The Bible, Fundamentalists, & Lesbian Sex ©

By: wistfall1

Author's note of acknowledgement: I wish to thank those who helped by reading and offering suggestions. They put in much time and effort to help me to make this more easily read, and for that, I am grateful. That said, I must also say that I alone am responsible for any errors or omissions that this essay may contain.



What is Fundamentalism?



There has been much ado lately about the bible and homosexuality, and most of it raised by what are known as Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists became widely known from Jerry Falwell's preaching, and also by Pat Robertson of the "700 Club" on television, as well as from many others. What is Fundamentalism?

Fundamentalism in the Christian world is the belief in the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God, the God of the Jews in what is known as the Old Testament. It is without error, they proclaim, and many, if not most Fundamentalists, have a belief that our nation, America, should be a nation under God's law as in the Old Testament, and punishments for violating those laws should be meted out as prescribed by the Old Testament.

What is seemingly upper most for the Fundamentalists, at least in the public purview, is that homosexuality is not only a violation of God's law, but treat it as though it is of the utmost importance to God over most other laws, and is a sin that some have openly stated should be punished by death as in the Old Testament. They have also decided that homosexuality is against God's law not only for men but for women also.

Several questions arise from this:

Is the Bible literally the word of Divinity, of a real God, one who purposefully created the Universe, and humans as special beings with a purpose that is as dear to him?

Are Fundamentalists correct in saying that there is no error in the Bible because it is God's word either written by him, or him having others to write it as he dictated it? Is it truly inerrant—error free—as the Fundamentalists claim?

And finally, for the purpose of this essay, did God say, or command in the Bible, that there should be no homosexuality between women?

This last, minor though it may seem in the "big picture", is salient for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that this essay is directed to lesbians in particular. Lesbians are paying a very high price in emotional distress from church humiliation, shame, guilt, terrorism, the pressure of family, prevalent church society, and damnation and an everlasting journey into the burning fires of hell for heeding the call from within their very being to be lesbians, and have lesbian sex as a result of their love of other women.

Whether lesbian sex is prohibited by the Bible or not, also speaks to the veracity of the Bible, and those who say the Bible is error free.

This leads me to the first exploration of facts:

Lesbian Sex, Fundamentalist's Beliefs, and the Bible.

One of the leading Fundamentalists had this to say on a sex question, and how the Bible deals with it as far as Fundamentalists are concerned, at least from his point of view. Here is an excerpt:



Pat Robertson Says Oral Sex Is Fine If You're Married [easily found in an Internet search, as are the other quotes cited here—Literotica doesn't permit links to the Internet. Italicized are quotes from the Internet, as well as from the Bible.]

Perhaps only a few topics could make a co-host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club" become "verklempt." [Yiddish for passionate, most likely.] But while Kristi Watts was overwhelmed by the inquiry concerning oral sex in the context of marriage, Pat Robertson took it in stride.



"The Bible doesn't make that sinful," [my bold] Robertson said. "The question is: What's in your heart?"

Robertson endorsed the act if it's a sign of love and compassion between two married people.

His co-host was quick to cite the biblical backing. The verse, found in Hebrews 13:4, reads: "Let marriage be kept honorable in every way, and the marriage bed undefiled. For God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery" (International Standard Version).

"It's a question of what is in your mind," Robertson said. "If you feel it's sin -- it's sin."



So there's one of the leading Fundamentalists stipulating just how literally he takes the words in the bible. If it's not specified, then it isn't sinful. Man sexually with a man is prohibited specifically more than once in the Old Testament as an abomination before God, and punishable by death. Oral sex is not mentioned, so it is okay.

Sex between women isn't mentioned either, so it is okay too, according to Pat Robertson's interpretation, and in accord with basic Fundamentalist beliefs.

Note how he was quick to make the assumption of it being okay if in loving marriage though the Bible doesn't address that. Isn't that like claiming to know the mind of God?

Then again, isn't Pat Robertson putting words into God's mouth (again, if you believe in the Bible) when he says oral sex is fine if in a loving context of marriage. The Bible, again, says nothing about oral sex, so isn't he adding to the word of God as he shouldn't be? They do seem to have a habit of picking and choosing what is said, and how to take it, God's word or not

Not all of the books of the Bible, especially the New Testament, have a known writer, and therefore may have absolutely no claim to be apostolic in any way. Hebrews is one of those books.

There is one more news item to help make what comes later clear:





Charles L. Worley, North Carolina Pastor: Put Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen To Kill Them Off

[Easily found on other sites on the Internet.]

The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape.

The pastor...Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's [endorsement of same sex marriage], while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.

"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13.

He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen."

Worley added, ""It makes me pukin'' sick to think about -- I don''t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?""

The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) [be prosecuted as they were historically—was originally shown as a link] and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville [who advocated punching the child—was a link] if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed.

Similarly, Tim Rabon, ... condemned states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland which have already "re-defined" marriage to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples before asking his congregants, "What is stopping them from refining marriage from a person and a beast? We're not far from that."



Note that Charles L. Worley, the North Carolina pastor, includes lesbians in his call to put them in an electrified fence to kill them off. Again, as Pat Robertson properly points out (if one believes in the Bible), if there is nothing specifically said in the Bible, how can it be a sin and punishable by death to the God in the Bible?

At this point, I think it is appropriate to point out a couple of verses from the New Testament:

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!

'For who has known the mind of the Lord?

Or who has been his counsellor?'

(Romans, chapter 11, verses 33-34, from New Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

If these are in the Bible, and true, how is it that Pat Robertson can add that oral sex is okay in marriage only? Further, how can Charles L. Worley condemn lesbians when the Bible doesn't, and say that they must be punished just as homosexual males are to be punished? How is it that these two can add to God's inerrant words and still say that the bible is to be taken literally? How is it that they decide to speak for God when God didn't speak as they felt he should? Is God dumb, or absent minded? Or maybe he never suspected that women could love other women sexually because he's not omniscient. My, my, how could God be so absentminded as to not outlaw what is so despised by so many men of the cloth, and many of those not of the cloth too.

And funny, there is no mention of pedophiles which is of great concern to all of us in our day. Didn't children matter to God back then, or is this just things that men who wrote the Bible were against?

How can it be that pedophilia isn't mentioned? Is it something that the Catholic church invented?

And if the Bible speaks against bestiality, how can it not be known about the desire many men—and some women—have for sex with children, even mere babies? Please, please, don't tell us that since God didn't say anything...

This bespeaks a fallacy in their thinking, their assuming too much.

Hubris!

And this leads to another point about their mentality, and the accuracy of what they claim to preach for the Divine, for God himself.

Let's consider Fundamentalism and the Bible as to its veracity.

Fundamentalists and the Bible

According to the Fundamentalists, as I've said, they take each word in the Bible to be literally the word of God, and to be obeyed; the Bible is without error, inerrant.

And as with all Christians, the Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament and Jesus himself.

The question, since the Fundamentalists are now pushing to have God's word to be our nations law, is whether or not the Bible is truly God's word without error? Also, all should obey God's injunctions or be found guilty of sinning against God, and be punished now as they are reported in the Old Testament as being punished then. As said by the Fundamentalists, there should be absolutely no error in the Bible because God wrote it, or had it written under his auspices, and thus just as if actually written by God himself.

Or did men, without God's direct participation, write it? If this is so, how can it be proven as belief is mostly...well, belief? Actually, it can be proven. How? By using the Bible itself, along with objectively known history, as well as proven history, and archeological history and known and accepted scientific proofs.

Surely the Bible has many good things to say, to wonder at, and is doubtless written by many intelligent and creative people. Be that as it may be, I don't in any way begrudge the Jews their God, nor argue against their sacred writings with only an intent to be harmful to them. However, what much of Christianity has done, how they've melded their New Testament onto the Old Testament, and now, as in times past, seek to make one and all be under the Mosaic laws whether we like it or not, I do have much against.

Unfortunately, this will also bring into question whether or not the Bible is truly God's word, or the word of man. Is it true, or is it a lie, or maybe only meant for the Jewish people?

We, I, must ask, if the Bible really is the word of God; if the God of the Jews truly is the creator of the Universe and of humans, and particularly of Jews as his special people?

The following is a look at many of the verses in the Bible and the veracity of what the Bible says, using the methods I've outlined above. Readers will note that the Bible itself provides most of the proofs.

Each reader is very specifically asked to verify all that is herein written.

[Note: Some of the verses are without a doubt in error, wrong in what they say, or contradictory one verse to another.]

Just one error, invalidates the inerrancy claim of Fundamentalists, but you'll see that there are many more than just one, and some of them are huge.



Those verses with major errors will be so noted, and highlighted with five asterisks ***** to show it plainly to be in error that none can deny. Some other verses are very questionable, and indeed are argued on by Fundamentalists, and seen as uncertain by others not familiar with the Bible as some are. These are so noted, and highlighted by two asterisks ** to show it plainly that these are questionable verses.]



Genesis

Chapter 1

1 In the beginning when God created* the heavens and the earth,

2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God* swept over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light.

4 And God saw that the light was good; and God 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.



I consulted, in addition to the NSRV cited here, the King James Version (KJV), and a Catholic bible. All start out the same, save for the New Revised Standard Version (NSRV) which uses the word: "when" as in "...when God created..."

