Biblical Errors and Nonsensical Dogma

A little while ago, I was arguing with a fundamentalist Christian about how he knew that he was so right and everyone else was so wrong.

He told me that there were no errors in the Bible that every bit of it from Genesis through Revelations was 100% true. He claimed that every bit of it was “the inspired word of God” and therefore perfect and infallible.

What did that mean I asked him? He said: “God has the power to actually put His message into our words.” He also assured me that he couldn’t possibly have personally misinterpretted one syllable.

I asked how he knew this to be true. “Hasn’t it been translated thousands of times & written & re-written by many authors?” I queried. “Aren’t humans inherently prone to error? How is it that virtually no post on the this board can be made without a typo yet the Bible be 100% correct?”
Now, ordinarily I don’t like to diss anyone else’s religion and that is not my specific intention here. But, this guy was being an arrogant jerk. I was merely trying to challenge his beliefs a little to have a discussion about moral choices and perhaps get him to see someone else’s side for a change, but he was being all sanctimonius.

So, after enduring frequent insults about my ignorance for trusting in science, I finally let him have it. I told him that I now knew that he was lying, because there were many well-known errors in the Bible. So, either he was deliberately overlooking these portions or he knew a lot less about he Bible than he claimed to. Either way he was lying.

The fact is that many portions of the Bible are patently absurd if read literally. I don’t mean that I just disagree with them. I mean that I don’t see how ANY rational person living in today could possibly believe all of them wholeheartedly (as he claimed he did), because many Biblical claims are not only improbable, but sometimes even self-contradictory in light of our modern knowledge. I would bet that he had never even read the Bible cover to cover - just selected passages (like most people). Picking and choosing the best parts - all the while claiming that “every bit of it” was fact dictated directly from God to author - never added to by later authors or revised one bit. Most likely, he was just parrotting what he had been taught about the book.

Many other frequently overlooked portions of the Bible, that I won’t get into here, have little relevance to our modern world too. For example, the sections that advocate death by stoning for blasphemy or adulterous women seem really awful to everyone today (outside of a few in parts of Nigeria or Iran).

Anyway, I finally posted the following passage & commentary & that finally shut the guy up:

** THE BIBLE {New International Version (NIV)} **

*Genesis 1

   The Beginning 

   1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.*


Notes: *Day 1 - God creates heaven & earth, but the earth has no land or oceans. (???) Though God is
said to be “hovering over the waters”. (I thought God was everywhere? How does he hover in one place
rather than another. A very primitive notion - more akin to conceptions of anthropomorphic pagan gods
than - e.g. Zeus or a Genie - rather than a monotheistic omnipotent being.) And, why does he need to
“hover”? Is there gravity? Is he made of matter?

Then he calls the light “day” & the dark “night” - but it is always both day & night on a spherical earth.
This only makes sense if you believe in a flat earth - where the sun moves across the sky, like Apollo’s

Also, note: there is light & dark but no sun or other stars yet.

Then he creates “sky”. Before this there was only light & dark & earth (but the earth had no ground nor
sky). Perhaps this should be interpretted as meaning clouds “water from waters” - though that’s not
what it says in any texts, it says “sky”. (And I don’t want to read into the text based on modern
understandings of these things. Gen 2 says there was no rain yet - not until after vegetatuion & animals.)
Then, there was “evening”? (Whatever that means without a sun. (???))

**Day 2: Then he creates land & oceans.

Though how this is can be “day 2” or “morning” when there is no sun yet is unknown. Makes no sense.
(Anyone? Maybe these are godly days? But then why call them days at all? How about Epoch 1, epoch 2,
etc. Again, don’t want to read anything into the text that isn’t there. Will assume that “day” is meant &
these are regularly 24 hour days. Even if the earth is not moving & no sun yet.)

Then he creates vegetation. Evening. (???)

***Day 3 - Morning. (???) He creates the sun (finally!) & the moon, then all the other stars (as well, I
assume, all the planets, asteroids, meteors, comets, moons around other planets, galaxies, pulsars,
quasars, blackholes, dark matter, etc. - though it makes no mention of any of these other things.) Of
course, ancient astrologers couldn’t have known that the planets weren’t also stars - just special stars
that moved differently from all the others. God says that all of these heavenly bodies are just for us to
help us mark the passage of time on calendars.

