The Skeptics' Overrated Bible on Genesis

as analyzed by Sheila Rangslinger

As the scientific aspects of Creation and Flood our outside Tekton's purview, I've asked a Ph.D. scientist from Creation Ministries International for comment. So if any SAB has any complaints on those particulars, take it up with them! But there are plenty of things answered on this site already too. Naturally one of SAB's favorite tactics, is argument from outrage, indicated by OUTR, and blatant dismissal of miracles, indicating by MIR.

1:1-2:3 The first of two contradictory creation accounts. Compare with Gen.2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different. See here -- study that shows that much of SAB's later repetitive whinges bite the bullet too. The Genesis 1 account also conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In this account the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know the true order of events was just the opposite. Nothing to do with real operational science, which is testable and repeatable, but everything to do with assumptions about the past. This results in, e.g. the fossil sequence being interpreted as a sequence of ages rather than a sequence of burial by the Flood and its after-effects.
1:3-5 God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). D'oh, as if God needs light-producing objects to make light photons. He won't in Revelation 22:5. Oh, I forgot, SAB doesn't believe in God's creative power anyway. So why does he even bother? And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? Ancient commentators had no problem realizing that there could still be a light and dark cycle. But now we have a good idea of how this cycle was produced: Earth was rotating with respect to the light created on Day 1. This is further support for the inspiration of the text -- that a modern scientific insight makes the problem disappear completely. See here. We pass on the boring anti-JW rant.
1:6-8 God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program. A KJV furphy -- the Hebrew raqia' has nothing to do with a solid dome, and everything to do with a stretched out expanse, as many modern translations put it -- see here. One day these biblioskeptics might surprise us all and consult modern translations (obviously checking the original languages is too much to expect).
1:11 In chapter 1 plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth day. But in chapter 2 the order is reversed. (2:4-7) Second time so far -- again, see above. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19) Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. Yawn, but there was light - doesn't SAB realize that plants will photosynthesize in artificial light even today? And I rather doubt "bring forth" as used elsewhere (Joel 2:22, Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength.) could mean evolution.
1:16 God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But if God made the moon to "rule the night", then why does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? Why not? It would only be a problem if that adversely affected its night-ruling duties. SAB must have fallen asleep at his day job after moonlighting. Of course he wouldn't call it "moonlighting" with his pedantry elsewhere about the moon not shining by its own light. "He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. Exactly, demonstrating God's immense power, so that making trillions of gigantic balls of gas is just a doddle. But scholars of the lit see this as an afterthought, though in part against pagan claims of the importance of the stars in astrology.
1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give light" to the earth. Finish off the verse --- they are also signs, including of God's glory (Psalm 19).
1:20-21, 2:19 From what were the fowls created? This is from a KJV ambiguity that SAB takes to mean that 1:20-21 had the fowls being formed from the water. But a better modern translation is "Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.'" (NASB) 2:19 explains that these birds, created to fly above the earth, were formed from the earth.
1:24 In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. What, in one day?? And how does a plant or animal springing forth from the Earth at God's command match the evolutionary ideas of life evolving in the sea?
1:25-26 In the first creation story, God makes humans (male and female) after the other animals; in the second, God makes a man first, then the other animals, and then a woman. Third time and counting -- again, see link above, and for variety, see here.
1:26 The use of the plural (us, our) implies that there is more than one god, contrary to many monotheistic biblical statements. Once more, little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the hands of the typical biblioskeptical bigot. In most cases of plural forms and pronouns for God, the verb is singular. So this could be an Old Testament hint of the Trinity, revealed fully in the New Testament. See also here. God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. Yes, and the word for dominion is radah, which is also used for Solomon's just rule that resulted in 'peace on all sides round about him' (1 Kings 4:24) This couldn't be true, of course, since millions of other species existed for millions of years before humans existed. The scientifically ignorant SAB is just swallowing the evolutionary dating methods, ignoring the dubious assumptions behind them -- see here. But this verse is used by fundamentalist Christians to justify their mistreatment of other species and disregard for the environment. Care to document that? There were far more environmental problems in atheistic communist regimes. After all, they believe that God created the other species just for them, so they can do whatever they please with them. Again, any documentation? Fundamentalists are more likely to care for animals, given passages like Proverbs 12.10, Matthew 10:29, 1 Timothy 5:18, than evolutionists who believe that we all evolved by survival of the fittest.
1:27 More of SAB's obsession with JWs -- we pass.
1:28 God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This verse is used to justify Christian opposition to birth control, to concern for the environment, and to animal rights. The earth was made for humans, and they can do as they damn well please with it. Really? Since when has dominion in the Bible said that a king can treat his subjects as he pleases? But if humans are the pinnacle of evolution by natural selection, then why shouldn't we treat other creatures as we please -- we would just prove ourselves the fittest.
1:29 God tells Adam that he may eat from "every tree," but in 2:17 he contradicts himself by saying there is one tree that he may not eat from. Pathetic -- there's nothing wrong with giving a general rule, then later clearly giving an exception. Perhaps SAB expects a trespassing sign to say, "No trespassing, except where it is necessary to save someone from drowning in a lake on this property." Is it okay to eat meat? Yes, after Genesis 9:6. Gotta problem with that?
1:30 All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. Yes. For some examples of how to explain these creatures, see the articles here. But, of course, we now know that there were carnivorous animals millions of years before humans existed. Again, presupposes the accuracy of dating methods.
1:31 In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but we know from modern science that the universe is at least 15 billion years old. More boring acquiescence to assumption-riddled dating methods. But for variety, have a look at some problems with the "big bang".
2:4-25 The second creation account. Notice that the order of creation is entirely different from the account given in 1:1-2:3. Fourth time lucky? Nope, still pummeled by link above.
2:4-7 In chapter 1 plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth day. But in chapter 2 the order is reversed. (1:11-13, 27-31) Fifth try and still not even in the game.
2:7, 18-22 In the first creation story, God makes humans (male and female) after the other animals; in the second, God makes a man first, then the other animals, and then a woman. #6 and still yet to score. But humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath as in the Gen.2:7, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Did SAB see this happen, since science is supposed to involve observation? See also some articles on alleged ape-men.
2:17 In verse 1:29 God told Adam that he could eat from "every tree," but now he changes his mind and tells him not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. See 1:29. God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). Of course. A literal translation of the Hebrew is "dying you shall die", and it seems best understood as ingressive, i.e. focusing on the beginning of the action. So when Adam disobeyed, he immediately cut himself off from the source of life, God, but the process of dying lasted 930 years. An analogy is a branch chopped off a tree and being thrown in the trash ? it's as good as dead as soon as it's severed from its source of life, the trunk, but the leaves will continue photosynthesizing for some time, so the actual dying process is protracted but inevitable.
