Tag Archives: Christian Fundamentalism

Questions About Answers in Genesis: Part 2-“Kind”

How Noah could have fit two or fourteen of every animal that has ever lived onto a boat with the floor space of about one and a half American football fields, has always been a major problem with accepting Biblical mythology as reality.  In recent years, creationists have tried to answer this problem by creatively interpreting the word ‘kind’.  Answers in Genesis and it’s founder Ken Ham rely heavily on this weak argument, to keep funding for their various money pits.

Two Bengal Tigers Breed, and I Get This

Two Siberian Tigers Breed, and I Get This

According to this wildly erroneous theory, the word kind as used in the King James Bible, generally means what real scientists would call “family” and that all animals belonging to a specific family were represented on the Ark by a single pair of animals from that family which later bred all of the various species from that family that we see today. For instance: a Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris altaicia) which is a species of the, Genus: Panthera tigris, which is a group from the Sub-family: Panthernae,  of the Family: Felidae would have hybridized through breeding from the same pair of animals as the domestic cat.  In fact, according to this idea, all 55 living species of felids, from the 480 pound Bengal Tiger to the 3 pound Rusty-Spotted Cat, spread across five continents are hybridized naturally from two cats who walked into the Ark around 4,500 years ago. Although this sounds like an infantile representation of evolution, creationists flatly deny any similarity.

Occasionally, this classification causes problems, so creationists will change it to sub-family, order, or whatever other classification suits their needs.  In such cases, the apparent contradiction of this with other statements they make is completely glossed over, or just simply ignored.  By playing with the word ‘kind‘ these pseudo-scientists are able to claim a significantly smaller group of animals on Noah’s Ark than is stated by their own mythology.

For the sake of this post I won’t go into how this ‘theory’ still ignores an overwhelming amount of actual scientific findings; how it still doesn’t give enough room on the boat for the animals; how it doesn’t account for sea life; or how it only works for translations of the Bible which have been selectively edited into Shakespearean English.  Instead, I will just use their own fairy-tale book to show that they are starting from a flawed foundation, which consistently contradicts itself and reality.

What Does Genesis Say About “Kinds”:

The particular passages where “kind” is used in reference to the animals on the Ark are as follows:

Genesis 6:20–Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:14–They [Noah and his family], and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Genesis 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

That’s right, of the 14 passages which talk about the animals on the Ark, three use the word kind.  So, what do the other 11 passages have to say about what animals were on the Ark?

Well first up we have Genesis 6:19:

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

This is the first passage which tells which animals and how many of each are to go onto the Ark.  It is also the passage which is the most damaging to the whole “kind” theory.  The key phrase in this passage is “…of every living thing, of all flesh,…” This passage clearly says that there are to be two of every sort of living thing of all flesh brought into the Ark.  Not two representatives of each family of animals, but two of every animal.

My assumption would be that the argument here would be that the following passage (shown above) clarifies this problem by saying “their” and “his” “kind” of animal.  If we are to take this literally, then we get male and female kinds of birds, male and female kinds of domesticated animals, and only male kinds of other land animals which means that there were females of every other land animal.  But, his could be used as a generic form of their, so we will overlook that, and focus instead on the word ‘sort’. 

If we are to accept that kind means ‘family’, then sort also means the same thing, since in Genesis 6:20 and 7:14 (see above) kind and sort are both used to describe the amount of animal representatives on the Ark.  This would do a good job of explaining away my passage if no problem could be found with the idea.

So, if sort means family in the biological classification sense, and the Bible is consistent and not contradictory in its word usage, then, what is meant by 2 Kings 24:14 which speaks of sorts of poor people?  A sensible reading of this passage, and the surrounding chapter would show that sort is being used just as we use it today, to break things down into specifics.  Just as a sensible reading of the passages above would show that sort or kind in the Genesis flood myth means every type, or what we now call species, of animal i.e. if the Bible is true, then tigers, lions, ocelots, and all the other sorts of cats were represented by a pair of tigers, pair of lions, pair of ocelots, etc. and not just by a single pair of cats.  The same would apply to all other animals, and we are back to having way too many animals to fit on such a relatively small boat.

How Many Species of Humans Do You See?

How Many Species of Humans Do You See?

But, we’re not talking sensible here, we’re talking fundamentalism.  So, according to the creationist kind theory, 2 Kings is telling us that princes and blacksmiths belong to different sub-families of hominid, which means that there are more than one species of humans, only one of which was represented on the Ark which would violate God’s command, and leave the question:  where did all of these other different kinds of humans come from, and where are they now?