(Busy day! Whew! - he created about 99.99999999999% of the observable universe on this day,

****Day 4 - Then god creates sea creatures & birds. (No land animals yet.) (Guess he took it easy after
that long day 3 - probably slept late. I assume he must sleep at night, since he apparently only work until evening & then resumes with more work the next morning.)

*****Day 5 - First, he creates livestock, then all the wild animals. (So, cattle & pigs & sheep, etc. we’re
created already domesticated, then their wild cousins. Not sure about chickens, geese, or wild flightless
birds - Day 4 or 5?). (Perhaps penguins & ostriches were the first land animals? Other birds created on
day 4.) (Not sure when he created bacteria or other microbes. No mention of them in the Bible. Maybe
theyt didn’t exist at all until they were discovered in the 1500s?). (And, where has SARS been hiding all
the time or does he still make new microbes all the time - just no other new organisms, since day 5.)

Then god created man.

******Day 6 Then according to Gen 2 he has Adam name all the animals. It seems the only thing he
made on this day was Eve - from Adam’s rib. Though I’m sure anming all the animals took a long time.
There are over 800,000 species of insect alone!! And text says Adam named all creatures that day, not
God, and there’s a limit to how fast Adam could do it. God also set down the rules for them about the
Tree of Knowledge & the Tree of Life on this day.

*******Day 7. He rested. (Told you he must sleep. Maybe he had to pulled an all-nighter naming the
animals with Adam & making Eve. Though what happens to the rest of the universe while he slept
all-day on the 7th is anybody’s guess. (Maybe the angels minded the store - assuming there were any -
no mention when they were created. Did they all exist before the universe or light & dark, etc.)

And all of THAT is just the errors I could find skimming through the first Chapter of the first book. Divinely
inspired? Nonsense!

It was obviously written by very primitive people with little underestanding of any sort of science. No
amount of double-talk makes the text any more accurate than the creation myths of the Greeks, Chinese, Nordic, African, Aboriginal, Native American, or ANY other cultures. It’s a fun story, but it provides no real insight or knowledge of anything.

At first when the fundamentalist guy read the text above, he said that I must have misinterpretted it, of course, but couldn’t say exactly how.

Then, finally, he admitted that parts of the Bible WERE known to be somewhat allegorical, after all. Though, they were still 100% true, he still maintained. (???) He tried to claim, that the essense that the text tells the way it actually happened.

At this point, I knew I had him on the ropes, so I pressed him further, pointing out that I had found all those errors after just a few minutes of skimming through the first chapter of the first book. Furthermore, I said that if you admit that the Bible is not to be taken exactly literally in some portions, then how could anyone ever know which were the literal portions and which not? The text of Genesis doesn’t say its a metaphor anywhere Also then, why couldn’t one then legimately interpret all the supernatural portions as mere metaphor".

He didn’t like this idea at all. He tried to “pull rank on me” then. He claimed that IF ONLY I had studied the Bible as much as him, then I would be able to easily tell which portions were intended only as metaphor.

"So how YOU decide which portions of it are mere allegory, I asked. "What’s difference with THIS text that makes parts of it perhaps not literally true. but other fantastic events like the animals walking two-by-two into Noah’s ark or even the Virgin Birth literal events. He said again that it was easy to tell. So, I begged him to show me how this passage and perhaps others are known to be intended metaphorically rather than literally, Didn’t some theologians claim this?

He couldn’t answer. He just posted more sciptures. And, then went off to check HIS Bible to look for disagreement with the version I posted, promising to return. But, I knew I had him. I had gotten him to reverse himself and admit that the Bible might NOT be wholly true in some portions. And, from there I knew it was a slippery slope to questioning the veracity any and all of its stories.

I never heard back from him again.

Firstly, you cannot assume that the entire bible is similar to Genesis. It is true that parts of the bible are similar, but for the most part, it is concerned with ordinary events. The creation of the universe is by no means ordinary. For this reason I can not accept that you have argued that the whole Bible is wrong, only that the first chapter of Genesis is incorrect.

Your friend seems to have faced the dilemma of attempting to believe in both contemporary science and Christianity. Had he shunned science, he would have been able to reject all your claims on a philosophical level by stating that from his standpoint, the scientific method does not generate reliable knowledge, but religion does. This would have required you to prove that science is more valid than religion, which would probably centre on the idea of testable claims. This argument is a very difficult one from either side and has been fought many times without much in the way of conclusion.