Saying that on the first day, the earth and the heavens were created, and then all the rest came later is, according to physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists, etc., incorrect. The Sun is much older than the earth, and the Earth is held in place by the greater gravitational pull of the Sun. This is a gross error. *****

In other words, no Sun, or substitute for our Sun, and our Earth has nothing to hold it in any one place. Also, other planets in our solar system have their gravitational influences on Earth, as does the moon, and other planets. We do exist in a "solar system" with the sun as our center, though not the center of the Universe.

This has to be a huge error in the Bible, but understandable if it was written by humans, though not at all understandable if written by God, though many Fundamentalists will argue this.

And God made light, and separated it from the darkness?

The Universe and its space are both dark and cold. Light is provided by stars, of which our Sun is one. No Sun, no stars, no light. We'll see more on the Sun shortly, however: Stars give off light from the heat generated by the star condensing, squeezing atoms deeper and deeper within itself.

This is a huge indisputable error. *****

So, was the light made on the first day or the fourth day? A contradiction to be sure, therefore an error plain and simple, and very possibly indicative of more than one human "writer" of the Bible, maybe someone who "added" words to whatever was originally written.

A contradiction is an error, plain and simple. *****





6 And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.'

7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.



The "dome", or firmament in other Bibles; apparently those who wrote the Bible believed that there was a solid dome that at times was opened up to allow rain to fall on the Earth. In those days no one had any idea of how rain came to be, and thus probably thought of it being held above the earth by God, or the gods. The Babylonians were said to believe in a tripartite setting (Earth as a flat disc with the heavens above and whatever below) that would account for this "dome" or firmament, if, as believed by many researchers, the Old Testament was greatly written then.

Also, in many places, the Bible speaks of the Earth as having "foundations" (as in, "...the foundations of the world were laid bare...", NRSV, 2 Samuel, chapter 22, verse 16, and "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?", Job, chapter 38, verse 4, KJV), indicating that the earth was a flat disc and held up by pillars giving more credence to how the Earth was seen as being. Again, Fundamentalists may argue this point. However, no one can find a "dome" of any kind above the earth.

This has to be a huge error, but as I said, Fundamentalists argue against it. *****

This "dome" is odd. It seems as if it's thought to be a real thing, a physical thing, and it had water above it that was separate from that on the earth. We'll see this in the chapters that talk about Noah and the flood.





9 And God said, 'Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.

10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, 'Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.' And it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.



The earth was there already, per verse 1. Okay, we'll skip that, but... How can vegetation, plants yielding seed, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it be possible? The Bible definitely says that "The earth brought forth vegetation..." in verse 12.

Every child still in school knows that it takes water and sunlight to begin to make vegetation grow, and keep growing, trees included. Where's the sun? No sun yet? We'll see it a day later (some people say that a day with God is as a thousand years—hope the trees and plants can wait if that's so).

This is another error-ridden writing that is supposed to be inerrant—error free, that is. A huge, unmistakable error. *****





14 And God said, 'Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.

16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.



This is the third time that he has lights "to separate the day from the night". Makes one think of those jokes of how many people it takes to change a light bulb. In and of itself, this is another mix up in the Bible. *****

When the Bible says: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky..." it is as if there is definitely a solid dome in which the "lights" are to be set, and not in the heavens above the earth. Who knows for sure what the writer meant, but here we see the Sun and the Moon, as well as other Suns, or stars also as if locked in this dome. Did this dome circle the earth with the sun, moon, and other stars? However, in verse 8 it says "God called the dome sky", whereas in verse 17 here it says "...the dome of the sky", not in the sky, or below the sky. Which is it? **
Where each star is, there is light as we know light from our Sun—a star; other than that, stars are so far away we only see a small dot of light, and that light is an old, old light for those stars are "light years away from us. A light year is the amount of time it takes a light to travel in one of our years, and most stars are millions of miles away from us, thus the light we see from them is a very old light just arriving here many years later.

This is an error as spoken of just above in another verse, one that no omnipotent God would make. There are four universal forces in the universe, and the one commonly know is gravity. Now we have a Sun to hold the planets in their orbits about the Sun, something to keep Earth in a predictable place, or places as it goes on its orbit.

Claudius Ptolemy, about the time of Jesus, or so, put forth a chart that showed how everything known in the sky revolved around the earth—the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. Even the Sun revolved around the Earth. How could humans not believe that the earth was what all revolved around?

But Copernicus showed Ptolemy was wrong, and so was the common knowledge of the earth being the center of the universe.

How could God have gotten it wrong, and put an earth, as in the very first verse of Genesis, without a sun to keep the earth in place, in its orbit around the sun? Was it because it was common knowledge that the Sun, and everything else revolved around the Earth?

Physicist, Marcelo Gleiser, in his book: "A Tear At The Edge Of Creation" (Free Press, 2010), says: "...everyone, from the Babylonians to Aristotle, from the great Ptolemy to the inspiring Muslim astronomers who kept the Greek fire burning through the Dark Ages, literally everyone, sage and ignorant alike, had been wrong about the heavens."

Without that gravitational attraction, the Earth would not be in its orbit around the sun from its greater gravitational pull.

Maybe God didn't have all of these scientific facts yet, but then God wouldn't be God who made the Universe if he didn't know this—or maybe it wasn't God who was the originator of the words in the Bible—maybe it was men who wrote it and said it was God who wrote it, or inspired it.

But wait, is that all that's wrong with this set of verses? What about the stars?

If God made the stars on the fourth day, and what God made cannot evolve according to Fundamentalists, so why are more stars being made, and more, why are some stars exploding at various times either spewing out atoms it has created in its furnace, or making black holes which swallow up other planets, smaller stars, and whatever is in its reach?

Stars are being made? Evolving? Is evolution really true? It would seem so

These are huge errors. *****





20 And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.'

21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'

23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.



The big question here is: Did this include sea turtles, seals, walruses, and manatees? This, too, will be important when we get to Noah's ark. And what are sea monsters?





24 And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.' And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.



This is half of the sixth day. It is here that Fundamentalists get a part of their denial of evolution for it says "God made...every kind, and everything", including creeping things, cattle, and wild animals. Therefore, all that God made was put on the Ark by Noah, as we shall see later on.

But let's see the second part of the sixth day.





26 Then God said, 'Let us [bold mine] make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'

27 So God created humankind in his image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'

29 God said, 'See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.' And it was so.

31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.



Uh, who is "us" that made humankind? That has never been answered other than by researchers who thought that maybe this was the work of men, and one of them put in the "us" word, and very likely men who worshipped more than one God (see Psalms 82 for more—other—Gods being spoken to by the [apparently] Jewish God, Yahweh). This first creation of humans was said by believers to be spiritual, and not yet physical.

This is something that is more than a huge contradiction of Fundamentalist belief, as well as of the belief of all Christians. "Us" is more than one God!

This is one fantastically huge error in an inerrant Bible of "the" only God who created all, including humans. *****

The Bible, in verse 30, all animals, beast, bird, creeping thing, are given every green plant for food. Do snakes eat grass or green plants? Do lions and such eat plants, green or not, for food?

Some say that people were first made spiritual—then why are they given all that is upon the face of the earth for food? Do spiritual creatures need physical food in their spiritual make up? Then again, the Bible doesn't say that this creation, in this chapter, is spiritual and not physical.

And how is it that the animals and plants are food for spiritual beings? Or are they spiritual too? In fact, has that question even been asked? Remember this for there is yet another creation that is purely physical.

Spiritual beings don't, as far as anyone knows, eat animals and plants. And not all animals eat green plants for food. This has to be another error if this is considered a "spiritual" creation. *****

Let's see what the next "creation" says, if anything, about food, animals, or plants.

That's all the errors readily seen in the Bible by one and all that would look with some care, but then that's only in the first chapter. So far it would seem that Fundamentalists would have you believe that God was more than slightly inebriated when he wrote, or dictated, this chapter, else how could so many errors appear in an inerrant (without error) work?

Once again, this is to find easy to see errors in the Bible and show them to whomever wishes to know of them, but mostly so lesbians will know that they have been unjustly prodded, tormented, humiliated, shamed, and made to feel guilty, and all over some misguided beliefs that preachers don't bother to look at with a discerning eye as they should. Even Jesus is said to have addressed this:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 32)

Paul did too, though I suspect why he said it; still, it is said that he did, and therefore it should be a tenet of Fundamentalism:

Prove all things... (1 Thessalonians, chapter 5, verse 21)

Thus this essay has two main purposes, the one to show the truth of the lies to all lesbians who have been afflicted by the Fundamentalists in churches, and then to counter all the lies being told by Fundamentalists about the Bible being God's word and error free—inerrant as they say. However, there are many more errors.

I have marked several indisputable errors in chapter 1 of Genesis, many more than just the one needed to prove that the Fundamentalists are wrong, and that the Bible is not error free. Soon it will be seen that the hand of more than one man undoubtedly helped to write, and make errors in, the Bible.

There are eight (8) distinctive major errors, and one (1) probable error, in the first chapter of Genesis, and it only takes one (1) error to prove the Bible is not error free. In fact, it seems error-ridden.

Let's look at the second account of creation.



Chapter 2



1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude.

2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.

3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground;

6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground—

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.





Now verse 5 says there was no plant of the field, no herb had sprung up for there was no man to till the ground, yet in chapter 1, we were told in verses 11 and 12 that there were plants and trees, and even fruit with seeds in them. And in verse 29 of chapter 1, God tells humans to look, that he has given them food to eat. He, God, has done it all, and no man was necessary.