2:18 God creates a woman to keep Adam company saying; "It is not good that man should be alone." Paul offers a dissenting opinion in 1 Cor.7:1. Paul was talking about a totally different situation -- see entry here.
2:18-22 God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. Perhaps they would have pleased SAB.. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep. Speaking from personal experience? If SAB wants to be crude and show off, so be it.) Note that in these verses, God makes the animals after making Adam, whereas in the first creation story (1:25-27) the order is reversed. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. Number 7 and close to losing count. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. Nonsense -- read the text! Adam had to name only the "beasts of the field" and "birds of the sky", neither of which include insects. But we know that the animals were not created instantaneously from the ground, but rather that they evolved over millions of years. Was SAB there? And we still don't have names for all of them. Ten thousand new species of insects are discovered and named each year. So what, if Adam didn't have to name any insects.
2:20-22 God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs. This was necessary since Adam couldn't find a "help meet" in any of the animals that God made for him. KJV-ese for "helper suitable" for him. Does SAB have a problem - would he rather marry an animal?
2:22 More JW obsession. We pass.
3:1-5 A clever serpent (God's most "subtil beast") talks to Eve about trees, death, and the knowledge of good and evil. He persuades her to eat the forbidden fruit. She takes the first bite and gets the full blame (3:12, 16). Not at all -- the Bible frequently makes it clear that death and suffering in the world is due to Adam's sin (Romans 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22), and in Genesis 3:19 it's Adam to whom God addresses the death penalty.
3:6 In 2:17 God said that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But in this verse Adam eats the forbidden fruit and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). See 2:17.
3:8-11 God walks and talks (to himself?) where does SAB hallucinate that? in the garden, and plays a little hide and seek with Adam and Eve. God's inability to find Adam shows that, contrary to many Bible passages, he is neither omnipresent nor omniscient. Or else that he was practicing the typical ancient teaching/conversational technique of asking questions, sometimes named after Socrates. Perhaps SAB would want to dismiss a math teacher for asking his/her class, "Can anyone tell me the square root of 36" because SAB would argue that the teacher did not know the answer is 6 (although that presupposes that SAB is capable of working this out ).
3:12-13 Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. Yes, and the Bible indicates that these excuses didn't wash, so the problem is?
3:14 God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they? Yes, actually, as much as it would startle the scientifically ignorant SAB -- see here.
3:16 God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth Just more OUTR -- why doesn't SAB rant against evolution for not getting rid of this? and subjection to men. Adam was meant to have a benevolent headship role, but Eve usurped that and took the lead, so God was stating the reality that after the Fall this would so often result in unhappy subjection. But Christianity has done more for the lot of women than any other philosophy. Get a grip here.
3:17 Adam is also punished, although less severely. Oh right, right, that must be why the death penalty was pronounced on HIM. He now will have to work for a living because he "hearkened unto the voice" of his wife, yeah, rather than the command of the One who created him.
3:17-18 But God is not done cursing yet. He curses the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were perfectly safe to eat. Right you are. And SAB's disproof is?
3:20 Is everyone descended from Adam and Eve? Yes. See also Where did Cain get his wife?
3:21 God kills some animals and makes some skin coats for Adam and Eve. Yes -- more bloodophobia from SAB who as we speak is scoffing a Big Mac.
3:22 God expels Adam and Eve from the garden before they get a chance to eat from that other tree -- the tree of life. God knows that if they do that, they well become "like one of us" and live forever. A spooky thought indeed for an insecure god. Notice that God refers to himself (themselves?) in the first person plural, suggesting, contrary to many other Bible verses, that there are several gods. OR three persons in the Godhead -- see link above. As for the rest about "insecure" it would never occur to SAB that it would be a bad thing to be immortal and miserable and that the restriction was for our own good. Notice that although God told Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:16-17), he never told him not to eat from the Tree of Life. God said that Adam would die the day that he ate from the forbidden tree (2:17). Well, Adam ate from that tree (3:6), so why was God worried that Adam might eat from that other tree (the Tree of Life) and live forever. Because they would live forever in a state of sin, so the tree of life was reserved for Revelation 22:2.
Where are the cherubim, flaming sword moving back and forth, and the tree of life? Surely if they existed, we would have found them. Argument from silence. The Flood buried Eden under miles of sediment, so we have no idea where it is, so the cherubim are relieved from the duty of guarding it.
4:1 "And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived." This is the first sexual intercourse mentioned in the Bible. Of course it resulted in a baby boy. So was the first child of my parents - doesn't SAB like baby boys?
4:3-5 God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. Or the fact that God requires blood sacrifice for sin, culminating in the Messiah's sacrifice. SAB doesn't think God has the right to determine how His creatures approach him, and applauds Cain for approaching on his own terms. Of course, SAB doesn't believe in God at all, because he doesn't want to be accountable.
4:4 This verse tells us that God "had respect unto Abel," but this contradicts many Bible passages that claim that God doesn't respect anyone. Different context -- Abel was respected because his offering was in faith, so he realized the importance of a blood sacrifice. See also here.
4:12 As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. Yes you would, after he had fled far enough. See also here.
4:14 Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! Try reading the Bible -- Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters, and gives no indication of when they had them. Seth, the replacement of Abel, was born when Adam and Eve were 130, so that's a lot of time for children and even grandchildren and more to be born. See also here and here.
4:15 But God is worried, too. He says whoever kills Cain will be punished sevenfold (whatever that means try contextual study -- seven is often symbolic for completeness). Just to make sure, though, God puts a mark on Cain so no one will kill him. Good idea. But it contradicts the law given in Gen.9:6 that says whoever kills shall be killed. D'uh , this law was given 1500 years later -- does SAB like retrospective legislation?
4:16 "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD." So I guess it is possible to hide from God, which means that God doesn't know everything. Or else, away from any manifestation of His presence.
4:17 "And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from? The Bible doesn't mention any of Cain's sisters. Yes it does, in Genesis 5:4. Well, maybe he married his mom, or maybe God pulled another creation over in the next county. In any case, Cain and the mysterious Mrs. Cain have a son (another blue cigar!). His name is Enoch and he builds a city (population 3). More of his lack of context: SAB thinks a city had to be like New York or London, but the Hebrew word ir means a 'walled town' or a protected encampment.
4:18 Who was Methuselah's father? Enoch of course. SAB seems to have a problem with a slightly differently spelled later and different name.
4:19, 23 Lamech is the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife. It seems that God approves of such marriages. Who says? The fact that polygamy originated in a murderer indicates that it was not the ideal, which was TWO becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24), although it was tolerated during the Mosaic era. See Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy?
