 6/4/2007