This is a contradiction without a doubt, therefore an error. *****

Verse 7 tells us of the making of a physical man, Adam, out of dust. Humans are not made out of the dust of the ground. Humans are made out of atoms of various kinds, principally hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon, plus minor amounts of other atoms.

Atoms merge to make various molecules, and molecules make cells. That's basic, but what's not basic for the layperson, such as myself and others, is all that goes into making humans beginning with sperm and egg, DNA, amino acids, and proteins. Even dust is made out of atoms, and so is the whole earth, and everything we touch, including the chair we sit on. We are beings made of atoms that breathe, drink, and eat atoms. But then men who wrote the bible didn't have the science we have today, so they couldn't have known this. God would have. In fact, most likely any God would have. This is an error. *****

This time "the Lord God" made humans. Before (chapter 1) it was "us" gods who made humans. Hmm! Which is it?

This is another huge contradiction, and thus an error. *****

And what about trees again? Those were also made before in chapter 1.

And how is it that a particular tree can have Life, other than we ordinarily know it, or Knowledge? Is there a literal Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge, or is this all metaphorical? Think about it: if God breathes life, can a tree give it too?

For the Bible, maybe it is a metaphor; for Fundamentalists, an error. *****





15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.'



Then again, why not get into the tree of knowledge (now the tree of knowledge of good and evil)? Like the tree of life, how can there be such a tree, but apparently bear fruit (whereas the tree of life wasn't said to bear fruit, at least not now)?

Why put a tree with fruit before him after he says he has, in chapter 1, verse 29, said he has given every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. Is this a trick garden? And why tempt humans for if God is omnipotent, then he knows humans can't stay away from temptation, and will fail. This is a contradiction, and thus an error. *****

Fundamentalist may say something that includes "to show his love through Jesus' and his salvation".

Uh, make humans suffer just to show how nice he can be? Isn't that Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome in the extreme?

This, too, has to be a metaphor for one cannot eat fruit and gain knowledge of good and evil. An error in the Bible save for diehard believers. *****





18 Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.'



First off, it is not "let us" doing this or that; it is "I will". Now this God is alone?

Or is it a second man writing now, or maybe a third? Seems like it, but a contradiction we usually skip over and never question in bible school. This is most certainly an error. *****





19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.



Out of the ground, presumably of the same "dust" that he formed Adam from, but did he actually give all the animals the same DNA as he gave to Adam, or is the ground where he made all the animals different in composition from the ground he made Adam from?

They do share similar DNA, especially the chimpanzees; of that there is no doubt for it has been found scientifically via DNA comparisons. All animals share much of the same DNA, and that is a scientific fact. Is this an error? Seems like it, for we're not told that this ground is slightly different from the ground that Adam was made out of. *****

And what about animals that lived in the water? Didn't Adam name them too? And what did God make whales out of? Scientifically, a whale once lived on land for it has vestigial hind legs, and pelvic bones still within the body of some whales. [Why Evolution Is True, Jerry A. Coyne, Professor at U. of Chicago, Viking Penguin, 2009].

How were the whales "brought to the man" (presumably Adam)? And what about hippos? Or dinosaurs of old: T Rex, Brontosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pterodactyls, etc.? If God made dinosaurs, they had to be around at the creation and in Adam's time. How were they "brought" to "the man" to be named? The men who wrote the Old Testament didn't know about dinosaurs so they weren't included.

All animals in existence now were initially created by God in these first times. According to Fundamentalists, there is no evolution since God created all that is. Maybe some have gone extinct, but no new ones are possible. Only God has the power to create. Remember this when we come to Noah.

In the meantime, this is plainly an error. *****

He will make him a helper, and then makes animals of the field, and birds. Suddenly God realizes that he meant to make a helper for Adam, not critters. This is an error. *****





21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

23 Then the man said,

'This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

this one shall be called Woman,

for out of Man* this one was taken.'

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.



Again, humans of the days when they wrote the Bible didn't know about cloning. Making Eve out of rib is just about the definition of cloning ("This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"), making something asexually from the same donor. But taking and making Eve directly out of Adam would be as cloning, and she would have thus been a "he".

This is another plain to see error. *****

We will see more about this later on when mitochondria is examined.

There are 9 major errors in this chapter.

.



Chapter 3



1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God say, "You shall not eat from any tree in the garden"?'



Whoa! The serpent speaks! It is wily, crafty, that is.

In chapter 1, verse 21, 24, and 25, God made creatures of the land, and declared them good in verses 21 and 25.

In chapter 2, verses 19 and 29, God brings all creatures before Adam to see what he will name them.

Did Adam name the serpent then, for the serpent is a creature?

Further, did God warn Adam that this creature could talk, and he was to be careful because of its craftiness? If not, why not? Was Adam and Eve's fall already planned, their pain, suffering, and death also planned from the word go? If so, why make them only to inflict pain on them?

How is it that the serpent could talk?

How is it that the serpent was "crafty", and later known to be treacherous when all creatures were pronounced "good"? This is an error. *****

Did the serpent say "Hi" to Adam, or anything else, or thank him for naming him?

If this isn't metaphorical for whatever reason, then nothing in the world is. This is definitely and error in the Bible written by a man alone. *****





2 The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;

3 but God said, "You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die." '

4 But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die;

5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.



The serpent must have gone extinct for there are no more wild animals on earth that can speak, if there even was a serpent. This sounds much like the tales of creation told by Native American Indians with speaking, wily coyotes and other such animals. In fact, none has ever heard of a wild animal on earth that can speak other than in stories. This is an error unless taken metaphorically, and Fundamentalists say we must take the Bible literally. *****

Why would a serpent that was created by God want to go against God, and more, how in the world does it know what it says is so? Did it eat from the Tree of Knowledge? This also has to be an error. *****
More important, where did the serpent learn to speak, and how did it know what he was saying? Did it hear God, and God didn't know it? Is that possible, God being God, that is?

As stated previously, Fundamentalists say that God's word is to be taken literally, and not metaphorically. If so, then all of the questions above show errors in the Bible, and by Fundamentalists.

How does the serpent know that their eyes will be opened if they eat? Did it eat, and have its eyes opened? If so, why did God allow it to live in the Garden of Eden, and not expel it as he would Adam and Eve—and as he did expel the serpent with them?

How is it that if God allowed them to be naked in each other's presence, that after their "eyes are opened" they find the need to cover their genitals, as it seems to suggest? Didn't they think God knew what he was doing when he had them traipsing around naked in the Garden of Eden? Didn't each of them wonder at Adam's penis dangling before them, and Eve didn't have one, or that they peed differently—natural curiosity of children?

Again, this is not a literal writing of actual events; it couldn't be with all the objections noted above, thus it has to be metaphorical. It also smacks of patriarchy as practiced by the Jews as we shall see later on.

The suggestion is that nakedness is a shameful thing when one is conscious of it, but were they automatons before that to not be conscious? It doesn't seem that they were for they were given choice, which automatons don't have. So, why did God put in their makeup to have shame if they knew they were naked? This has to be an error. *****

Okay, this is laughable. How could they "sew" fig leaves? This is definitely an error unless somewhere along the line we're not told that they have sewing kits. *****





8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

God walks and makes sounds? Hmm, Moses didn't say anything about that. And why would "the man and his wife" hide? Because they made fig leaves for coverings?

These are obviously not to be taken literally, thus the Fundamentalists are wrong about the word of God being taken literally, and definitely that God walks and makes sounds that can be heard in a garden for God is said to be a spirit, that is, without human, or any physical form. *****





9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?'



God doesn't know where they are? Really? This is an error if he is God. *****





10 He said, 'I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'



How could he hear the sound of God in the garden? Again, this had to be metaphorical, thus an error as far as Fundamentalists are concerned. *****

And, yes, he's naked, but so what? Again, God made them that way, and never said anything about it being a shameful thing. The point is when you claim that the bible is literally the word of God and inerrant, thus there is no having to guess what is meant, and if not told, one can't guess at it for God didn't say it. God did not say it was shameful to be naked, but had Adam so when he had him name the animals.

Also, consider this: if they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, and suddenly think that naked is wrong, how could they know to get naked to procreate? More, if they had knowledge of good and evil, why didn't they immediately go to the Tree of Life and eat of its fruit so that they wouldn't die? They weren't prohibited from eating from it.





11 He said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?'

12 The man said, 'The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.'

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent tricked me, and I ate.'



Then God wants to know who told them that they were naked? Who else is in the Garden other than the three of them and the serpent that somehow can speak? Again, what's wrong with being naked as God made you and set you to walk about the garden without clothing? This has to be metaphorical, thus an error as far as the Fundamentalists are concerned with their "literalness". *****





14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

'Because you have done this,

cursed are you among all animals

and among all wild creatures;

upon your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.



Does this mean that the serpent at one time had legs?

It looks as if the never to be seen again serpent did as it was supposed to, and now it must crawl on its belly and eat dust. This has to be metaphorical, but there are no metaphors in Fundamentalist eyes. And there are no talking serpents who know what none other than God, or Gods, know either—at least not that we're told about. Nor do we know of any animal that crawls on its belly and can talk for God did not take away the power of speech from it. And yes, verse 15 is metaphorical too for the serpent isn't seen again, nor any other of its kind. This, too, is an error to Fundamentalists. *****





15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will strike your head,

and you will strike his heel.'