Instead of picking up this argument, your friend accepted that some of your scientific claims are true. Had he wanted to hold his position, he should not have done this. He found that his two sources of knowledge, science and the Bible were contradicting. Consequently, he faced a dilemma and was no longer able to argue.

Well, I will just say this: all Bible believers should get together and come out with a list of unanimously agreed correct readings of the Bible. Until they do that, I think no one is risking eternal damnation for not being able to determine what to believe in the Bible and what not; when as I say even Bible believers themselves can’t be agreed among themselves.

That said, I am still a theist, an independent free theist, having postgraduated from Roman Catholicism. God and I, I hope He does not mind, we have gone from way way back and I want to maintain, again if He does not mind, we will go together for some more years.

What about you guys? Take it from me: believe in God but be independent and free in your choice of religion; and be prepared to switch religion as soon as you feel your independence and freedom is being compromised; or better still, choose only all those good things in religion, but disregard all the unkind and unreasonable things.

Susma Rio Sep

I believe that attacking Genesis is pointless. If the believer wants to believe what the Bible says then they will. You can come up with a million flaws and discrepencies, yet the person will tell you that they believe anyway.
Whether or not the world was created or not per the Bible, the person may still choose to accept the Word even though they see the flaws and understand them. It is not because they are stupid or reject science, it is because they think that is what God wants them to think. They would rather believe what their God tells them through the Bible and not have to worry about the latest science or reasons from people such as yourself. To them, life is a means to the afterlife, and not to be debated with their Creator. The “All or nothing” belief that some hold is based on their perception of what faith is. To some “Faith” means that you have to believe everything, hands down, and not question it. Others see the Bible as a guide and “Faith” helps them understand its meaning - to know that the Bible is talking to them and to use it in a positive way.

Point: If Genesis explained that the universe was created via the big bang and that all species evolved and that this took billions of years no-one 4,000 years ago would have understood that. It was written in a way that everyone could understand it. It allowed for the Bible to remain a part of our development through the centuries that followed. If you think about it you can see a parrallel with the children of today and the people of ancient times. They can/could both grasp the story of Genesis and then can easily take the next step to believing the rest of the Bible - more importantly the NT and the birth of Christ. Its like a walking ramp (in a literary sense). Some of us need it and some of us dont. Those of us that understand science can choose to ignore the literal meaning of Genesis but can still appreceiate the meaning behind it. We know that God gave us free will and our minds to think with. Just as the strict Biblicans believe the Word word for word, those of us with more open minds can understand how the Bible helps them - just as it helps us. Though for most of us the Bible is part of a larger tapestry that we chose to use along with the science that our God given brains has allowed us to understand. In other words, the more we know the more we can appreciate what the Bible has done for humanity. Those with truly open minds that is.
Consider yourself lucky if you can appreciate why someone would believe Genesis word for word.

Though I don’t have the link here, There’s a couple of sites out there which are dedicaced to bible discrepancies. One of them list all the factual errors, internal contradictions, nonsenses and anything which is offensive by our modern moral and cultural standarts. The other one is the on-line version of a a formerly published magazine which discuss in much more detail specific contradictions (and the counter-arguments). Probably someone here will be able to provide the links.
The bible and the gospels are filled with contradictions. There’s no way, IMO, one could convince someone who is really familiar with the bible/gospels and at the same time is still convinced it must be taken litterally and doesn’t contain any error or contradictions. To achieve such a feat, one must disconnect some switches in his brain, and be able to somehow flee the mere thought that there could possibly be something uncorrect in this book. So, you’ll be facing a wall, barring some ability of your in counter-brainwashing techniques.

I would add that for some people, IMO, the concept that the bible could be not entirely, word for word accurate is perceived as a threat to their dearly-held faith. For the exact reason you mentionned. If parts of the bible are unreliable, how could you tell which ones aren’t? How could you have confidence in whatever else you’re reading in this book. Though nowadays, most christians have no issues believing at the same time that the bible isn’t to be taken litterally and that it still mostly true in some general way, some people won’t be able to (which is actually very consistent from my atheistic point of view).
I would finally add that IMO, even if you assume the content of the bible to be true to some extent, the current christian religions teachings and beliefs are essentially arbitrary. Given the time and the motivation, I could build a religion around the bible and the gospels no one would recognize as being truly christian, by choosing to stress the points which are usually ignored and to ignore the points which are usually stressed. The christian teachings are based mostly on various traditional interpretations, and not deduced in some obvious and logical way from the writings themselves. In this sense, stressing the tradition rather than refering to the actual written content, as the modern Jews (or even to some extent the Catholics) do, is a much more consistent position.