4:23-24 Lamech kills a man and claims that since Cain's murderer would be punished sevenfold, whoever murders him will be punished seventy-seven fold. That sounds fair. It is (see above; seven means completely, and 77 would suggest emphasis, and Lamech is boasting). If you disagree, then derive your moral code from the proposition "God does not exist".
4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son." Way to go Adam! What? Is SAB jealous? I guess he reads the birth announcements in his local paper and does the same thing.
5:2 God created a man and a woman, and he "called their name Adam." So the woman's name was Adam, too! D'uh , Adam is also the word for mankind, so is a most appropriate choice as a proper name for its first created member.
5:4 Finally, sometime in the next 800 years, Adam begat some daughters. Nothing is said about when they were born. The text doesn't rule out many being born before Seth. These nameless ones are the first (and nearly the last) girls to be born in the Bible. Maybe the rest of the women were made from male ribs. Maybe the Bible assumes common sense in its readers, rather than having to spell out the obvious.
5:5 Adam finally dies -- 930 years after eating from the tree of knowledge, contrary to God's false prophecy that Adam would die the day that he ate the forbidden fruit (See our commentary on 2:17). The first men had incredibly long life spans. What's incredible about them, apart from SAB's anti-miraculous bigotry? Fact is, science still knows very little about aging, so SAB has no basis for assuming that these ages are false. Furthermore, what we do know about the role of telomeres indicates that there is nothing in principle to rule out long ages - see here. We'll bypass the list of ages SAB provides, only noting that he fails to see that there are two Lamechs (one named after the other) and two people with similar names.
5:24 Enoch ascends into heaven, contradicting Jn.3:13 which says, "no man hath ascended up to heaven." Same answer as with Elijah here.
6:2-4 "The sons of God saw the daughters of men ...." But according to John (Jn.3:16, 18, 1 Jn.4:9), God only has one son -- Jesus. Well, maybe they died before Jesus was born. Anyway, the "sons of God" copulated with the "daughters of men," and has sons who became "the mighty men of old, men of renown." Is SAB so linguistically wooden that he doesn't realize that some words and phrases can have different senses in different contexts -- tell the difference between THE son of God, with a definite article and the singular, and sons of God (plural)?
6:3 Here we are told that the human life span is 120 years no this refers to how much time the human race as a whole had before God would wipe out all but eight out in the Flood, but Ps.90:10 says it is only 70 years. See here about proverbial literature, and many people in the Bible lived far beyond either of these limits [for example Abraham's father lived to be 205 (Gen.11:32)] which was LONG before Psalms.
6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days." And they had sex with "the daughters of men." Well, I suppose it's good to know that. But why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants? Irrelevant. "Giants" is the KJV translation, coming from the Vulgate and Septuagint gigantes. But the Hebrew is nephilim, which seems to be derived from naphal, to fall.
6:5 God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil. Later (8:21), after he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil. Go figure. Evidently too hard for SAB. In 6:5 this evil human imagination had filled the earth with violence. Mere OUTR.
6:6-7 God "repented ... that he had made man." But elsewhere the Bible tells us that God does not repent. See here.
6:7, 17 God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. OUTR.
6:9 Noah is called a "just man and perfect," but according to several other Bible passages such a man has never existed. See here. I bet he didn't seem so perfect when he was drunk and naked in front of his sons (9:20-21). So the Bible is forthright about the failings of its heros. There's no pleasing some biblioskeptics.
6:11-13 Okay, I'm confused doesn't surprise us. God was angry because "the earth was filled with violence." But didn't God create the whole bloody system in the first place? No, it was man's sin that brought this on. In Genesis the destruction of animals was only collateral damage. The reason for God's judgement was entirely because of the violence of the human population not because of the violence of animals. Predator and prey, parasite and host -- weren't they all designed by God? Oh, it's true that according to 1:30 God originally intended the animals to be vegetarian. Exactly. But later (3:18) he changed all that. Because of sin. Still, the violence that angered God was of his own making. So what was he upset about? And how would killing everything help to make the world less violent? Did he think the animals would behave better after he "destroys them with the earth"? The dead can't misbehave. I guess God works in mysterious ways. Yeah, he created SAB.
6:14-15 Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long. The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since? Yes, because he would have had the sense to use better techniques than those plank-to-frame point-connections that lack rigidity. E.g. he could have used layers of logs rather than planks, a monocoque, or mortice and tenon joints. Furthermore, Korean naval architects, who might be expected to know more about the subject than the typical biblioskeptic, have confirmed that a barge with the Ark's dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only one foot thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 100 feet -- see their paper. But not only was the ark too big to be seaworthy, it was far too small to be able to contain the earth's millions of plant and animals species. Mainly because his obligate passengers included only land animals 'that breathe through nostrils', not insects which could survive outside the Ark on floating vegetation rafts or pumice. The number of animals taken on board as passengers would probably have been only about 16,000 -- see here.
6:16 God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) for ventilation. Nothing said about one cubit square, but one cubit from the top all the way along. This is a common way to ventilate modern factories and warehouses even today because it is so efficient.
6:19-20 Poor Noah must be confused. Poor SAB must be confused, but he wouldn't be if his sole braincell was operational. First God tells him to bring two of "every living thing of all flesh" onto the ark. Later (7:2-3) God says to bring seven pairs of some animals (the "clean beasts" and the fowls). See here.
7:1 God calls Noah "righteous." but this contradicts several other verses that say there never has been such a person. And he just doesn't seem too darned righteous in 9:20-21. See again above. (Where he gets drunk and lies around naked in front of God and everybody.) Try reading --he was naked inside his tent, and only Ham got a cheap thrill out of it (just like SAB, apparently).
7:2 "The male and his female ..." Notice that in the Bible female animals are the property of male animals, as women are the property of men. Oh, so when the Bible says "love the lord your God" and "honour your parents", it's saying that God and parents are our property too?? Seems that SAB is confused, and thinks that a grammatical possessive construction implies possession in the colloquial sense.
7:2-3 In these verses the "clean beasts" and fowls go into the ark by sevens, but 6:20 and 7:8-9 say that only two of the fowls and "clean beasts" entered the ark. See here, that's if you haven't already read it the first time SAB trotted out this tired and wizened canard.
7:4 God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. OUTR, and lack of understanding of the ancient corporate responsibility, where everyone shared the consequences for the deeds of those in dominion over them. Why should SAB care anyway, since he believes we got here by survival of the fittest, involving the death of millions of innocent animals.