Christians say that this points to Jesus' coming. If so, it is not stated. If true, then it is metaphorically speaking, and not literal for Fundamentalists say that the words in the Bible are God's, and to be taken literally, but since there's no mention of Jesus, it must be taken metaphorically. And so must the "your offspring" be considered metaphorical. This is a Fundamentalist error. *****





16 To the woman he said,

'I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;



How can they be increased when she hasn't yet had any children? Eve would have no idea what he was talking about unless with that one bite she took from the apple she gained all knowledge. Could that have been it, or could it be that a man wrote this in pretending it was from God? An error, though some will argue. **





in pain you shall bring forth children,



That was a given since her pelvis is small compared to a child's head if we take it that these fictitious people were as we are now, and they had to be since all God made has not changed. Yes, it had to be a man writing this. Another error that will be argued. **





yet your desire shall be for your husband,

and he shall rule over you.'



Why? No reason given unless we assume patriarchy which Jews practiced to the nth degree. Another small error, but man made. **





17 And to the man he said,

'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,

and have eaten of the tree

about which I commanded you,

"You shall not eat of it",

cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;



Okay, if we take this literally, then Adam is to eat the ground all of the days of his life. Just taking it as the Fundamentalists say all are to do. This has to be a major error on the Fundamentalist's part for people do not eat "ground". *****





18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread



Now Adam is to eat plants, but God said before that he was to do that (chapter 1, verse 29). This too, taken literally, doesn't make sense. Adam, besides ground, he is to eat plants of the field? And where is he to find this bread? These are errors for taking literally. *****





until you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.'



This is a repeat error for humans are not taken out of the ground, they are the product of sperm from the male when he ejaculates into the female and it takes up residence in her egg and merges with it—both sperm and egg are made of atoms, not dust. Atoms comprise all that is in our physical world, as well as our physicality. This too is a major error of the Bible. *****

Then Adam and Eve have to suffer because they could not resist the temptation that God put before them—yes, God—and he played it all up, and being God, he knew they would fail to obey, for God is omniscient, knows all, or he is not God. Then again, it looks as if this God may not be God, he makes so many mistakes.

Or did he make a mistake. Is it that Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome in him?

If so, and it seems to be so, then all of humanity is said to be suffering pains, pangs, murders, genocide (taught to men by God himself), rape, slavery, ignorance, and back breaking labor—and for what? A capricious God who just has to show his children that he loves them? Many a child has died in the wake of a Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome parent.

No god would do this, save it was created by man, made up by man. Think about it.

For sure, it had to be men that knew nothing about dust not making man, but atoms merged into molecules, merged into cells that very much appear to have life in and of themselves as modern science is proving.





20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all who live.

21 And the Lord God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.



This is not literal. It couldn't be. God can make a man out of dust, and a woman out of his rib, not to mention making the Universe, stars, the Sun, the Earth, but now he has to make skins for them to wear. And just where would skins come from? Why, from animals, of course, so "literally", God kills some animals himself and makes them into garments to cover Adam and Eve, if this is to be taken literally. No. No way. This is metaphorical at best, a made up story by man most likely. Fundamentalists get another error here. *****

Also, this Eve is not the mitochondrial Eve who is the mother we all inherited our being from. According to a mitochondrial DNA study, the real Eve was traced back to Africa and lived about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. A biblical error, but then it was unknown to men at the time they wrote this. *****





22 Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever'—



Ah, here we go again: "like one of us." Who is "us"? See Psalm 82 for the meeting of all the Gods, save the main God, whom this God speaks in place of.

Here's another error spoken in the Bible. *****

Also, nothing was said about any fruit being on The Tree of Life before. Why weren't they told not to eat from it along with not eating from the Tree of Knowledge? And if there was fruit to grant everlasting life, why put it there where they would be tempted? This is an error of omission, and pretty big too. *****





23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.



Notes of fact: And let's look at this one again. "...the man has become like one of us..."?

Really!? Is there more than one god? Four bibles, NRSV, KJV, a Catholic bible, and the NIV (New International Version) all agree, the reading is—"...is become like one of us ("he judgeth among the gods" [KJV]). Just who is the "us", the "gods", that God is supposed to be talking to? And, as verse 22 above says that Adam has "become like one of us...", why isn't Eve as "one of us."? Misogynists, is why; women haters, patriarchal men who hold women as chattel. "Us" are male gods only here.

If this biblical god wishes to be taken literally, why did he put the Tree of Knowledge and The Tree of Life in the garden where he (or is it they?) knew one or the other would be too tempted to not partake of one or both? After all, he made the serpent, and we're given to know that it was "crafty", so he had to know the outcome. So why make people he made to suffer. Munchausen's by Proxy Syndrome?

There are 18 major errors and 2 probable errors in this chapter.





Between chapter 3 and 4

What happened between chapters 3 and 4?

The only thing we know that Adam and Eve had on expulsion from the Garden of Eden is the clothes they wear; nothing else.

They must find water, food, and shelter. The animals that we know now as predators had to have been so at the time this writing represents, including preying on humans who have always been on the menu of many animals regardless of it being said that they were given plants and vegetation for food in chapter 1 of Genesis.

For any Fundamentalists, as well as other Christians, sin entered into the world with the breaking of God's word when the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil) was eaten, therefore animals, if they were supposedly placid before, are now very un-placid.

Adam and Eve also had no tools, nor any knowledge of how to make a garden. They also had no knowledge of which animals could be used for food, as well as their not being many of them as tame and gathered as yet. Yes, this is an assumption, but nowhere does the Bible say that God created herds ready to be cared for, and for food.

When we say that Adam had no tools, he couldn't have had a harness for a walk-behind plow pulled by himself, a donkey, or an ox, or whatever, and had no way of capturing one of those animals. Eating only plants, they would soon starve from a lack of energy.

And they had no change of clothes, or any animal to skin for additional covering.

And what about shelter? No tools, then all he could do was to gather as best he could from the land about them, and put together a shelter of twigs for surely it rained at times. And what about fire; they had no matches, or knowledge of needing one for there is no mention of a fire in Eden.

It would take an inordinate amount of time to learn everything they needed to do in order to survive and that by trial and error. In fact, to say that two people without tools, knowledge, or anything other than one covering skin each for clothing could survive is beyond credulity unless we are to assume divine intervention which the Bible doesn't mention.

No, it just goes on as if no wild animals see them as easy prey for an easy meal. This is wholly unbelievable save as a story and not fact. Fundamentalists must eat an error in this, as well as the writers of the Bible. *****



A word about mitochondria and energy.

Adam has nothing save a covering or animal skin and Eve, who is also clothed in the same way. To be the only two people on earth, they must work hard, as the Bible indicates, for it will yield thorns and thistles. To work, he needs energy as stated above earlier.

A point of fact: Energy comes, for us, from the sun, water, food and our taking out of it the food we eat, hydrogen, which with enzymes and oxygen we do now. Normally, this mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is, or can be, explosive (The Feathered Onion, by Clive Trotman). Nature has a way of mitigating it as needed. So do we.

However the energy that results must be efficiently taken out of the food, and released as needed by our cells. So, what's the problem with this? Nothing, save...

Eve has the mechanism to safely and efficiently do this: mitochondria. Adam, as first man, does not. We inherit that marvelous piece of machinery from our mothers, or in this case, from Eve. Adam had no Eve to beget him. If Adam had no mother to beget him, and has not much energy, or ability to efficiently produce, harness, and utilize it, he could not have worked. No energy, no work. God would have known this, men of the day in which the Bible was written would not have. This is an error that the writers of the Bible had no way of knowing about, but God would know of it. *****

More, if Eve was taken from Adam (as if cloned, as she must have technically been with modification), how is it that Eve has the mitochondria and Adam does not? This is another error. *****

If Eve was taken from Adam, how did Eve wind up with mitochondria as we know it since Adam didn't have it as he had no mother? This is another error. *****

Mitochondria has its own separate DNA apart from what the full normal human genome has. If Eve was taken from Adam, how is it that she has a separate genome for her mitochondria that she passes on only to her daughters (Adam's Curse, by Bryan Sykes)? This is another error. *****

In modern day men, sperm have a few mitochondria that act as energy, to propel their tails, hopefully towards the egg (but some get lost, some turn around and go backwards), but after fertilizing the egg, the mitochondria in the males are destroyed by a defense mechanism to preserve supremacy for the egg's mitochondria (Adam's Curse, Bryan Sykes).

The men who wrote the Old Testament had no knowledge of any of this, as stated earlier, but for sure, God would have. This is proof positive from an ongoing fact of our existence. What is now, according to Fundamentalists, is what was when life began with Adam and Eve.

Fact: The Bible is not the word of God, nor the Jewish God, nor any god, and is in fact full of errors as pointed out here. More errors follow.

There a re 4 major errors between the time of chapters 3 and 4.



Chapter 4

Cain Murders Abel

1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.'



No age of either is given as it is later on in for others other chapters up to the time of Noah. With the help of the Lord, it says. How did the Lord help, a virgin birth? He instructed Adam in child delivery? How? This is a fabled omission. **





2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.



The writers of the Bible are assuming that they have learned enough to sustain their bodies, and to gather sheep and other animals, and learn to keep a garden. This is also indicative of an older age for Cain and Abel, at the least teenagers.





3 In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground,

4 and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering,

5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.