Actually, the Bible is known to contain spelling and grammatical errors. I don’t have the link (I may have it bookmarked on a different computer) but if you search google you can find plenty of fundamentalist sites that admit to the writos.
Another site is “Bible babble” but I will have to dig up the link(or you can type “Bible Babble” into a search engine).

Yes. This is just a statement, not a criticsim.

In the same way that my newspaper this morning reported that the US Army was pulling out if parts of the DMZ in Korea and on another page mention the US Army being in Iraq. Both those reports are true. Despite being able to be everywhere on this planet at once, the US Army is rightly described as being in Iraq.

Does it say that he needs to hover? If he is not made of matter and there is no gravity then he can hover or anything else he likes to do can’t he?

Yes but the previous verse explicitely says that the two have been separated. Does it only make sense to give names to separated objects if the Earth is flat? Why does the fact that I have separated my books from my magazines and called them different names imply to you that they do not both always exist somewhere on this planet? Or if it does make sense, are we to take form this that you believe in a flat Eath?

Or at least no sun visible form the Earth. If I say to a waiter ‘I want cake’ do you take that to mean that the cake never existed before I ordered it?

No because that is not what it means. It is quite explicitely stated that ‘God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water’ this is not the creation of the sky as such. Prior to this there was one big globe of water, then the oceans and the clouds were separated by ‘an expanse’. Not a sky, simply a gaseous atmosphere. I don’t know quite how this gives us ‘sky’ or why it is so confusing or could possibly be interpreted as creation of a sky rather than simply an empty expanse.

And so on and on it goes. I’m not going to bother with the whole piece.

As critiques of Genesis go ** Zenmaster Mojo** I give this one 2 out of 10. No particularly valid criticisms. Written with a lack of comprehension. Displays a failure to grasp fairly basic grammatical concepts like an entity existing in two places at once being correctly referred too as being in either of those places.

There are plenty of serious errors in Genesis, but AFAI can tell you have failed to pick any of them.

Good insights, all.

** Firstly, you cannot assume that the entire bible is similar to Genesis. It is true that parts of the bible are similar, but for the most part, it is concerned with ordinary events.**

I don’t assume this. But, please define “ordinary event”. Are these ordinary events:
Gathering all animals of the world into a boat before a global flood, Parting of the Red Sea, destruction of Sodom & Gamorrah, falling of the walls of Jerhico, Sampson losing his strength when Delilah cuts his hair, Tower of Babel, Daniel in the Lions Den, Plagues of Locusts/Rain of Toads/Rivers of Blood, Story of God & Devil torturing Job, Burning bush that talks, Ezekials wheel, virgin birth, genocide, turning water into wine, magic healing powers, raising the dead, rising from the dead, talking with angels, global apocalypse.

Sound more like a list of plots for X-men comic books to me. :wink: (No offense intended to anyone.)

All of the things and many more sem just as fantastic to me as the description of the origin of the universe in Gen 1.

Had he shunned science, he would have been able to reject all your claims on a philosophical level by stating that from his standpoint, the scientific method does not generate reliable knowledge, but religion does. This would have required you to prove that science is more valid than religion, which would probably centre on the idea of testable claims. This argument is a very difficult one from either side and has been fought many times without much in the way of conclusion.

No, not in this case. In this case my task is much easier. I do not have to prove that “science is more valid than religion”. Take a look at some of my specific criticism again. I do not have to prove anything. Because some of the text of Gen 1 is self-contradictory in light of even common knowledge today about the world & the heavens. Example: Sun was created on Day 3! So, what does it mean to have a day on earth without the sun existing yet?

Genesis clearly implies that we live in a flat world where the sun moon and stars move across the sky - a very primitive conception. No one believes this sort of worldview today, though it was probably a majority view 6000 yrs ago. Clear evidence that the Bible was written by fallible humans not dictated to its authors by some divine force.