The next passage to pose a problem for the kind theory is Genesis 7:2

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

This passage not only contradicts the number given in Genesis 6:20 above, but says “every” “beast”, with no division by kind.  But, with the theory of kind “every…beast” cannot mean every beast. So, if every beast does not mean every beast then ‘beast’ also has to mean kind or family.  So, you would need only 14 bovids total, and not 14 cows, and 14 sheep,  and 14 musk oxen, etc.  But if beast and kind mean the same thing, then what is meant by ‘kinds of beasts’ in Genesis 7:14 and 8:19 above.  To conform to the theory, it would mean that there are families of families, or kinds of kinds which completely changes the meaning of kind back to the original meaning of individual types of beasts, or, as we call it today, species.  This, in turn, destroys the whole kind theory espoused by these quack-scientists.

The division of animals in the passage above into clean and unclean, brings us to another place in the Bible where kind is used for animal classification: Leviticus 11.

In this chapter of Leviticus we are told what animals we can eat, and what we can’t.  Ignoring the Biblical classification of a jack rabbit as a ruminant (Lev 11:6), and the Biblical classification of a bat as a bird, we see that vultures, kites, owls, hawks, night hawks, and cormorants are all different “kinds” of birds. Since actual scientists put hawks, owls, and vultures into the same family then kind can’t be family.  In this part of the Bible kind is shown to be a classification closer to species.  This is again shown clearly in Leviticus 11:22 which separates locusts of two different types and grasshoppers by the word “kind.”  Since locusts are specific species of grasshoppers, then clearly, kind would either mean species, or it would simply mean type as is “a type of grasshopper”, which brings us back to the huge number of animals again, and once again, destroys the whole kind theory.

There are other instances of kind clearly meaning species, such as Genesis 1-3 wherein fruit trees are separated from other fruit bearing trees, but I think it’s clear by now just how stupid and illogical the kind-theory truly is.

The Overall Problem With This Theory

Simply put, the overall problem with this theory is that it relies on a belief that the Bible is a literal representation of reality.  If we are to believe that the Bible is anything more than a collection of mythological stories, then we have to take everything as correct, and there can be no contradictions with itself or easily observable reality.

The passages used to back up the whole kind stupidity not only contradict each other as to what a kind is, but they even contradict each other on other things, such as how many cows were on the Ark: 2 according to Genesis 6:20, and 14 according to Genesis 7:2.  And, the whole thing flies in the face of common sense, since kind, as it’s used here, clearly means what we would call today: species, despite what creationists would want it to mean.

Yep, They're Real, Because the Bible Tells Me So

Yep, They’re Real, Because the Bible Tells Me So

If creationists really want any sensible person to believe that the Bible is a scientifically accurate depiction of history and the natural World, then they have to stand by their belief and scientifically prove that rabbits chew their cud and have multiple stomachs like other ruminants, that bats are birds not mammals, and that there are distinctively different species of humans, which can be biologically classified according to social status and occupation.  When they can do this I will give them some credibility, and I will also believe that fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, and satyrs are real instead of merely mythological creatures like other Bible story participants such as:  Adam, Eve, Noah, a talking donkey, and God.

Advertisements

God the Confused Creator: Part II

Hello again Brothers and Sisters.

Now that you have had a chance to pray and realize that part 1 of this lesson was true and accurate, I will continue.

You may have noticed in part 1 of this lesson, my use of plural pronouns when summarizing God’s creation of man in chapter 1.  This is simply due to God’s use of similar pronouns when dictating the story to Moses:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

As shown by the following passage from Genesis 3, this use of plural pronouns is not an anomaly:

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:

Your having missed this detail is quite understandable, considering that most people who claim to have read the Bible, haven’t actually done so, and many of those who have, did so through a lens distorted by prior beliefs.  Most people read their beliefs into the Bible instead of deriving their beliefs from a careful reading of the Bible, because of their having been taught what their beliefs were, before being able to read.  This is OK, but only if the beliefs you are reading into, or drawing from it agree 100% with what I say. To do otherwise is to show that Satan has clouded your mind and set you on a path to Hell.