If God wasn't talking to any of them—and the Bible doesn't say that he has resumed talking to them—how did Cain and Abel know what offering to bring, or even that they were to bring one? The Bible doesn't say that God told them to make offerings, just that their lives would be harsh.

And how was Cain to know that God would not accept an offering such as he had? And what was his offering? We're not told other than that is was of the ground. Why didn't Adam make an offering? Patriarchy is reason to know why Eve didn't for this was written without a doubt by Jewish men. There are huge errors of omission in the Bible. *****





6 The Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?

7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.'



Why is God so suddenly talking? Is this all preplanned by the writers? It has to be that. And, again, how was Cain to know if he was doing well or not? This is a huge error of omission. If you do well, he's told, yet there were no laws of offerings to be made as yet, and when they are, there are offerings of the ground. This is totally baffling. *****
8 Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let us go out to the field.'* And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.



This, too, does not make sense. The story of the offerings is foolish on its own, but to also make it a reason for killing one's brother is ridiculous save that the writer (not God) had some reason to insert this. Each is said to have offered what must be considered a tithe, and it is not their hearts which are looked into, but what is correct as an offering according to some plan of the writers of the Bible. This has to be an error not making any sense at all. *****





9 Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He said, 'I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?'

10 And the Lord said, 'What have you done? Listen; your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!

11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

12 When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.'



So now God is still talking to Cain and is concerned for Abel being killed. Did God offer any tools or expertise to Adam and Eve when they began? No, not that any know of, then God decides what offering is acceptable, but the Bible doesn't say how they knew they were to make an offering, or how, or what it was to be.

He decides to be concerned and caring, if it can be called that, and curses Cain for what he, God, initially precipitated. How is this God to be punished for causing the conflict in the first place, or even not caring about Adam and Eve initially? And why is Cain exiled from exile? What can be more harsh than thorns and thistles? And where are Adam and Eve to do their own punishing of their children? We're not told in the Bible. This is an error of omission by the writers of the Bible. *****





13 Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is greater than I can bear!

14 Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.'

15 Then the Lord said to him, 'Not so!* Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.' And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.

16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.



Weren't they all hidden from the face of God already?

Like Adam and Eve, there is much missing here, like the reason Cain is about to sin for something we're not told he's supposed to know, but doesn't—at least we aren't made aware of it if he was told. What does God expect Cain to feel in his confusion; how can he not be angry from his confusion, and only Abel to turn his anger to—one can't get angry at God, can one?

What all did God do or say to make Cain feel such anger that he kills his brother Abel? We're not told, just left to conclude as many have that Cain was a bad seed, but how could God have made a bad seed already since Cain is only his third experiment (and so far all three have gone awry as far as he's concerned).

From thorns and thistles to Adam and Eve, to a ground that will no longer yield its strength. Why make us suffer so? We're not told yet, but we are punished (by proxy), aren't we? Not a nice God these men have created.

Uh, who is this "anyone" who may meet and kill Cain? He's the only child Adam and Eve have at this time. If they had any others how could any "others" know Cain is to be hated if someone doesn't tell them to despise Cain? Will Adam and Eve follow Cain and tattle on him to other children they may have (since there are no others to tell)? And if Cain is to wander where none other exist, where would "anyone" be and know of Cain and his sin?

Oh, we're supposed to know that they had many more children, and Cain was supposed to be really old, and all those others had by Adam and Eve have already wandered off (and how could anyone blame them?), and started other lives away from where Adam and Eve lived. Okay, that makes sense, right? Right??? Hmm, or does it? No, this has to be an error. *****

Where's Nod—there's a lot of land east of Eden? If Eden was near the Euphrates, is Nod in Persia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India? And what is sevenfold vengeance? And what is the mark of Cain? It's all too much for us to be made to figure out what's in the mind of the man, or men, who wrote this. More, who named this land and when? Oh, yes, Moses, he who knew all and either wrote it, or had it written—at God's direction, of course, errors and all. At the least, this is an error of omission. **





17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch.



Truly, where would Cain have found a wife? Whoever she's supposed to be, she had to have parents, and her parents had to have parents too. How is it that these people are suddenly there in a land we know nothing about save that the word Nod possibly means wander or to wander? This can only be explained as a fantasy made up by the writers to give Cain a wife when we are told that Adam and Eve begat humankind, and there are supposed to be no other people. For sure this is an error. *****





18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael the father of Methushael, and Methushael the father of Lamech.

19 Lamech took two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock.

21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe.

22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal_cain was Naamah.



And the big question of the moment: Who was Cain's wife, and where did she come from? See the next set of verses for more confusion.





25 Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, 'God has appointed* for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.'

26 To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.

The big thing here is that "people" began to invoke the name of the Lord. Who is this "Lord"? Is it God? And wasn't that what Cain and Abel were doing when they made their offerings? Or are no offerings made when "invoking" the name of the Lord? And what, or who, were these people that seemingly haven't known who God was? By the way, just what name did they use to "invoke" him? Yahweh wasn't yet invented. **

These verse are out of sequence if any of the preceding is to be able to be believed in any way. A third son is born, and already Cain has found a wife who had to be begotten by others that aren't supposed to be. Or did Cain's own parents have more sons, that we're not told about, before Seth, and much time has passed, sufficient to have led to another tribe who procreates faster than Adam and Eve? This is a bad and confusing error. *****

No, these are not things to be brought up in bible class and embarrass the teacher, or even the preacher who can't answer them either. But we can ask them if they are expected to be believed by one and all as literally the inerrant—without error—word of God.

And who was Seth's wife? Where did she come from? Again, the question of whether Adam and Eve bore so many more children that they constituted another tribe from whom Seth found a wife. Still, it would be incestuous for Seth is not said to have wandered away to "find" a wife.

This all stretches credulity such that an error has to be given for it as a whole. *****

There are 8 major and 3 probable errors in chapter 4.





Chapter 5

Adam's Descendants to Noah and His Sons

1 This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.

2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them 'Humankind'* when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived for one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.

5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.



This is a good place to delve into whom was Cain's wife since we now have a sequence and a part of a timeline with Adam being one hundred and thirty years at Seth's birth. Let's look at the sequence.



In chapter 4,verse 1, Cain is born. There is no word on when this happened.

In verse 2, Abel is born, a herder of sheep, and Cain is named a tiller of the ground.



In chapter 4, verse 14, when Cain is told to leave Eden after killing Abel, he says "...I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me."

In chapter 4, verse 15, the Lord said to him, 'Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.' And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.

In chapter 4, verse 16, we are told that Cain went from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod. A play on words meaning that wandering away from Eden is a land? Who knows, but he left.

In chapter 4, verse 17, we're immediately told that Cain knew his wife, and she bore Enoch. No word on where he found and married her, or who she is, or when she bore Enoch.

In chapter 4, verse 25, we're told "Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, for she said, 'God has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, because Cain killed him.'

She has a man-child to replace Abel whom Cain murdered. Nothing about when, but implicit is that no other man has been born.

In this chapter, chapter 5, that Adam is 130 years old when Seth is born where the genealogy begins.

In chapter 3, verse 20, "The man [obviously Adam] named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all who live."

What do all of these verses, in their sequence of occurrence, tell us?

First, they seemingly tell us that no other man-child was born between Abel and Seth.

Second, they tell us that even if Adam and Eve had more daughters in between Abel and Seth being born, none of them could in anyone's imagination, leave home to wander alone, and come together with the only other one who wandered out there (in what has to be considered a vast wilderness) Cain, and thus marry him. That happening is less likely to happen than it is to find a slightly different needle in a mountain of near identical needles. Without help, she definitely would have died, or been subject to a predator that would surely have killed her. But the bible does not mention another woman until we're told Cain's wife birthed a son.

So what else does the bible tell us?

It more than strongly implies that there must have been other people out there who were not sons or daughters of Adam and Eve. This gives further credence to Cain's worrying about someone who may kill him, meaning that there is someone else out there. But why they would want to kill him, other than for being a stranger and easy prey, we have no idea.

God himself gives full credence to this by saying that none will kill Cain for he will put a distinguishing mark on him, and a curse of sevenfold vengeance on any who dares to kill him. This is not a tacit admission of other people, it is a verification of the presence of other people, and that had to be men who were not born to Adam and Eve for their next son was when Adam was one hundred and thirty years old. Either that, or it is an outright fabrication, but then that would fit in perfectly with all of these other errors.

If there were no other men born to Adam and Eve before Seth, and it is unreasonable to suggest that a daughter had sought out Cain in the wilderness, then there could be no other man to marry a sister to give birth to a wife for Cain.

This is an extraordinary error in the bible, a fallacy no one in the Fundamentalist crowd has seen, or one that they hoped no one else would see, and thus chose to ignore it. This is a biblical error, and an error of massive proportions. *****

There will be more on this in the next chapter.

If anything, it actually looks as if two or more men wrote these pieces of the bible story.





6 When Seth had lived for one hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.



Again, let's pause here for a moment and consider that Seth lived to one hundred and five when he had a son, and place the time from Adam's birth/creation to the time of the birth of Seth's child at two hundred and thirty-five years.

Where did Seth's wife come from? Again, it had to be a sister, or a woman not related to him, but according to the bible, Eve is the mother of all who live.

Alone as Adam and Eve were in the world, according to the bible, and no tools or knowledge of how to fend for themselves, or how to find food other than thorns and thistles, the stress of finding water, food, and shelter had to be such that Eve's body could not ovulate.