It is NOT my intention to disprove the Bible. I was merely trying to disprove the statement that the Bible is 100% accurate. If one continues to maintain such a view, then they must explain how such events during the creation were possible. What does separating the light from the dark mean, before a sun? And what does all the other strange contradicting language that I’ve pointed to really mean? Do people who maintain that the Bible is 100% accurate today really believe in this primitive conception of the universe and its creation as in Genesis?

Nothing wrong with metaphor or poetic license. I just wanted the guy to admit that Genesis 1 is a creation myth, not a scientific description - which seems obvious to me.

IMHO, it’s incredibly difficult for someone living today to explain that they actually believe that the a universe was created as described. Trouble is, if one admits that it’s a metaphor, what defense do they now have, if someone wants to claim that the Resurection was just a metaphor? The Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Genesis should be considered to be just a mythical description of God’s creation of the world. So how can one then distinguish fact from fiction.

At issue here is this idea that the Bible was “divinely-inspired” - i.e. dictated to its authors directly from God - as is often claimed. If you admit Gen 1 is embellished then what about Noah - how much of this should we believe.

Again, I don’t want to disprove any Biblical truths - just the doctrine of “divine inspiration” used to make the claim that the Bible is infallibile & strictly true in a literal sense. I know most Christian don’t believe this anyway at least not in a strict sense. Most Christians, in this country, I’m sure favor scientific expalnations for our origins. I wish the remaining few percent would get a clue about how silly some of their claims actually are.

Only if we accept that things can’t be given different names if they co-exist but in separate parts of the universe. Clearly this isn’t a valid assumption.


What does it mean for a planet to exist that has no land, no oceans, no atmosphere. In fact, the earth was “formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep” The deep, what deep? There are no oceans. And no it’s not molten rock either - it was “dark & empty”.

So what was actually created on day 1. Nothing resembling any planet & certainly not the earth as we know it. Why call it the earth at all if it was “formless”. If other planets are eventually discovered that contain intelligent life, when were they created? Is the Earth special above all other planets?

Separated the earth from the heavens implies a flat earth. Afterward, as in many other primitive creation myths, sky is separated from water, land is separated from ocean, sun from the moon. Flat earth. Heaven above. Earth below. Of course we now know that the earth takes up about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the space of the universe, but the ancients didn’t know this to them it was all they knew. The stars were little points put in the sky for them, not giant spheres of plasma millions of times larger than the earth.

So, am I to believe that God simply made one little dark formless speck of a space in the infinitely vast exanse of space in which to put this new dark formless (i.e. non-spherical) thing called earth. Earth is part of space it is not separate from the heavens. And, does this mean he created Heaven at this time too? So, when did he make the angels?


The U.S. Army is not an infinite being, nor are they literally everywhere at once. God is. He can’t hover in one place only. Hovering means “floating above” implies an up & down. No up & down in space. God can’t hover any more than the ocean can be more in one place than another. He wouldn’t need to anyway, not anthropomorphic. The word “hover” is completly meaningless in connection with an infinite God. So why use it at all - if it’s meaningless? Because the ancients saw God like Zeus hovering above Mt. Olympus. Not as most modern Christians see God. This ISN’T a matter of being two places at once, it’s a matter of being everywhere, but also being specifically in one place. What does that mean - to float if he fills all space?

Also, you can’t hover over a sphere in space, only next to. There’s no up or down. Could be all around - which of course he is already. But, that’s not what it says. Say’s hover not engulf. And, he doesn’t need to go somewhere, he is there. Undergound too. In other words, when is he not somewhere? Never. Pointless to identify one place. An erroneous conception.

No, no sun at all! Not until Day 3! No stars at all in the universe yet. Cake? Huh?

BTW - when god said “Let there be light” did this mean all electomagnetic radiation - or just light in the human visible range of the spectrum??? Maybe he meant: “let there be energy” - i.e just photons (from the far infrared though gamma rays). Though it appears that there was no matter yet - not even elementary particles - since the earth was “formless and empty”.

Also, according to this account the earth is older than the rest of the cosmos - though we now know for a fact that the universe is just under 14 billion yrs old & the earth a mere 4 billion yrs old. Many stars, quasars & galaxies were born and died long before the earth was foem. So, Genesis doesn’t jive with modern conceptions of the Big Bang at all really.