Once you are reading things correctly, these passages clearly show the plurality of God. Some of you might say that this is a reference to Jesus, and I concur, others might say that it is an obvious reference to other gods, they are sinners. What most people don’t, or won’t, notice is that such a reference clearly points to the Jesus part of God as being female.  This is made most apparent when they make ‘man‘ in their image and likeness as ‘male and female.’ They are clearly talking about “man” as ‘mankind’ in this passage, because they refer to “the” man in chapter 3 as a way to differentiate between male and female.

735px-Venus_and_Adonis_-_TitianWhen you quit hyperventilating you might say something along the lines of ‘Jesus presents himself as the son of God, not the daughter or wife of God.’ Once again you would be right, but you are also denying God’s true power and wisdom. Obviously, the female half of God had to present herself as a man when she came to Earth. The male half of God had made his people extremely misogynistic, so they wouldn’t have paid attention if she had done otherwise.

Eve gets blamed for the fall of man when it was clearly ManGod’s fault for creating the serpent which led her to it; Lot’s daughters get blamed for their father getting them pregnant; it’s always blamed on the women when someone in the Bible can’t have kids instead of on E.D., low sperm count, or other such male problems; all of these things show the male bias which was ingrained into the society into which Jesus presented herself, so she had no choice but to appear male.

To say that the glorified, or heavenly, form of Jesus is not female is to deny God’s power and his word.  God is all-powerful, and the Bible is all right.  If God had the power to take human form and come to Earth, then surely she had the power to present herself as a man, just as the male half appeared as a man, as a burning bush, talked through a donkey, etc.  But, even in male form, the maternal nature of the female half is clearly shown in the healing and other forms of compassion and kindness she shows throughout the New Testament, which contrasts with the male half’s penchant for genocide, rape, incest, torture, killing, war, anger, jealousy, revenge, mutilation, infanticide, disease, a fascination with wombs and foreskin and other forms of sexual depravity and sadism displayed in the stories about him in the Old Testament.

460px-Dore_woodcut_Divine_Comedy_01We also see the whole punishment and reward thing change when the female half shows up.  In the Old Testament the primary protagonist is the jealous, angry, and spiteful male half of God, whose only reward system revolves around black and white concepts.  If you are good, you are rewarded with power and wealth.  If you are bad, you die.  And no matter what, when your life is over, you are put in the ground (hell) and that’s that.

441px-Dosso_Dossi_022When the more maternal side steps in, we get compassion, hope, love, charity, and other girly, touchy-feely views about God.  We also get a reward system based on such things, and a promise of another life in a newly inclusive Heaven.  Though she did have to make a concession and allow for a new type of Hell in which ManGod gets to take out his sadistic side on people he doesn’t like.

We also see women portrayed a little better in the New Testament than in the Old Testament they are mostly shown as covetous, lustful, greedy, whores who can’t have children unless God touches their wombs.

You might still be resisting the truth of God’s word so I give you this: Revelation 1:9-16

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Artist's Rendition of Jesus in her Glorified Form

Artist’s Rendition of Jesus in her Glorified Form:  The girdle is obviously the wrong color though

This is, of course, John’s vision of the glorified form of Jesus.  When John uses pronouns, he is clearly using male ones, but remember John, to this point, only knew the Jesus form presented on Earth, so it would be natural for him to make this assumption. The important word in this whole description is “paps.”

The word paps is only used three other times in the correctly translated, inerrant, King James Version of the Bible:  Ezekiel 23:21, Luke 11:27, and Luke 23:29.  In each of these cases “paps” is referred to as mothers’ breasts which give milk. This is opposed to the word ‘breast’ which can refer to a woman’s breasts or a man’s chest, as in the word breastplate, which is an armored covering for the chest. Never, in the Bible is the plural form of breast used to refer to a single male.  (A girdle is merely a covering, and can refer to a cover for any part of the torso.)

If John were referring to a male chest in his description of the heavenly Jesus, then his hand as guided by God would have said “breast” as in his description of angelic coverings in chapter 15 [1].  But, since what he was seeing was clearly a set of female breasts wrapped in gold, he used the clearly maternal and feminine description of God’s rack as “paps.”

Now that I have shown that the Bible clearly states that the Jesus half of God is female, I will move on to the confusion this causes our Lord.

God’s confusion about sexual identity is apparent throughout the Bible.  He allows and even commands rape, yet requires you to marry someone you rape, while commanding you to kill a girl who has been raped if she isn’t able to stop the rapist; he allows for the burning of prostitutes, but then chooses one as a companion and the deliverer of the news of his/her resurrection; provides the death penalty for masturbation; and allows men to commit adultery, but punishes women who do, then later on decides to punish both.  But, nowhere is his identity crisis more apparent than his condemnation of homosexuals.