Combine that with Adam not having energy for not having mitochondria, it had to add more stress to both of them. Was making love even possible, difficult as things were for them? Stress of the magnitude that they had to endure would keep any woman's body from functioning properly. Not only that, but the stress had to mightily strain, and thereby shorten Adam's life. There had to be about five years of learning, and developing a routine of work to survive the harshness of the land they were set into if this were all to be believed, that is. And that leads us to:

Notes on pregnancy:

Since, according to Fundamentalists, what God created is immutable, we offer this: Eve had to have the same functioning of her body as would all of her daughters to this day.

That being the case, a woman has about 500 viable eggs in her reproductive lifetime starting with the time of her reproductive years, one being released every month, or twelve a year, with a possibility of two or possibly a third egg being ovulated at the same time, though that is unusual.

While pregnant, a woman does not normally ovulate, but time robs her of some eggs anyway (which is the normal effect time has on eggs, thus the 500 eggs available for a reproductive lifetime). However, after pregnancy, they just about had to wait to have another child for Eve would not have been able to work as she had before becoming pregnant, plus having to breast feed and care for her child without anything but instinctive knowledge to help her, and that being limited. That left the workload on Adam without much help. Again, stress, and motherly duty interfered with more childbirth, the stress being great on both of their persons, plus, Adam not having energy as he should have.

Five years to being pregnant with Cain makes sixty lost eggs. After pregnancy, assume two or three months of ovulation interruption from lactating as seems to be the case with many women. Also assume a couple of years at the very least for breast feeding until another pregnancy, that of Abel, and we have another twenty-one eggs lost for a total of eighty-one eggs lost while pregnant with Abel.

However, looking at the years of Adam until Seth's birth, she has been out of eggs long before that stated occurrence, so the chronology is unsupportable for the time of Seth's birth.

Why is she out of eggs? Simple math. To the time of Abel's birth, she has lost eighty-one eggs. If we use the assumptions above, Eve would have lost one hundred-twenty two years worth of eggs to Adam's 130th year (including taking away one year for being pregnant with Seth), a biological impossibility for the immutability of God's creation as said by Fundamentalists. Of course, Fundamentalists can, and will, probably say that God can do anything he wants, and how he wants, and when.

When the Old Testament was created, the men who did so had no knowledge of science as we have today. I'm not an expert on science, but almost any high school, and probably middle school, children do have more knowledge of science that those in the days the Bible was written, therefore it's easy to understand how so much of this is wrong in the writing, as well as the fact that God would know of all science, and not have made the mistakes that are here, and obviously by men.

If we look at the Old Testament with objective eyes, and the stated immutability of God's creation(s), the stated birth of Seth at Adam's age is not possible either. Like marriage, what God joined, let no man put asunder. We might also say let no Fundamentalist add to the word of God as if his perfect words must imply to them. There is no "imply" in the Fundamentalist lexicon when they speak of God, just God's word. This is another huge error for the Bible and for Fundamentalists. *****

Looking at it in this light, we can see where men must have created the story of Genesis, and God did not. We'll see more irrefutable proof of this in chapters 6 and 7 following.

Now the problem crops up again: where did Cain's wife come from among people that Eve could not, and did not, birth? This has to be another massive error in the bible, and against Fundamentalists. *****

And should any say that the eggs were not wasted due to Adam and Eve having daughters, thus interrupting ovulation, remember that time is an enemy of egg viability too.

And again, how believable is it that a daughter of Adam and Eve left on her own to wander, and thus find Cain, and marry him, if that is thought to be the case. Animals surely would have killed her as they may have Cain, but at least Cain had testosterone, thus a greater ability to fight and fend for himself. A young girl without knowledge could not. The thought of this as a possibility would be more than ludicrous.





7 Seth lived after the birth of Enosh for eight hundred and seven years, and had other sons and daughters.

8 Thus all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.

9 When Enosh had lived for ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.

10 Enosh lived after the birth of Kenan for eight hundred and fifteen years, and had other sons and daughters.

11 Thus all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.

12 When Kenan had lived for seventy years, he became the father of Mahalalel.

13 Kenan lived after the birth of Mahalalel for eight hundred and forty years, and had other sons and daughters.

14 Thus all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Jared.

16 Mahalalel lived after the birth of Jared for eight hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters.

17 Thus all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.

18 When Jared had lived for one hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch.

19 Jared lived after the birth of Enoch for eight hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.

20 Thus all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.

21 When Enoch had lived for sixty-five years, he became the father of Methuselah.

22 Enoch walked with God after the birth of Methuselah for three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters.

23 Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.

24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him.

25 When Methuselah had lived for one hundred and eighty-seven years, he became the father of Lamech.
26 Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech for seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had other sons and daughters.

27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.

28 When Lamech had lived for one hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son;

29 he named him Noah, saying, 'Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.'

30 Lamech lived after the birth of Noah for five hundred and ninety-five years, and had other sons and daughters.

31 Thus all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.

32 After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

For verses 7 through 32 above, see the previous "Notes about being pregnant" and the limits of time female eggs have before they are all used up, or degenerate.

The time between the birth of Cain, and that of Seth is not given, just that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Of possible interest at some point soon may be that, from what we are told here, the time span between Adam's birth/creation, to Noah's is 1, 056 years, and that time span is 1,556 years by the time Noah had 3 sons, Ham, Shem, and Japeth, plus the verses starting in chapter 6 below, and people multiplying, which is presumably, the time of the flood.

There are 3 major errors in chapter 5.





Chapter 6



The Wickedness of Humankind

1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,

2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose.



This seems as if these "sons of God" are different from those like Adam who were made in the likeness and image of God. Did God have a wife, perhaps Sofia, as is in some legends?

Still, the questions remain as to who these sons of God were, and why they came down to earth (presumably they were heaven born beings), and marry them. Were their women ugly, or were there any women, daughters of God? And if they were "sons of God", how is it that they became so totally displeasing to God in so short a time? More importantly to the story being told as if it is sacred scripture for humanity's use—what difference does this make? And if no difference, why even put it in here? It seems out of place, and rather ridiculous.





3 Then the Lord said, 'My spirit shall not abide* in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'



Are the "sons of God" mortals? That doesn't make any sense either. And how could "sons of God" become such that God himself couldn't abide them? And, laughably, he couldn't abide them but for an additional one hundred and twenty years! Again, this, it seems, is so ludicrous that something like this is even here unless Genesis is more than tinged with tales being told and believed by other people than those directly descended from Adam and Eve in this time.





4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.



These "Nephilim" are definitely presented as different from "the sons of God" in the previous verse. Or are they? We're not definitively told. Who are they? Where did they come from? They don't seem to be children of Adam and Eve, "the mother of all who live". If they're the same as the "sons of God", why aren't we told? Internet searches reveal many different thoughts on it, but nothing is truly stated in the Bible.

If one uses the rules of egg fertility, one has to wonder how it is that the Nephilim are said to be heroes of old, and warriors of renown? Heroes, warriors of renown, are something said of men of valor in great battles. As condensed as the Bible makes its history to be seen, there is no way cities could come into being, and certainly not as Sumer, and others are, as is historical.

Yes, if one doubles something each day, one gets an astronomical number at the end of, say, sixty-four days of doubling from each previous day. But that's assuming, in this case that all living continue to live. If, as the Bible says, the Nephilim were warriors of renown, that means killing others; just how many men remained to procreate? Surely it was young men who were mostly the ones to die, for they're the ones with surging testosterone.

Then too, there were lions in the area in those days, as well as other predators. How many died from predators? What about death from disease? Or just sickness that no one knew how to cure that we so easily cure now? We must remember that there were no dietary laws of any kind back then. We're not even told that they knew how to use fire.

As well, if they were warriors of renown, then, as humans often do, they pillage, rape, and kill, else why would God have said that in the next verses that the earth was full of wickedness. No, a multitude of people doesn't make sense. The sense of too many "warriors" and wickedness seems more like "Conan" movie fare.

At the end of the note for the previous chapter (5), we find that Noah is one thousand, five hundred, and fifty-six years from the birth of Adam to when he is said to have three sons at five hundred years of age.

Again, how could there be heroes of old when there aren't enough people to war against, much less become "renown"? It sounds more as if there were bullies in the village. Again, too, read the notes on the life of viable eggs for reproduction.





5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

7 So the Lord said, 'I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'



Now how can God be God, omniscient as he must be as God, and be "sorry" that he didn't have the foresight to see how his creations must turn out? This is beyond believable. At least two asterisks on this, though it should be five. **





8 But Noah found favour in the sight of the Lord.





Note: Between this part of chapter 6, and the next chapter, all but the "willfully blind" will see the hand of man in writing Genesis, as well as the whole of the Bible. Note the vast differences, and wonder at which you are supposed to believe, or if you can truly believe both regardless of the vast discrepancies.





Noah Pleases God

9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.



How can the earth itself become corrupt? Flesh, yes, though as his creatures, he should have easily foreseen it, but the earth? Not possible. Yet no matter that "the earth was corrupt" and "filled with violence", he gave it, and them, another one hundred and twenty years in verse 3 above. This, as said then, is ludicrous.

Two asterisks for this in case any wish to argue it. **





13 And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.

14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.



Well, for a literally taken Bible, it is not true that he destroyed the "earth" as in the end of verse 13. For Fundamentalists who say the word of God is sacrosanct, this is not correct for the earth was, and is, still here. *****

Note that a cubit is seen by just about everyone as being one and a half feet. Therefore, in our terms, the ark was supposed to be four hundred and fifty feet long, its width seventy-five feet, and its height forty-five feet.