7:8-9 Here Noah is explicitly told that both clean and unclean animals are to go into the ark in pairs. This is in direct contradiction with the instructions God gave Noah in 7:2-3. Third time around, you probably won't need to see the link above again. Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon the earth." Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? He didn't have to, because Genesis 6:20 indicates that God brought them to Noah. Also, Genesis 1:9 suggests that there was only one land mass before the Flood. How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? See comments on 6:14-15. How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species? How did Noah obtain and care for the hundreds of thousands of species of plants? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, answered his own question! but the animals wouldn't last long after if the plants died in the flood. Except that the animals disembarked several months after the mountain tops appeared, plenty of time for grass and seedlings to grow, and other plants to sprout via vegetative propagation. There would also have been plenty of mats of tangled vegetation around still.) No, wait, don't tell me. A miracle happened. Millions of them. It's possible but totally unnecessary as shown.
7:11 God opens the "windows of heaven." He does this every time it rains. And every time it pours in the English-speaking world, it "rains cats and dogs".
7:13-14 All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day." Since there were several million species involved more like 8000 genera, as shown here, and that's being generous to the biblioskeptics, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100/second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well! Even large 100-kg hogs can be killed and processed in slaughterhouses at 1,000 per hour. So the animals could have boarded and been directed to their enclosures in only five hours. And this is a conservative estimate, since smaller animals could board even faster, and the median size would have been only about that of a small rat.
7:15 "And they went ... into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein there is breath of life." This contradicts 7:2-3 where seven pairs of some species entered the ark. See above, again.
7:17 This verse says the flood lasted for 40 days, but 7:24 and 8:3 say 150 days. SAB fails to distinguish between the time of the rain and the time of the water staying on the earth.
7:20 The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare. Yep, and the joke's on SAB! Mt. Everest has marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom-dwelling crinoids, on its summit, showing that it was once under water as Genesis says! Also, creationists do not believe that the Flood had to cover the mountains at their present height; rather, much uplift happened after the flood, as indicated by Psalm 104:6-9 (NASB). This would have easily occurred with huge tectonic movements and lots of still-unconsolidated sediments. Where did all the water come from? From here. Where did it all go? To there. Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record? Why does SAB beg the question? There is plenty of evidence -- see here.
7:21-23 God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. OUTR. Given the mention of koalas, I suppose SAB would excuse a murderer if he were cute enough.
7:24 This verse says the flood lasted for 150 days, but 7:17 says 40 days. See above.
8:2 "The windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained." This happens whenever it stops raining.
8:3 Did the flood last for 40 (7:17) or 150 days? See above.
8:4 The ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. But how could this be since the mountain tops weren't visible until the tenth month (8:5)? Hello? Ever heard of a submerged sandbar or rock?
8:8-11 Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. Ah. SAB the expert on olive tree biology. Proof, please? Actually the joke's on SAB again, because none other than Charles Darwin performed experiments that showed that garden seeds could still sprout after 42 days immersion in brine.
8:13 This verse says the earth was dry on the first day of the month. The next verse (8:14) says it wasn't until the 27th day of the second month. SAB fails to distinguish between the waters being dried UP and the earth being dried OUT.
8:19 When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? See above, 7:8-9. Plus, they could eat: Fish trapped in pools left behind by receding floodwaters, or exhumed carrion from the many animals drowned in the Flood. Carnivores normally prefer to eat already-dead animals rather than expend energy catching live ones. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided? First, not "way back" because they didn't necessarily come from those places originally - see again 7:8-9 and its reference to 6:20 and 1:9. The marsupial fossils in Australia are post-Flood. Second, they got there by mechanisms the evolutionists themselves invoke, including land bridges exposed by lower sea levels in the Ice Age [post-Flood], and being brought by humans [post-Babel] - both explained more here. After all, the rabbit came to Australia with humans, in case SAB doesn't realise (which wouldn't surprise us).
8:20-21 Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. See above -- seven. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." After this God "said in his heart" that he'd never do it again because "man's heart is evil from his youth." So God killed all living things (6:5) because humans are evil, and then promises not to do it again (8:21) because humans are evil. The mind of God is a frightening thing. It frightens us when SAB says he smells that juicy Big Mac and smacks his lips.
8:21 God promises to never again curse the earth, yet in the very last verse of the Old Testament (Mal.4:6), he threatens to do it again. Try again. Four different Hebrew words are involved.
9:1 "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Although this would have been good advice for the mythical Noah, it is deadly advice for humankind as a whole. Overpopulation is one of our greatest problems, yet there is nothing in the bible to address it. Does there need to be? It's simple: "Stop having babies you don't need." "Stop having uncontrolled sex."
9:2 According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them. Less afraid -- which means he admits that they are. "Into your hand are they (the animals) delivered." God gave the animals to humans, and they can do whatever they please with them. This verse has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to anmials [sic] and environmental destruction. So? Such people don't have a grip on the principles of stewardship. Stalin used Origin of the Species to justify his work, and yet, do I hear SAB saying that is a problem?
9:3 Which animals may we eat? See above.
9:4 JW issue. We pass.
9:5 All animals have hands. The word here means "power" or "means".
9:6 God says: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." If so, then why did God put a mark on Cain (after he murdered Abel) so that others wouldn't kill him? (Gen.4:15). See above.
9:7 "Be ye fruitful, and multiply." With 6 billion people on this planet, we need to disobey God on this one. SAB probably swallows the utterly discredited overpopulation scaremongering of Paul Ehrlich, a modern day false prophet if ever there was one.
9:9-13 God is rightly filled with remorse for having killed his creatures. He makes a deal with the animals, promising never to drown them all again. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever he sees it, it will remind him of his promise so that he won't be tempted to do it again. (Every time God sees the rainbow he says to himself: "Oh, yeah.... That's right. I promised not to drown the animals again. I guess I'll have to find something else to do."). SAB the provinicialist doesn't see this as a classic ancient treaty between suzerain and vassal -- see here. But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. Indeed they are. So since God created these phenomena, why shouldn't he choose to use one manifestation as a covenant sign? And that's even if there were rainbows before --- there were bread and wine well before Jesus gave them special meaning in the Lord's Supper. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed. See here.
9:20-25 The "just and righteous" Noah (6:9, 7:1) plants a vineyard, gets drunk, and lies around naked in his tent. His son, Ham, happens to see his father in this condition. When Noah sobers up and hears "what his young son had done unto him" (what did he do besides look at him?), he curses not Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father," but Ham's son, Canaan. "A servant of servants shall he [Canaan] be unto his brethren." This is a typical case of biblical justice, More likely, while Noah saw a relatively mild rebellious streak in Ham, he saw it developed far worse in Canaan and is one of many Bible passages that have been used to justify slavery irrelevant since it teaches nothing of the kind. And of course SAB ignores the strong evangelical Christian beliefs behind abolitionist movements, while the pro-slavers told them to keep their religion to themselves! But there are other verses that say that children are not to be punished for the sins of their fathers. See here.