God Says Kill Her

God Says Kill Her

In Leviticus 18:22 a gay man[2] is an abomination comparable to eating shellfish, or seeing a woman on her period naked, and the punishment is banishment. But in the next chapter the punishment becomes death, just as for adulterers, kids who talk back to their parents, and those who sleep with their mother or son,  daughter-in-law or father-in-law,  mother-in-law or son-in-law, and those women unfortunate enough to be married to a man who sleeps with her mother whether she knows or not. [3]

This shows a clear confusion about punishment by giving us a choice about punishment for some things. This confusion is reflected in our own good Christian society which doesn’t try to prevent adulterers, or estranged offspring, from getting married while trying to prevent others from doing so. It is also shown by God him/herself and his/her representatives on Earth when they condemn homosexuals as bad, but forgive men like Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, and Larry Craig for homosexual adultery.  This seems to imply that it is OK to be homosexual and commit adultery, just as long as you are married to a woman first.

Hitler killed homosexuals, are you saying that God would act like Hitler?  Surely not.  Despite his being a good Christian, Hitler’s saying he was doing the “Lords work” doesn’t mean he was, just as others claiming the same thing are often lying.

Clearly God is confused about his own sexual identity.  He does the same as many religious closet-homosexuals, like the men mentioned above, and cries for the heads of homosexuals the loudest to defer scrutiny away from themselves.  The phrase: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes immediately to mind. But, it is an understandable confusion since the male and female halves of God are fused just as man and woman, whom he created, are symbolically fused by marriage in Genesis 2:24

This concludes this lesson.  Now that I have undeniably shown the ways in which God is a confused creator as well as the reasons for this confusion I will leave you to further reflection and prayer.

Yours in Christ,

Brother Ron, PhD, MD, DDS, BfF, LLC, STd [4]

Footnotes:

1.  The plural form here does not imply that each angel had multiple breasts, it is referring to all seven ‘breasts’ or ‘chests’, one each.

2.  Gay women are never referred to by the Bible in any way, much less as an abomination. Every form of adult sexual activity from masturbation to sleeping with one’s mother, that God feels is wrong, is adequately covered, so it can be safely inferred that God sees nothing wrong with a little girl on girl action.  Bisexuals are OK, but only if they are women. Transgenders are OK, but only if they don’t wear clothing of the opposite sex or, in the case of males, trim their beards, but this latter caveat applies to all men anyway.

3.  It is however OK, according to God to sleep with one’s grandparent, grandchild, any cousin, niece, or nephew.  In the case of sleeping with one’s sister-in-law, or aunt the punishment is merely not having the ability to have children. Obviously in the case of sleeping with an aunt it is the nephew being punished because the aunt is doing nothing wrong. The punishment for sleeping with a sister is the same as sleeping with a woman on her period, banishment.  Sleeping with one’s daughter seems to also be OK. This would all be negated of course if the person were married because the punishment would then revert back to death.

4.  This, of course stands for “saved through divinity” and not what your foul, evil, minds thought it was.

God the Confused Creator: Part I

Hello brothers and sisters, Brother Ron here.  Atheist Ron has mistakenly given me permission to take over on a series of posts about the lessons of Genesis on his blog.  I say mistakenly because, as you shall see, these posts will clearly and without doubt present the Word of God as irrefutable and mistake free, something which atheistron does not believe.  I am able to prove these things largely due to my application of the strict fundamentalist policy of not accepting one shred of the mountains of logical, scholarly, observational, common sense, or scientific evidence which proves otherwise.

Artist's Rendition of the Author

Artist’s Rendition of the Author

I have the authority to do these posts and therefore tell you how to think because I, like many other fundamentalist carriers of truth have many credentials. I have a Ph.D. in Linguistics, two Ph.D.s in Physics applied and theoretical, a Ph.D in Geology, a PhD. in Chemistry, three Ph.D.s in Biology, a Masters in Divinity and History, a Bachelors in Women’s Studies and Literature, an Associate degree in Criminology, a certificate of Cosmetology, and I once read some of a book about archaeology, and watched 15 mins of an episode of Cosmos.  All of my degrees are from highly respected universities that you have no business knowing the names of, and the book about archaeology was sitting on a table in the library at one of them.  If you insist on seeing the universities you may click on the link here, just know, however, that Satan will often remove or distort the link trying to make me look like a fraud.