What does it mean to have a day or morning or evening in space & with no sun yet? (It means nothing, because it was written by primitive minds not dictated by an infinite Creator. They were so primitive it seem that they didn’t even know that all daylight comes from the sun. They didn’t understand that even though the whole sky may be bright during the day, the light comes from the sun - i.e. didn’t understand atmospheric scattering.)

Astronauts in space have no morning or evening. So, if there’s a night identified does that mean god went to sleep after a hard day of work each day. Text always says evening, then morning with nothing seeming to happen at night - no text between evening but before morning. So, how long were his days? And Day 1 he separated the light from the dark - so, did that light go out at the end of day one & two? Did he start the earth spinning after he created the sun and moon?

The TEXT says “SKY” not my words - it’s the so-called Word of God. LOL. Read again. The original text hovering above my first critique.

Genesis 1:8:“God called the expanse ‘sky.’”

Thanks for making my point for me. If it was nothing like what humans call a “sky” why call it that at all. Gen 2 says it didn’t rain in the early fews days - so he didn’t make any rainclouds. My best guess is that by “water from water” the author means clouds.


Not intended to be a theological treatise. Not a critique in the formal sense never intended such a thing. First set of notes on errors ABOVE took me all of about 20 minutes to put together. Intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek actually.

My original intent was to show how easy it was to find errors (i.e. nonsensical and/or contradictory claims) in the Bible. Opened it to page 1, Book 1, Chapter 1 and found dozens of them in a few minutes, didn’t even have to move on to chapter 2.


Separate parts of the universe? Huh? Where do you get THAT from??? An, YOU accuse me of reading into the text??? Also, the universe has no other parts - not until Day 3 - just formless earth & void of space, plus light & dark.

There are quite a few of em:

Just a few. :wink:

When we’re done with Genesis, can we move on to the morning papers?

They always refer to “sunrise” in the weather section, revealing a glaring lack of understanding of basic astronomy.

Oh yeah, because the morning papers are very similar to the bible.

Some of them have harlots on page 3!

Feh, nitpicking Genesis is like wrestling trees. You tire yourself out and accomplish nothing.

Thats why you nitpick the whole bible and not genesis. :rolleyes: Read a link or two once in awhile.

A nitpick:

But these weird happennings are embedded among several thousand other pages of sheep-raising, tent-making, accounts of marriages and births, nomad desert life, rise and fall of major and minor princedoms, marital infidelities, incest, adultery, in-law squabbles, sibling rivalries, slave-trading, palace intrigues, rapes, murders, penal codes, travelogues, architectural specifications for both mobile and fixed structures (a bit tricky when pi=3), dietary rules, ritual ceremonies, vine growing, census figures, land distribution, acts of either great kindness or vile meanness to strangers and family, one love poem, mob lynchings, treason, ethnic cleansings, appeals to higher courts, aphorisms, proverbs and simple preaching (about either gloom and doom or peace and love) unaccompanied by Special Effects. Just that all that mundane stuff is somehow also attributed to it being God’s Plan.

Lighten up. The OP only cited Genesis and the nitpicking I’m referring to is trying to dissect the physics of creation, which is as pointless an exercise as I’ve ever heard. whuckfistle pointed this out before me.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now everything that was, is and shall be was but as a grain of sand in the hand of God.

And God said, “Let there be a heaven filled with stars,” and all the stars sprang forth from his hand and gave forth light, and this was the first day.

And God looked to one of the stars and called it the sun, and set by it lesser stars and called one the earth and one the moon. The wandering stars had no light of their own, but the sun lit the earth by day and gave its light to the moon at night, and this was the second day.

And God filled the ocean, and brought forth within it the smallest of living things, in size to a flea as a flea is to a camel, and this was the third day.

And God brought forth plants and diverse creatures in the sea, and this was the fourth day.

And God brought forth beasts to walk the land and birds to fly, and this was the fifth day.

And God did take a beast into his hand and say, I will set you apart, and shape you into my image upon the land, and you shall be fruitful and multiply and bring forth women and men to honor me and have stewardship of my creation, and this was the sixth day.

And God rested on the seventh day, but the days of God are not as the days of men, nor as their years, but endure for time beyond reckoning.


That’s not meant to be a precise scientific account and I’m sure the poetry could stand improvement, but I think it comes a lot closer to the truth than Genesis in fairly simple terms.

“Faith, Hop, and Charity. And the most important of these is Hop.”