10:1-32 The entire tenth chapter is the first of many boring genealogies (see 1 Chr.1-9, Mt.1:1-17, Lk.3:23-28 for other examples) that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 and Tit.3:9 ("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies." Yeah, foolish ones, in this context involving proto-Gnosticism; not ones that 21st century bigots find boring but were important to the ancients)
10:5, 20, 31 These verses show that, contrary to 11:1, many languages existed before construction began on the tower of Babel. SAB is ignorant of the way that ancient historians would often order things thematically rather than chronologically. Genesis 10 shows the ancestry of all the nations from Noah's three sons, and Genesis 11 explains why they became separate.
10:24 says that the father of Salah was Arphaxad, but Luke (Lk.3:35-36) says Salah's father was Cainan. See here for copying errors in general, and here for this specific one.
10:25 Some creationists believe that this verse refers to continental drift, which, they say, began to occur during the days of Pelag (which means "division"), about 100 or so years after the flood. They are wrong, because this would have caused too much disruption, and it not even hinted at in the text. So what's the big deal? Should I hold SAB responsible for every crass thing any biblioskeptic has said? But many other creationists disagree as they should because the context is clearly Babel as shown only a few verses on -- see here.
11:1, 6 "The whole earth was of one language." But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others. According to secular chronologies, but see here. This is even admitted earlier in Genesis (10:5, 10:20, 10:31) where other languages are mentioned before the tower of Babel was supposedly constructed. Again, thematic rather than chronological order.
11:4 God worries that people could actually build a tower high enough to reach him (them?) in heaven. The height was not the problem, just the purpose -- unto heaven i.e. probably to worship the heavenly bodies. See here.
11:5 "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower." Couldn't he see it from where he was sitting? Apparently not. So contrary to many biblical claims, God doesn't know and see everything. See here.
11:6 God is worried again. He remembers how humans nearly became gods by finding and eating from the tree of life (Gen.3:22). It was a close call, but now he faces a similar threat To man's wellbeing! SAB has his sock on the wrong foot.
11:7 God says, "Let us go down ..." Maybe he hasn't been talking to himself; maybe there is more than one of them up there. Well, however many there may be, they all decide to come down to confuse the builders by confounding human language and scattering them [humans] abroad. Please refresh your memory here -- that's if you need to because you've forgotten that SAB has already bored us with this lunatic argument.
11:9 According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God. But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time. Actually, Babel is consistent with instantaneous creation of the language families, which show no common ancestry -- see here . And their subsequent changes or "evolution" are nothing like biological evolution-- see this paper (PDF).
11:10-32 Another boring genealogy that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 and Tit.3:9. ("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies." See 10:1-32) Also note the ridiculously long lives of the patriarchs. What is really ridiculous is SAB's pedantry and his ignorance of the issues. See above.
11:12 This verse tells us Salah's father was Arphaxad, while Luke (Lk.3:35-26) says his father was Cainan. See 10:24.
11:26, 32 Acts7:4 says that Abram didn't leave Haran until after his father died. Verse 26 tells us that Abram's father was 70 years old when Abram was born, and Abram's father lived to be 205 (11:32). Clearly, then, Abram was at least 135 when he left Haran. Yet Gen.12:4 says he left Haran when he was only 75. Easily solved by realizing that SAB was crassly taking v.26 as Terah begetting triplets, when it was giving Terah's age at the first born of the three sons mentioned. Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. A similar usage is in Genesis 5:32, and this is obviously not saying that Noah had triplets ? Ham is called the youngest (9:24), and Shem and Japheth are not the same age either (10:21).
11:27 Was Lot Abraham's brother or nephew? The word "brother" in Semitic contexts had a semantic range that included "nephew". Today we talk about "brothers in arms", for example, so SAB really should read more.
12:4 Acts7:4 says that Abram didn't leave Haran until after his father died. Verse 26 tells us that Abram's father was 70 years old when Abram was born, and Abram's father lived to be 205 (11:32). Clearly, then, Abram was at least 135 when he left Haran. Yet Gen.12:4 says he left Haran when he was only 75. See here.
12:7 God appears to Abram contrary to those verses that say that God is invisible and cannot be seen. See here.
12:13 Abram makes his wife lie for him, by telling the Egyptians that she is his sister. But at least it was half-true, since she was his half-sister. Such incestuous marriages are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, but god makes an exception for Abram and Sarai. (See Gen.17:15-16 where God blesses their marriage.) Actually, she was neither sister nor half-sister. The sin here was that Abe lied to Pharaoh -- if any. See here. We skip the JW issue.
12:15 Poor Pharaoh couldn't resist the "very fair" Sarai, and he takes her into his harem. (She must have been well preserved, since she was about seventy years old at the time.) That is so. Jewish tradition held that God reversed the aging process for Abe and Sarah.
12:17 God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie. OUTR. The Pharaoh had no right to take Sarah to begin with.
13:13"The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." (Gee, I guess they must have been gay -- at least that is what the Christian Right believes.) OUTR whatever the case.
13:14-15 God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan "forever". This promise is still used to justify the the unending battles over the land in the Middle East. And oddly enough, both sides are using the same premise that God promised the land. So it's no different than any other non-religious dispute.
13:15 According to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13, God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. And, of course, for most of the time after the promise was made the land was controlled by other folks. See here, Land Promise debate.
14:7 The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen.36:12). See here.
14:12, 14, 16 Is Lot Abram's nephew as it says in verse 12 or brother as in verse 14 and 16. See above.
15:9-10 God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. Does SAB feel any better yet about that hamburger?
15:13 How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Ex.12:40 and Gal.3:17 say 430 years. SAB still can't grab that the enslavement didn't start right away.
15:16 "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). See here.
15:18 God promises Abram's descendants the land of Canaan from the Nile to the Euphrates. But according to Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13 God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. See above.
16:1-4 Sarai is the first of a long line of barren women who were desperate for children. (In the Bible, it is the women who are barren, never the men.) And the problem is, what? SAB can't envision a handful of barren women over 1000-1500 years? A reader added that some of these women seem to have been of the same bloodline, and the problem may have been genetic; compare Gen. 11:26; 24:15, 29; 29:10.) She sends Abram into her handmaid, Hagar, so that she can "obtain children by her." Abram gladly complies. And the problem is, what? This was a survival measure in the ANE. Without children, you could have no one to support you.
16:6 Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." And the problem is, what? That they weren't perfect people?
16:15 Ishmael was Abraham's first son, and Isaac was his second. Yet Gen.22:2 and Heb.11:17 claim that he had only one son. See here.