These lessons are based on a strict literal reading of Genesis.  I will not allow silly “context” arguments that don’t fit with what I say, because they, like all arguments which contradict me, and may appear to be valid, come from ignorance or possibly Satanic intervention.  If a particular context is important I will give it, all others are, as I said, from Satan.  It is my policy to only accept facts which are in accordance with what I already know to be true, because to do otherwise would be to fall into Satan’s trap.

342px-Moses041It will, however, be accepted that the sole author of Genesis was Moses as dictated (but not read) by God, in accordance with the Bible which tells us that Moses wrote it.  And I will of course give you the relevant Biblical passages when they support what I’m saying.  If I leave out a reference, trust that I am doing so because you would not have the capacity to understand it.  Just trust that in such cases I have read and understood it and am faithfully interpreting it for you.

So on to the first lesson:  God the Confused Creator (I warn you ahead of time–this is a bit of a read)

In the Beginning…

With one of the more famous opening lines in western literature (not Middle Eastern literature as some Satanists try to say) the Bible begins with:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And thus begins the seven days of creation which goes as follows:

Day One:  Starting with a shapeless empty dark planet covered by water God goes on to creates light, divides light from darkness, and calls the light “day” and the darkness “night.” (1:1-5)

Day Two:  God creates the sky which divides the waters above it from the waters below it. (1:6-8)

Day Three:  God creates dryland, and plants. And we are told that there was a morning and an evening. (1:9-13)

Day Four:  God creates the Sun, the Moon and all of the stars, and sets these things in the firmament.  These lights create days, seasons, signs, and years. (1:14-19)

Day Five:  God creates all of the animals in the water, and all of the birds that fly. (1:20-23)

Day Six:  God creates all of the land animals then they create man in their image both male and female.  God then gives man “dominion” over all the animals, and makes everything, man and animal, vegetarian. (1:24-31)

Day Seven:  God rests from his work, and sanctifies the Sabbath. (2:1-3)

Starting in Genesis 2:4, God, by way of Moses, retells the creation story using different language, writing style, and a different name for God.  This story goes as such:

The earth has no plants because there is not yet any rain, or anyone to till the soil. So, Lord God causes a mist to come over the earth and water the land.

Then Lord God creates a man out of the dust and breathes life into him. Lord God plants a garden in Eden and puts the man there.

Then Lord God causes all of the trees to grow from the ground including pretty trees, trees with fruit, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He creates four rivers, gold and other minerals, and puts the man back into the garden to care for the trees, and tells him that he can eat from any tree in the garden except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and warns him that the day he eats from that tree he will die.

Lord God decides that it isn’t good for the man to be alone, so he creates all of the land animals and birds that fly. Then brings them to the man who is suddenly called Adam. Adam names the animals, but is still lonely.

So, Lord God puts Adam to sleep and removes a rib from him out of which he creates a woman whom he presents to Adam.  Adam names the woman “Woman.”

The author then mentions that Adam and Woman are naked but don’t care.

The Confused Creator

A cursory reading of the first two chapters of Genesis shows us that Moses switched back and forth from at least two different personalities with completely different writing styles, points of view, and names for God. Many, many scholars have said that, what appears to be a personality disorder is actually a result of Genesis’ having been written by at least three different people then edited together into one book.  This is refuted by John 5:45-47 in which Jesus clearly tells us that Moses wrote it and no one else.  So, we must just accept that Moses had mental issues, probably brought about by seeing God so much, and believe every word written by him as flawless despite his disability.

So with that in mind what do these two chapters tell us about creation.  Well the first thing we see is that God told Moses the order of creation twice in two different orders as shown in the table below:

Untitled drawing

Some people will say that this shows two different creation stories.  It is a sin to believe that and the Bible says so.  Other people who, believe that God created everything, but doubt the word of God say things like:  you can’t imply an order of creation from chapter two because Moses says “and” which could mean ‘at the same time’, and not necessarily ‘then.’  Such statements show that the speaker either hasn’t actually read the Bible, or doesn’t actually believe that it is to be taken literally.  There are many proofs within the Bible which show just how wrong such blasphemous statements are.  For the sake of time and space I will just point out two big ones here.

First:  Order is stringently stated in chapter two.  A person who actually reads the book they try to tear down would actually see this in the following verses:

Genesis 2:8  And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

This clearly shows order.  The garden is planted after the man is formed, hence the phrase “had formed”  which is the past perfect form of to form, and clearly indicates a progression through time i.e. order

Genesis 2:16  And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

This clearly show order because God is speaking to a man who was physically present before being placed back in the garden in the previous verse.