16 Make a roof* for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

17 For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.

18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

19 And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.



For literalist Fundamentalists, verse 17 contradicts itself when it says God will destroy "from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life," then continues on and adds "everything that is on the earth shall die."

Not everything that has the breath of life is literally on the earth. Whales come to mind, as do porpoises, dolphins, sea turtles, seals, manatees, etc. This is picky, but the Fundamentalists are pickier than picky. This is an error for them. *****

Again, another literal reading reveals a discrepancy, for being the exact word of God, and unchangeable. Verse 19 says that "...of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female." The KJV and the Catholic Bibles say the same thing.

Okay, how do you fit in two blue whales, two humpback whales, two killer whales, two beluga whales, etc., and all the other mammals from the water that breathe and are "flesh"? Yes, we all know what the intent is supposed to be, but those of Fundamentalist views insist that God's word is God's word, and that's all there is to it. This is another Fundamentalist error, as well as the Bible's. *****

By the way, even fish are a part of "living flesh".

Two of a kind is very important, and what we are all used to hearing about the animals on the ark. For those familiar with Summer Bible School, many may have heard a song played by a music teacher to the children about the animals going into the ark in "twosies" to lock in that idea into their minds.





20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.



This includes insects and bugs of every kind; earthworms, nematodes, dragon flies, ants, and even bacteria for they also need oxygen, and thus "breathe".

And according to "their kinds" is taken to be each animal is to be taken as a species of a significant kind: that is, a leopard and a cheetah are of a species, but not of each other's kind.

Be that as it may, as of August 4, 2012, according to one Internet site, there are three hundred fifty (350) to three hundred seventy-six (376) species of primates, and nine thousand, five hundred and forty-seven (9,547) species of reptiles. I didn't bother to check on birds, insects, bugs, snakes, or bacteria, for these figures are more than enough for our purposes. What is now has to be what God made according to Fundamentalist views. In other words, there isn't enough room in the ark for all of these animals. This is a humongous error, to be sure. *****





21 Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.'



Please note that there is not a word said about "manna" from heaven, but "every kind of food that is eaten", and it is to be stored up for as long as it is needed as food for all of them.

How in the world can that tiny ark hold food for all of the animals above? See above for how many there had to be food for, for God's word is perfect, and not to be denied according to Fundamentalists. This is another error. *****

Lest any think that it is possible to store enough food for only the forty days that it rained, please wait to see what God's word is in chapter 7, which is next.





22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

There are 5 major and 2 probable errors in chapter 6.



Chapter 7

The Great Flood

1 Then the Lord said to Noah, 'Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.

2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;

3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

Seven pairs? Not two of each kind? Then another pair of the animals that are unclean too? Whoa, this is not what it says in chapter 6. How can this be the inerrant (no errors) word of God when a humongous contradiction like this is present?

This is perhaps the plainest to see error in the Bible, a contradiction unlike any other, and proves without a doubt that the Fundamentalists are wrong. The Bible was written by at least two men, and probably at two different times. *****

It's hard enough to imagine two elephants, two hippos, two crocodiles, two alligators, two giraffes, two lions, two leopards, two cheetahs, two wildebeests, two bison, two horses, two donkeys, two chimpanzees, as well as two of every "kind" of monkeys, two baboons, two hares, snakes, etc., etc., etc., much less seven (7) pairs of each clean type, whatever they were supposed to be back then, plus the one pair of each of the unclean animals.

Note: This, of the "clean" and "unclean" animals, wasn't determined until after the so-called Exodus was begun as part of the Law. This is further proof that men wrote this, and not God, nor even Moses as dictated by God. Another error. *****

If any are as I was in the past, I never bothered to read beyond the two pairs in chapter 6 and always took it for granted that it was as I was told, that there were two pairs, never mind how many animals that meant, nor the food part either.

On another note, what were they supposed to do with all the body waste? Who cleaned it, or did they train them to put their butts over the side to potty and urinate?

This is proof positive, and plainly seen by any who have eyes to see, and are not willfully blinded, that there are two stories about the exact same event in the bible, and no "spiritual" as well as "physical" aspect to it. The Bible is plainly erroneous in what it says.





4 For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.'



Ah, here we see that we must add seven (7) days in the ark before the rain came. He couldn't have waited until the waters came to enter the ark with all the animals. And how did Noah get hippos, crocodiles, and such to enter the ark?

How could he possibly have rounded up giraffes, etc., from Africa, and other lands such as Australia, South America, the Artic, etc., in seven days? The continents and countries we have now are what they were in these days for there is nothing that evolves according to Fundamentalists. What God made stays as he made it. Giraffes, chimpanzees, wildebeests, etc., are from Africa, and other animals are from their respective continents. This is an obvious error in the Bible. *****

In sequence, verse 1 said for Noah to go into the ark, and continuing in verse 4, saying he was going to bring the waters in seven (7) days.





5 And Noah did all that the Lord had commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth.

7 And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.

8 Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,

9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.

We are now given Noah's age at the time of the flood: six hundred years. This is one thousand, six hundred and fifty-six years after Adam.

Note that Noah's sons were over one hundred years old when the flood ended, and they had no children. By this time, the wives of Noah's sons had no eggs with which to have children. At the rate of twelve per year, the five hundred or so viable eggs for reproduction (about a forty-two year supply), they had all passed out of their bodies without the interruption of pregnancy, and more, of time passed.

There would have been no children after the flood—unless they were married just before the flood, and to very young girls just past puberty. This is another probable error, as the ages of the wives of Noah's sons are not given. **

In verse 9 we have a positive repeat of the clean and unclean animals going into the ark, and not as stated in chapter 6.





11 In the six-hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

12 The rain fell on the earth for forty days and forty nights.

13 On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons, entered the ark,

14 they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every bird of every kind—every bird, every winged creature.

15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.



Noah is now six hundred years old, and his sons at least one hundred years old, or more.

The "...windows of heaven were opened." Refer back to chapter 1 when God separated the waters above from the waters below and the so-called dome.

Is this saying that, yes, it rained when God opened up the windows to release water held in the heavens that was separated from the earth as in chapter 1? It seems to be so. There are no windows. This is an error. *****

In verse 15, we have a problem in what is said is God's exactness, as the Fundamentalists say. "...two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life". All flesh with the breath of life could be taken to mean all that in the sea that breathe, keeping with the "inerrancy" of the Bible.

For sure, if we say that fishes do not breathe (at least not as we do), but whales, and other mammals in the waters do. This is another repeated error in the Bible. *****





16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the Lord shut him in.

17 The flood continued for forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

18 The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.

19 The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;

20 the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;
22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred and fifty days.

With this last, "one hundred and fifty days", we now have one hundred and ninety seven (197) days in the ark, seven prior, forty as it rained, and one hundred and fifty with the waters swelling. Definitely not the forty we all think of.

There are 5 major, and 1 probable errors in chapter 7.



Chapter 8

The Flood Subsides

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided;

2 the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

"Windows of the heavens"? If this is literal as the Fundamentalists say it is, are the heavens opened up to allow rain? His calls into question chapter 1, and "the firmament", or "dome" as is translated in some bibles, along with other verses here.

Did they truly believe that there was a literal shutting off of the heavens and the rain? This sounds as if they (the writers of the Bible) believed that the earth was flat, and tripartite as was believed by many in days of antiquity well before the Christian era began.





3 and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters had abated;

4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

5 The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.



If we take the tenth month at its word, then that is three hundred days, and we might even have to add the seven days before the rains began.





6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

Now we have another forty (40) days to add to the time in the ark for a total of three hundred and forty days in the ark, and the seven before the waters came.





8 Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;

9 but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the ark with him.

10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark;

11 and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.

This adds another seven (7) days for a total of three hundred and forty seven (347) days in the ark, plus the seven before the rain.



12 Then he waited another seven days, and sent out the dove; and it did not return to him any more.



This makes for three hundred and fifty four days in the ark, plus the seven before the rains came.





13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of the ground was drying.

14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.



Add almost two months, or about fifty-five days (55) (to be conservative), and we now have over a year in the ark, plus seven (7) days before the rain.

Over a year!

For any that disbelieve this and need biblical confirmation of it being at least a year in the ark, re-read verses 6 and 11 of chapter 7 that specifies that Noah was six hundred years old when the flood started, and verse 13 of this chapter above that says that "In the six hundred and first year...", having to mean that as Noah's age, that Noah looked out and saw the waters had dried up.

How in the world were they supposed to have food in the ark to feed themselves as well as all the animals, for over a year? It's impossible. Rain brings moisture, and moisture brings mold, and moisture, mold, and age, makes food rotten and inedible. This is another humongous error in the Bible no matter whether there were two pairs, or seven pairs plus another pair of unclean animals. *****





15 Then God said to Noah,

16 'Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you.

17 Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.'

18 So Noah went out with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives.

19 And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.

Wherever they were, most likely high on Mount Ararat, how was it that the animals were all to go back to their normal places where they lived? The hippos and giraffes weren't anywhere near to Africa, nor were the leopards, chimps, monkeys, etc. This too, has to be an error. *****

God's Promise to Noah

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.