17:8 God gives Abraham and his descendants all the land of Canaan "for an everlasting possession." This promise has inspired much of the unending strife and intolerance in the Middle East region, and it continues to do so today. Yet history and the Bible (Acts 7:5, Heb.11:13) show that this promise was not kept. See above.
17:10-11 God establishes his covenant with Abram: "This is my covenant ... every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin." It seems that penises are supremely important to god. Consequently, God's covenant is for men only, and women have no way to be consecrated to God, or to take part in religious ceremonies. I guess SAB can't see it as a break for women instead. Not that he's right, since we have clear evidence of woman like Deborah taking part in religious life and ceremonies. Note that while God requires circumcision, Paul says (Gal.5:2) that it is completely unnecessary. 2000 years removed and a new covenant offer later, yes -- Paul's words are to people in the new covenant looking back over their shoulders.
17:12-13, 23, 27 God tells Abram that all males must be circumcised, even those whom Abram had bought with money. There isn't the slightest evidence in this passage, or in any other in the Bible, that the biblical God disapproves of slavery. See here.
17:14 An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. Sloppy exegesis by SAB -- see here.
17:16 God blesses the union between Abraham and his sister (Gen.20:12), though he condemns such incestuous marriages in Lev.18:9, Lev.20:17, and Dt.27:22. See above.
17:24 Abram was 99 years old when he was circumcised. To commemorate this important event, God changes his name to Abraham. SAB the provincialist doesn't know that such name changes were done at momentous times in an ancient person's life.
17:25 From this verse and Gen.21:5-8, it is clear that Ishmael was nearly a grown man (at least 16 years old) when he and his mother were abandoned by Abraham. Yet according to Gen.21:14-18, he was only an infant at the time. See here.
18:1 God appears to Abraham, contrary to several Bible passages that say no one has ever seen God. See above.
18:11-14 Sarah, who is about 90 years old and has gone through menopause, laughs at God when he tells her that she will have a son. She asks God if she will "have pleasure" with her "Lord" [Abraham], when both are so very old. God assures her that he will return and impregnate her at the appointed time. MIR.
18:17 God, who is planning another mass murder, is worried that Abraham might try to stop him. so he asks himself if he should hide his intentions from Abraham. OUTR.
18:20-21 "And the Lord said ... I will go down now, and see." Is it necessary for God to leave heaven and come down to earth to see what is going on in Sodom and Gomorrah? Doesn't he already know? Apparently not, contrary to many other Bible verses. See above.
18:23-25 Abraham begs God not to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. [Which is odd, since later (Gen.22:2-10) Abraham doesn't even question God's request that he kill his own son.] Odd? If Abe learned the first time, then this actually makes sense. He asks God two good questions: "Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?" and "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" And the answers were: That there were no righteous, once Lot left; and yes. For the latter where is SAB's actual argument beyond outrage?
18:33 "And the Lord went his way." Now where might that be? The way that the epiphanic manifestation went. See above.
19:4-5, 24-25God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. This was because, so say the Christian Right, some homosexuals lived there. OUTR either way.
19:5 Two angels are staying at Lot's house when all the men of Sodom come to visit. They ask Lot to "bring them out unto us that we might know them." Yes, and what's the problem?
19:8 Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. But not, uh, "perfect".
19:24 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. Although many Christians consider this story to be a condemnation of homosexuality, others disagree....God kills all of the children in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Jesus in Mt.18:14 says that God doesn't want any child to die. OUTR -- beyond that SAB has no idea whether there actually were any children living there at the time. Matthew 18:14 uses a word that refers to eternal destruction.
19:26 Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. MIR.
19:30-38 Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story. I.e., just another mirror for SAB to look into, and he'd be suspicious if it depicted everyone as perfect. We're still not sure what the problem is about boys.
20:2 Honest Abe does the same "she's my sister" routine again, for the same cowardly reason. And once again, the king just couldn't resist Sarah -- even though by now she is over 90 years old. (See Gen.12:13-20 for the first, nearly identical, episode.) See above. We skip the JW part.
20:3-18 God gets angry with king Abimelech, though the king hasn't even touched Sarah. He says to the king, "Behold, thou art but a dead man," and threatens to kill him and all of his people. To compensate for the crime he never committed, Abimelech gives Abraham sheep, oxen, slaves, silver, and land. Finally, after Abraham "prayed unto God," God lifts his punishment to Abimelech, "for the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah." He had a right to take Sarah into his harem? How nice. See above.
20:12 Abraham married his sister, and God blessed their marriage (Gen.17:15-16). But such incestuous marriages are condemned in Lev.18:9, 20:17, Dt.27:22. See above.
21:1-2 "The Lord visited Sarah" and he "did unto Sarah as he had spoken." And "Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son." (God-assisted conceptions never result in daughters.) For good reason. Daughters went to other families and did not assist the family needing assistance. It is strange that the 100 year old Abraham required God's help in fathering Isaac (See Rom.4:19 and Heb.11:12), yet later (Gen.25:1-2) he marries again and has six more children without any help from God. See above.
21:10-14 Sarah, after giving birth to Isaac, gets angry again at Hagar (see Gen.16:5-6) and tells Abraham to 'cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands Abraham to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. Yep. Abe wasn't perfect. Is SAB? He's better watch his back.
21:14-18 These verses suggest that Ishmael was an infant when his father abandoned him, yet according to Gen.17:25 and Gen.21:5-8 he must have been about 16 years old. It must have been tough for poor Hagar to carry Ishmael on her shoulder and to then "cast him under one of the shrubs." See above.
21:23-24 Abraham swears to God, apparently with God's approval. Yet such oaths are condemned in Mt.5:34-37 and Jas.5:12. See here.
21:31 says that Beersheba was named by Abraham, though Gen.26:33 says that Beersheba was named after Abraham's death by his son Isaac. See here.
21:32 "And they returned to the land of the Philistines." But the Philistines didn't arrive in the region of Canaan until around 1200 BCE -- 800 years after Abraham's supposed migration from Ur. See here.
22:1 " God did tempt Abraham." But Jas.1:13 says that God has never tempted anyone. See here.
22:2, 12 God refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only son," yet Abraham had two sons at the time (Gen.16:15). See above.
22:2-13 God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. See here. Plus SAB repeats Matt. 18:14, noted above.
22:12 If God knows the mind and heart of all humans, then why did he have to test Abraham to find out what was in his heart? See above.
22:14 Abraham names the place where he nearly kills Isaac after Jehovah. But according to Ex.6:3, Abraham couldn't have known that God's name was Jehovah. See here.