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

This clearly shows order because the man could not have been “alone” if animals or a woman were created at the same time, and also uses the future tense of ‘to make’ which like “had formed” shows a progression through time i.e. order.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

This clearly shows order because Adam has gone from being anonymous to having a name, has seen and named all of the land animals and flying birds, and is still without company. So at this point there are land animals, birds, and a man but no women.  To say otherwise is to doubt the inerrant nature of God’s written word, as found in Genesis 2.

If Genesis 2 isn’t enough to convince the naysayer then I present you with Genesis 5 wherein the word “and” is used at the beginning of every verse from 3-32 and clearly shows the order in which Adam’s descendants were born all the way to Noah.  If and means at the same time like the blasphemer says it does then the entire family line would have to have been born at the same time which is completely ridiculous and thoroughly debunked by the listing of 1,056 years.  This sort of blasphemous statement is just as bad as trying to say that the days of creation need not have been 24 hours long, when it clearly says in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, & 14 that the days were as we know them now. Besides, I, like all good fundamentalists, don’t have to prove my point to be right, I merely have to try to poke holes in yours.

Putting aside the ignorant, blasphemous statements of the unbeliever, let us move on.

By combining the two different, but correct orders written by two of Moses’ personalities we get the true order of God’s creation as follows:

Day One:  God starts with a dark shapeless mass of water and creates light which is separated from the dark he starts with.

Day Two: God creates the solid sky dome(1), forms the water blob into a disc (2), and creates the rain which is above the sky.

Day Three: God creates dry land, the plants, and then a man whom he puts in charge of taking care of the plants. He also allows it to rain.

Day Four:  God creates the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars and sticks them in the sky dome over the land, but under the rain.

Day Five:  God creates water animals, some of the land animals, and birds

Day Six:  God creates more land animals, another man, and a woman.

Actual selfie taken by God on Day Six

Actual selfie taken by God on Day Six

A few things become evident when we look at the true order of creation, but the only one you need concern yourself with for now is that God was a bit confused about the creation of man. This is apparent in his creating a man on day three to take care of his plants and then creating another man on day six. Moses never tells us what happened to man.2, but it was obviously quickly poofed out of existence because we know that at the end of chapter 2 and through chapter 3 there is only one man. God may have done this because, as we see throughout the rest of Genesis, it is OK for one man to have more than one woman, but it is not OK for one woman to have more than one man, at a time.

An omniscient God would have obviously known that he was going to provide for the populating of the Earth by punishing women with painful childbirth and menses, so would therefore need to create a woman, but when he first starts creating people, he just creates a man, then only later realizes that animals won’t be suitable breeding partners for the man. This does not show a lack of omniscience…in fact, far from it.  To say God made a mistake is a sin.  Instead it shows God’s smarts by showing that he knew how to fix a problem when it presented itself.

Why God created two men could be explained by the divine dementia which he so often shows throughout Genesis, when, as we shall see in future posts, he tells Abraham or a member of his family something and then tells them something completely different, or when he tells them the same thing several times.  Once again, this confusion or Divine Senility cannot be explained away by saying something logical like there was more than one author, because we know that logic, reason, common-sense, science, observation, and facts are not allowed as evidence if they contradict the inerrant word of God.

The other issue of God’s apparent confusion centers on his sense of sexual identity.  But, since this post is getting rather long I will take that up in a second part of this post which I have rather intelligently designed and called “part 2.”  It has been my experience that reading something longer than a Bible tract is a tough sell for most fundamentalists, and I will be the first to advise against doing anything even resembling research on any of my claims, and definitely not on anything scientific, for this is the path to Satan.  (The phrase ignorance is bliss was created for a reason.)  However, I believe the next issue is an important one so I will allow some time for them to rest their brains before delving into it.

Footnotes to Part 1:

1.  I say “dome” here because it is apparent in the inerrant word of God that the Earth is not a sphere as many Satan-inspired scientists would have you believe.  In  Isaiah 40:21-22  it clearly says that the Earth is like a circle covered by a tent supported by foundations (pillars).  This shows that the sky is in fact a dome, and a dome cannot cover a sphere on all sides, anybody with basic knowledge of middle school math knows this. Also, if the sky weren’t a dome then how could God stick the lights in it and have them remain under the rain?  The line of reasoning that claims otherwise is just silly, and blasphemous.

2.  I say “disc” here because of many of the same reasons as above, but with different passages to back it up.  In Job 38 When God is bragging to Job about how he created the Earth he says: “It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.”  This clearly conforms to the idea presented in Genesis 1 of God’s having taken a blob (clay) and smashed it down into a flat shape or “seal.”

Then there is Matthew 4:8 where Satan takes Jesus up on a mountain and shows him “all” of the kingdoms of Earth.  Being able to see the other side of a sphere from any point above the opposite side is impossible, so this is proof that the Earth is flat.  To say otherwise is to doubt the inerrant nature of God and his son our Lord Jesus Christ, to doubt the two-dimensionality of the Earth is to deny Jesus, and condemn one’s self to Hell…I don’t want to go to Hell…do you?.  A similar instance is seen in Daniel 4:10-11 where there is a tree so tall that you can see all the Earth, once again, Impossible on a sphere.

The Lessons of Genesis-Series Introduction

For those of you who may not know, I have been going through the Bible from start to finish on another blog, and have recently finished the book of Genesis.  It had been a while since I had read that book from start to finish, and I had honestly forgotten just how messed up the stories in Genesis truly are.

The stated purpose of that blog is to render the Bible for the education of those who haven’t bothered to read, or weren’t forced to read it several times as a child like I was.  I try not to clutter the posts on the various chapters with too much commentary, and only lightly touch on some of the more disturbing or odd recurring themes, but It is getting more and more difficult not to talk about the stories in Genesis as I go along, so I have decided to do a series of posts on this blog about the lessons one can glean Genesis.

The Why of this Series

The Bible, and the characters in it are heavily used, especially in this country (U.S.), as examples of the way we are supposed to live our lives.  Terms like Judeo/Christian values, family values, religious morality, etc. are constantly bantered around as reasons why the Bible should be our go to source for examples of how to govern, what to teach our children, and how to live our lives.  Meanwhile, our government has become impotent. Our children are falling behind almost every other industrialized country in education.  Ignorance of science is touted as a badge of honor, and a goal for children.  And, discrimination and intolerance is accepted practice and even written into law.

The stories in Genesis and the characters in these stories are prominent parts of Sunday school lessons all across this country, and indeed, the rest of the planet, and at the same time, there are also a lot of highly motivated, and well-funded people trying to force many of these same fairy tales into school curricula under the guise of a pseudo-science.

779px-Sunday_school_at_the_Baptist_church_which_is_not_on_company_property_and_was_built_by_the_miners._Lejunior,_Harlan..._-_NARA_-_541342Those of us who have had the misfortune of being indoctrinated into one of the thousands of different Christian sects as children, have been/are heavily bombarded with the Genesis stories, however, we generally get carefully selected and heavily edited pieces of the story, parts of passages, and even downright lies, and are expected to never dig too deep.  Most Christians have no idea that incest, murder, rape, the solicitation of prostitutes, lying, stealing, slavery, and a host of other such things are not just condoned, but rewarded, in the stories from this book.

This series of posts on the Lessons of Genesis will address all of these unknowns and many more.  

Fundamentalist/Literalist

Fundamentalist/Literalist

These posts are primarily aimed at atheists, Protestant Fundamentalists, and literalists. Literalists are those who ascribe to the idea that unless a passage in the Bible is clearly defined as an allegory, parable, poem or any other such fable-type of story, then it is fact/actual history. This approach is actually impossible and never practiced by literalists, but they claim it, and it’s their belief system, so I allow them their definition.

Generally, literalists and fundamentalist are the same people, but there are some who stand in a fuzzy, gray, in-between, area and I wanted to include all of them, so in future posts when I refer to literalist I do so in an all-inclusive way.

Christian Fundamentalism in the United States:  Oklahoma City, 1995

Christian Fundamentalism in the United States: Oklahoma City, 1995

This is not to say that more moderate Christians, such as Catholics, Episcopalians,  and such aren’t part of the audience and can’t learn something, but their stated beliefs are more realistic and scholarly in relation to the stories covered by these posts, as they tend to hold that these stories are more parable than historical fact.  The core idea of the Bible being the inspired word of God is still easily assailed in this case, but by a much more scholarly, reasonable, and logical way which will likely be the basis for a future post or two.