24:2, 9 Abraham makes his servant put his hand under his thigh while swearing to God. Weird. Weird to a provincialist like SAB, who is unaware that this was a normal form of oath-taking in the days before his own prudery. Of course "putting his hand under his thigh" is just a polite euphemism for "holding his testicles in his hand." Come to think of it, maybe it isn't so weird at all -- coming as it does from a god that is completely obsessed with male genitalia. (See Ex.4:25, Lev.15:16-18,32, and Dt.23:1) Five verses he can name amounts to an obsession? SAB has mentioned male genitalia many more times than that already. It was at any rate all ancient Eastern peoples who were so "obsessed". for just a few examples.) I guess it's sort of like swearing on the bible. But all forms of swearing are forbidden in Mt.5:34-37 and Jas.5:12. See here.
24:3 Abraham makes his servant swear that he won't let Isaac marry a Canaanite. Would SAB want his son to marry a Satanist or a Santerian?
24:16 "And the damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her." (Oh boy!) Yes, and the problem is what, other than SAB's sex-obsession?
25:1 "Then again Abraham took a wife [1 Chr.1:32 says she was his concubine], See here and her name was Keturah."
25:2 Abraham needed God's help to father Isaac when he was 100 years old (Gen.21:1-2, Rom.4:19, Heb.11:12). But here, when he is even older, he manages to have six more children without any help from God. See above.
Since Abraham had so many sons, why does the bible say that he had only one son? See above.
25:6 Abraham had several concubines. And the problem is what? That he wasn't perfect like SAB is?
25:21 Isaac's wife (Rebekah), like his mother (Sarah), was also barren. And the problem is, what? Is SAB going to mock every case of a mother and a daughter-in-law with fertility problems?
26:1,8,14,15,18 In these verses the Philistines are said to have lived in Canaan at the time of Abraham, yet the Philistines did not live in the region until the period of the Judges, well after the time of Abraham. See above.
26:2 God appears to Isaac contrary to those verses that say that God is invisible and cannot be seen. See above.
26:7 Isaac uses the same "she's my sister" lie that his father used so effectively (see Gen.12:13, 20:2). See above. We pass on JW issue.
26:8 Unfortunately the king "looked out a window, and saw, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife." But Isaac grew rich from the lie anyway, just as his father had. See above, again.
26:33 Who named Beersheba? Isaac as this verse says, or Abraham as is said in 21:31? See above.
26:34 One of the wives of Esau was Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. But 36:2 says her name was Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and 36:3 says Bashemath was the daughter of Ishmael. Most likely due to a copyist error.
27:19 Jacob, with coaching from his mother, obtains Isaac's blessing by lying. God seems to have been fooled as well. Well, wow, now we find Isaac isn't perfect. Isn't that a relevation. How God is fooled is not explained.
28:1 Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. See above.
28:5 Who was Laban's father? Behuel or Nahor (29:5)? See here.
28:13-14 God repeats the same (land/progeny) promise that he previously made to Abraham (13:15, 15:18, 17:8). Once again, the promise wasn't kept. The descendents of Jacob (the Jews) are not particularly numerous, have seldom possessed much of the land in question, and the nations on earth haven't been blessed by them. See above on land. Christian faith accounts for the descendants (as noted in Galatians) and the blessing, even if SAB has been too ungrateful to be blessed himself.
28:19 Jacob names Bethel for the first time, before meeting Rachel. Later in 35:15, just before Rachel dies, he names Bethel again. (I guess the name didn't take the first time.) No, there are two different places. Lest SAB think this is odd, he needs to check some geography. How many places in America are named "Albany"?
29:21-30 Jacob is tricked by Laban, the father of Rachel and Leah. Jacob asks for Rachel so that he can "go in unto her." But Laban gives him Leah instead, and Jacob "went in unto her [Leah]" by mistake. Jacob was fooled until morning -- apparently he didn't know who he was going in unto. Finally they worked things out and Jacob got to "go in unto" Rachel, too. See here. Beyond that watch out as SAB will mock your personal life if he has a chance.
29:31 Once again, like Sarah and Rebekah before her, Rachel is barren. Still waiting to hear what the problem is. In an age before decent nutrition, barrenness was likely a common problem.
30:1 "Give me children or else I die." Rachel considers herself worthless if she cannot produce children for her husband. Yes, that was the value code of the day. Is SAB some sort of bigot?
30:3 But luckily she has an idea. She says to Jacob, "Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her." She solved the problem the same way as did Sarah (16:2). And this was a typical solution in the ANE. Children helped a family survive. I guess SAB would rather they all die.
30:4 "And Jacob went in unto her. And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son." (These arrangements never seem to produce daughters.) Still wondering what the problem is.
30:9 Leah, not to be outdone, gives Jacob her maid (Zilpah) "to wife." And Zilpah "bare Jacob a son." Ditto. SAB might consider that certain environmental stresses, to which all these people would be subject, do tend to determine whether a man produces sperm for a male or female child.
30:15-16 Rachel trades her husband's favors for some mandrakes. And so, when Jacob came home, Leah said: "Thou must come in unto me, for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night." Presumably God, by telling us this edifying story, is teaching us something about sexual ethics. Presumably SAB is too much of a provincialist to appreciate this story, which was quite meaningful to the ancients. It showed how much these people desired children -- yet how little they placed trust in God for the promise. If he finds it meaningless, he can do contextual study and learn to appreciate it, or go watch TV like he usually does.
30:22 And finally, "God remembered Rachel ... and opened her womb. And she conceived and bare a son [surprise, surprise]." Still waiting for an explanation of the problem.
30:37-39 Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats. See here.
31:17 "Then Jacob ... set his ... wives upon camels." Jacob had four wives (or two wives and two concubines -- this distinction is not clear in the Bible): Rachel, Leah, Billah, and Zilpah. There is no indication that God disapproves of this arrangement. (See also Gen.32:22) See above. SAB would rather that the two concubines be turned out and die. But whoops, he criticized Abe for doing that to Hagar. Seems no one can win here.
31:34-35 Laban, Rachel's father, is hunting for the "images" that Rachel had stolen from him. Rachel sits on the "images" and says to her father, "Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee: for the custom of women is upon me." She knows that no man will come near her when she is menstruating. That's correct. Now we learn Rachel isn't perfect (surprise!). So what's the problem?
31:53 Jacob swears. God doesn't seem to mind. but swearing is forbidden in Mt.5:34-37 and Jas.5:12. See here for the 2 billionth time.
32:22 Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy. See here. Again SAB seems to prefer that they die morally upright in his eyes.
32:24-30 Jacob wrestles with god and wins. God changes Jacob's name to Israel to signify that he wrestled with God and "prevailed." And the problem is, what?