The primary idea behind these posts, and all my others, is that atheists may gain some new knowledge about what it is that they are up against when dealing with fundamentalist beliefs and have an easily referred to reference for debate on those beliefs.  I know that nothing I say here will change the mind of any hardcore fundamentalist, because, generally, their beliefs are so ingrained that they no longer have the capacity to logically view them, as they tend to rely on faith and not reason for their beliefs.  The debate between faith vs reason is a whole different subject which will likely be the basis for many future posts. Faith aside, for those people who have doubts or questions about their indoctrination, my hope is that these posts will help them see what they are being taught for the rubbish it is.

Fundamentalists in action- Waco, Texas 1993

Fundamentalists in action Waco, Texas 1993

References Used and Why

The reference for all given passages and chapters is the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.  I use this version not because I believe it to be the most accurate:  it is in fact far from the most accurate version, and I will point that out at every relevant point.  Also, I don’t use the KJV because it’s the easiest to understand;  once again–far from it. I use it simply because it is the only version accepted as “correct” or “right” by most literalists.  If I, or anyone else, were to use any other version of the Bible then the observations presented would simply be written off by such people as coming from the “wrong” Bible, and therefore having no merit, regardless of whether their version said the same exact thing or not. (again…topic for a future post) It is also the one I am most familiar with as it was the one force-fed to me when I was young.

I will give chapter and verse for every single item I mention in this posts, and a link to the relevant passage at BibleGateway.com.  I do this because I know that not everyone has a nice 50-year-old leather-bound King James of their own to refer to.  I have yet to find a single syllable in the online version that does not sync with my printed Bible, so it is just as good a reference without having to support the publication of these fairy tales.  Had this reference been around decades ago I probably wouldn’t have more than a dozen different versions of the same book.

How to (Ideally) Use the References

Ideally, I would want everyone reading this series to read the relevant passages so that they would have, at least, a passing knowledge of where my comments and views are coming from, and also know that I am not simply making things up.  I believe that this would better enable the reader to asses Genesis, and use what they learn in conversations and debates which they may have later on.

I am a firm believer in fighting fire with fire in the God debate.  In my view; if you are going to discuss creationism vs evolution you should know something about both sides, and have accurate knowledge of the scientific method, and principles discussed.  Likewise, if someone wants to continually throw Bible passages at you, then you should throw Bible passages right back, and this requires knowledge of the source material. After all, the Bible has created, or at least started the process for creation of more atheists than damned near anything else, and I believe one should use the best tool for the given task.

I tend to throw passages in a conversation, and allow the other side to contradict my passages with others.  I then point out the contradictory nature and thus fallibility of the Bible as a whole as shown by their arguments.  This is generally a drawn out process of back and forth which often ends with the other side getting frustrated, condemning me to Hell, and walking away. When done in a public forum, this discussion may not change the mind of the person with whom I’m talking, but the seeds of doubt have been sown, and others who have witnessed it may see my point even when the person I was talking to didn’t.  In a one-on-one situation the seeds may well have been sown without my ever knowing it.  Either way, it is seldom a completely fruitless endeavor.

I realize that this is a confrontational way of doing things, but I believe it’s justified when atheists are constantly belittled and discriminated against because of this collection of mythological tales.  I never insinuate myself and beliefs into their space by going to their homes, or barging into their churches and/or chat sites, but the moment that their beliefs intrude on my space or life I attack with great gusto.  This may be called confrontational, but I think it is better termed as self-defense.

God's Soldiers

God’s Soldiers

Genesis, and the rest of the Bible is constantly used in our society as a means to discriminate, start wars, seize power, and defraud people.  In fact, the Bible has been used to justify a whole range of things throughout history. Slavery and abolitionism; Hitler’s genocide and fighting Hitler; racism and civil rights; 9/11 and the “war on terrorism.”  All of these things have a firm foundation in the Bible, and believers don’t realize that these conflicting messages show just how illogical and unbelievable the Bible is.

Anti-Christ?

Anti-Christ?

I personally have used the Bible to “prove” that Billy Graham was the anti-Christ; that Jesus in his glorified form is actually female; that two or more Gods exist at least one of whom is a woman; that Jesus was a false prophet, and that people who say I’m going to Hell, women who talk in church, and all people who pray where I can see or hear it, are going to Hell.

The sooner this mythology loses its ability to destroy people’s lives, the sooner the World can become a better place for everyone.  Therefore, I confront/defend.

So, lets begin.

I will start the series with a lesson entitled, God the Confused Creator and we will proceed from there.

Until then, Beware the knock at the door, because it may not be Avon calling.