32:28 God renames Jacob for the first time (See 35:10 for the first renaming). The first one comes AFTER the second? God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway. And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. Ancient persons were able to carry more than one name. Just like SAB might be called "Dave" at some times and "Bubbles" at another.
32:30 Jacob saw God face to face and survived. Yet according to several Bible passages no one can see God and live. See here.
34:1-31 Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. Yep. People were violent and nasty. They still are. So what's the problem?
34:30 Jacob complains that his sons' actions have caused him "to stink among the inhabitants of the land." Yes, and what? The problem?
34:31 Dinah's brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say: "Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" To the author of Genesis, rape is clearly a crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman. To the ancients as a whole, not just the author of Genesis, honor was indeed a primary concern, and family honor was at the top. SAB as a provinicialist bigot is unaware of this and sits as judge and jury presuming his way is more enlightened and superior -- and also seems to think that this is unique to Genesis.
35:5 "The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." I don't know what the "terror of God" is, but I'll bet it isn't pleasant. It means fear. The people around knew that pursuing the Jews was a bad idea.
35:10 God names Jacob Israel for the second time (see 32:28 for the first naming). He says that Jacob will no longer be called Jacob. Yet Jacob is still called Jacob in the Bible, and even God calls him Jacob in 46:2. See above.
35:15 Jacob names Bethel again. The first time 28:19 the name didn't stick. See above.
35:17-18 Rachel dies in childbirth; but at least she had another son. And in the Bible, a woman is expected to die happily as long as she has a son. In the ancient world, this WAS a source of happiness. No doubt SAB thinks they should have found happiness as president of a multinational corporation.
35:18 JW issue. We pass.
35:22 "Reuben went and lay with his father's concubine." I wonder why God wants to tell us about it. Maybe he figures that "inquiring minds want to know." Maybe SAB is a prude who fails to take lessons from the mistakes of others. Ancestry issues were very important to these people, as were patterns of behavior.
36:2-3 Esau (Isaac's son) had several wives (continuing the tradition of polygamy, with no editorial comment from the Bible). One of his wives, according to 36:2, was Adah the daughter of Elon, but in 26:34 her name is given as Bashemath the daughter of Elon. Yet verse 3 says Bashemath is the daughter of Ishmael. See above.
36:12 Amalek was born many years after his ancestors were "smitten." (14:7) See above.
37:28: The verse says the Ishmaelites sold Joseph into Egypt, but 37:36 says that the Midianites sold him. See here.
38:2-4 "And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite ... and he took her, and went in unto her. And she conceived, and bare a son; and she called his name Er. And she conceived again [I guess Judah must have went in unto her again] and bare a son; and she called hi name Onan." (It seems that the probability of having a biblical daughter is considerably less than 50%.) See above.
38:7 "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. OUTR.
38:8-10 After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. That's too bad, since neither is at issue. See here. Too bad for SAB he didn't think through what he was taught critically and do contextual study on it.
38:13-18 Tamar (the widow of Er and Onan, who were killed by God) dresses up as a prostitute and Judah (her father-in-law) propositions her, saying: "Let me come in unto thee .... And he ... came in unto her, and she conceived by him." From this incestuous union, twins (38:27-28) were born (both were boys of course). One of these was Pharez -- an ancestor of Jesus ( Lk.3:33). Incest? Not at all. Er and Onan were dead and Tamar was a free agent.
38:24 After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Yep, Judah was ticked and not perfect either. SAB forgets to mention that part where Judah changes his mind after realizing it was his own fault.
39:1 Joseph was sold into Egypt by Ishmaelites -- or was it the Midianites as is said in 37:36? See above.
39:7-18 Joseph is seduced by Potiphar's wife. He rejects her advances, but she claims he "came in unto" her. Yes and, what?
40:19 Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. OUTR and MIR.
40:20 JW issue, we pass on SAB's obsession.
42:27, 29 Joseph's brothers find their money at an inn on their way home (see also 43:21). But according to 42:29, 35 they found their money after they got home. Don't know where SAB gets that reading, sorry. What I see is them unloading the sacks again when they get home, and seeing it again and still being upset. You would be, too, if someone's neck was on the line.
44:5, 15 Joseph and his magic divining cup. MIR.
44:20, 22 In these verses, Benjamin is an infant -- a "little one," a "lad, a "child." Yet just a little while later (46:8, 21) when Jacob's clan migrates to Egypt, Benjamin is a grown man with ten sons. See here.
46:2 God calls Jacob Jacob, though he said in Gen.32:28 and 35:10 that he would no longer be called Jacob but Israel. See above.
46:3-4 God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) Not sure where SAB gets this. Jacob is told that God will "bring him up" but the word can mean in terms of power, stature, etc. -- which did happen. Beyond that even if SAB is right it would be a case of Jacob being identified with his descendants -- common "groupthink" for the ancients.
46:21 Benjamin was a grown man with tens sons (at least according to this verse) when Jacob's clan migrated to Egypt. But just before they left, Benjamin was called a "little child," a "little one," a "lad" ( 44:20,22). See above.
46:11 Was Mahli the son of Levi? There are two people by this name.
46:21 There are four lists of Benjamin's sons in the Bible, and none of them agree. This one lists ten sons, Num.26:38-40, 1 Chr.7:6 lists three, and 1 Chr.8:1-2 lists five. Only one son (Bela) is found in all four lists. See answer in 1 Chronicles page.
47:29 God promised to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt (Gen.46:3-4), but God doesn't keep his promise and Jacob dies in Egypt. See above.
47:31 Jacob swears, apparently with god's approval. But, later, in the New Testament swearing is forbidden (Mt.5:34-37, Jas.5:12). Jacob then dies in Egypt, contrary to God's promise in 46:3-4. See yet again here.
46:27 Jacob's family is here said to include 70 people; but Acts 7:14 says there were 75. See here.
49:3-27 Genesis 49 lists the twelve tribes of Israel with the verse number in parenthesis. Reuben (3) Simeon and Levi (5) Judah (8) Zebulun (13) Issachar (14) Dan (16) Gad (19) Asher (20) Naphtali (21) Joseph (22) Benjamin( 27). Revelation (7:4-8) adds Manasses and omits Dan. It's polemical. Dan in Rev was regarded as persona non grata because of their idolatry, and their place was given to another.
49:4 Jacob says that Reuben will "not excel" because he "went up to [his] father's couch [had sex with his father's wife]." (see Gen.35:22) Yep. Character flaw. Does SAB deny it, or is he just being a prude again?
49:10 The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. Gen. 49:10 says no such thing as this, and if SAB thinks so he needs to exegete the passage.
50:13 Was Jacob buried at Machpelah or Shechem (Acts 7:15-16)? See here.