And if you believe that the two pairs stated in chapter 6 is right, now it's only one clean pair, plus one without a mate. Also, this makes a lot of offerings of every clean animal and bird. This too is a ludicrous error. *****





21 And when the Lord smelt the pleasing odour, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

22 As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,

summer and winter, day and night,

shall not cease.'

There are 3 major errors in chapter 8.

Summation of the first eight chapters of Genesis



There are at least sixty-four (64) major errors in the book of Genesis through the first eight (8) chapters alone, and at least eight (8) other probable errors.

It takes just one error in the Bible to disprove the Fundamentalists claim that the Bible is inerrant—without error—and is the work of God thus guaranteeing it.

Just one!

Just one error is enough to refute the Fundamentalist's claim to inerrancy in the Bible (no errors); that it is the definite word of God and must be followed and accepted without question. With this many errors, one has to question the claim of the Fundamentalists that the Bible is inerrant, and the word of God. Any who still believes the inerrancy of the Bible has to be willfully blind otherwise.

But why, oh why was it found necessary to dig up all of these errors in the Bible, and through only the first eight chapters of Genesis? Why go to such extremes to dig this all up and possibly destroy the faith of so many? One word:

Fundamentalists!

As information, many that are called Evangelicals (who cross many denominations) are the same in their strict interpretation of the Bible, but they are all often simply known as Fundamentalists.

Okay, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and that's what we've all thought, and acted as if it was sacrosanct, and that's exactly how it's always been treated.

However, many of these Fundamentalists not only believe that every word in the Bible is God's inerrant word—is without error—but also that this nation is supposed to not only be a Christian nation, but to obey all of the laws of the Old Testament, including the killing of any who violated many of those silly and arbitrary laws that were said to be written by Moses, at God's direction, or by God's hand, after the so-called Exodus from Egypt..

Maybe those laws were necessary for the Jews of those days; I have no idea since I wasn't around then. But to say we must now all obey them, as well as punish offenders in this day as they were punished back then in the supposed day of Moses, is patently ridiculous. And worse, they mean it, though they are very selective in which laws to enforce.

Who is saying we must follow those laws, or who is trying as best they can to make it our way of life?

Many preachers and politicians of today, and people of power and money that call themselves Fundamentalists!

Here are a few more examples of this grab for power in the name of their inerrant God (who has been proven above to be not so inerrant):



Pastor Suggests Gays Should Be Prosecuted Like They Were Historically

Ron Baity, founding pastor of Winston-Salem's Berean Baptist Church and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, referred to homosexuality as "a perverted lifestyle" in a Sunday sermon before telling his congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted, Good as You is reporting. "For 300 years, we had laws that would prosecute that lifestyle," he is quoted as saying. "We've gone down the wrong path. We've become so dumb that we have accepted a lie for the truth, and we've...discarded the truth on the shoals of shipwreck!"

In part, he's right, and yet he's very wrong. It should be that"We've become so dumb that we have accepted a lie for the truth for nearly two thousand years!"



Or:



Victoria Jackson: Homophobia Is 'Buzzword Of Liberal Agenda'

The former "Saturday Night Live" star and now Tea Party activist sparked national furor when she [criticized Glee for showing a same-sex kiss—was a link] in a column for WorldNetDaily. In the column, Jackson wrote in response to an emotional, long awaited kiss between Kurt (Chris Colfer) and Blaine (Darren Criss). "Did you see "Glee" this week? Sickening! And, besides shoving the gay thing down our throats, they made a mockery of Christians - again! I wonder what their agenda is? Hey, producers of "Glee" - what's your agenda? One-way tolerance?" She later appeared on "Showbiz Tonight" to clarify her thoughts. "Well, it doesn't matter what I think," Jackson said. "What matters is what the Bible says.[Bold mine.] And I'm really concerned about our country because immorality is, well, let's see: secular humanism rules the airwaves, and it's stealing the innocence away from this whole generation of children. My daughter is a teenager and I can't find any show that she can watch." With that diatribe, Jackson was asked, based on her remarks, both in the column and in the interview, whether she was homophobic. "That's a cute little buzzword of the liberal agenda," Jackson smirked. "Basically, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin." [Bold mine.]

Yes, "homosexuality is" the "sin" against God's word that they home in on.

Why would a book that is proven to have lies and contradictions be a book that "matters" to anyone? This is trying to shove personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else whether they agree with you or not.

Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is a sin? It can't be said that the Bible explicitly says homosexuality is a sin. Yes, it says a man with another man is sinful, but it says nothing about a woman with another woman, or a transvestite, or a transgender, or a transsexual. In fact, as stated earlier.

I'm concerned about Ms. Jackson straining at gnats of her own personal choosing, and all from a book that is not the work of her God, or anyone else's god.

As Pat Robertson says, "The Bible doesn't make that sinful."

What a clever way to enforce one's ways on others, but then again, it also condemns one for saying it's inerrant when it obviously isn't.

Look at this other recent news posting:

Posted by John Celock: 05/19/2012 12:55 pm

[A Mississippi state lawmaker quoted a Bible passage on]Facebook calling for gay men to be "put to death" has taken to the social networking site again to refuse to apologize for the remark.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Braxton) Friday to say that although he has been receiving emails and calls with regard to his statement],he will not say he's sorry. The emails have come in response to a petition calling on the lawmaker to issue an apology and to meet with LGBT groups in Mississippi.

"To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God's Word. It is one thing that will never 'change,'" Gipson wrote. "Anyone who knows me knows I also believe that all people are created in God's image, and that all people are loved by God, so much so that He gave us the truth of His Word which convicts us of the reality and guilt of our sin, and He gave us His Son Jesus who paid the full penalty for all our sins, by His grace through our faith in Him as we repent of our sin. It is this message that I preach every Sunday. I sincerely pray God will reach someone through this message."

Gipson is a Baptist minister and a business lawyer when not serving in the Legislature. He notes... that his family are "of the Christian faith, and are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention."

The passage from Leviticus that Gipson first cited reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

On Facebook at least, Gipson has received overwhelming support for his original comments and his refusal to apologize. Eighty-three people have "liked" his post, and he's received dozens of supportive comments, including praise for supporting God and sticking to his original message.

"I stand with you my friend. ... GOD is in control ... no place for Gays," Ted W. Cole.

Gipson, 35, has served in the Mississippi Legislature since 2008. He chairs a judiciary committee.

Calling for gay men to be put to death because it's in the Bible. Oh, mercy, and all because it's "...the inspired truth of God's word. It is one thing that will never change."

Neither will the blindness of most Fundamentalists!

Gipson is: A Baptist minister affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (about as Fundamental as they get, or nearly so); a business lawyer, and is in the Mississippi Legislature since 2008 where he chairs the judiciary committee. Judiciary committee? Uh, that has to do with justice I believe, where the truth has to be proven. I wonder if he's looked at the major errors mentioned in this essay, or if he's like lady justice, but not just blind, but willfully blind.

Again, just as Ms. Jackson above, has only picked her choice "sin" to rail against, so does Mr. Gipson, all the while ignoring the other so-called sins in the "Law" of Moses, and, supposedly, of God. Does he mow the lawn on the day of rest (or have it mowed thereby bringing sin on another)? And if so, does he stone himself, or others, to death as prescribed by God in his Law?

Does he make offerings as prescribed in the Law? Do any of them do that, or have they made up special laws for themselves?

Does he, or any of them, have clothing of two fabrics?

Did he demand death to the priests and preachers who violated young children?

Did he demand death for the minister in Hammond, Indiana who had an adulterous sex with a far too young woman of his congregation?

No, of course neither he, nor anyone, cry out loudly against any of this, nor demand their death.

This is a part of why this had to be written.

These people are hypocrites! Whited sepulchers!

And this is a madness that they are pursuing!

This essay was written to counter in the minds of reasonable people the idiocy that is being pushed onto a nation, and filling it with hate.

Yes, hate!

But this hate is not from any loving God. It is hate from people who pick and choose what they will condemn and how, and then show one and all just how perfect their own piety is. They are every bit as malicious and mean as any inquisitor from the Catholic church, and maybe worse. They try to destroy the perfectly good lives of innocent girls who are taught from the cradle to believe in the lies that are being perpetrated in this day.

It is madness and it has to stop. The lies must end or we will all face the consequences that their lies will bring to all of our doorsteps, theirs included.

A hidden agenda

Yes, most of these preachers have hidden agendas. One of them is the hope for Armageddon to come. Armageddon is the Great War that will initiate the coming of Jesus and the Rapture according to some. The Rapture is when they think that Jesus will take them up to heaven and the rest will be left behind to suffer and die. And if they can find a way, they will hasten it, and never mind the rest of us, or so they say and think. Just think, many of them are willing to push an atomic war of desolation to force Jesus to come and rapture them to heaven. That is so selfish of them, and deadly to others of us even if they're wrong. But they don't believe that they're wrong, so whatever they can do, they will do it to make it happen.

The poison of this idea has been around for thousands of years, and hit our shores with the Pilgrims who gladly put people in stocks simply for not attending church, or whatever other frivolous rule they might think up, and probably more than just put people in stocks, they were so rigid in their beliefs, and that everyone else must be just as they were.

This Fundamentalism raised its ugly head about the mid 1840s. Christine Garwood, the author of a book: "Flat Earth", writes that there were Flat Earthers, a group begun by a man who called himself Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) among other names he used, and he taught that "...the earth lay at the center of the universe" and was "... a flat disc with the North Pole at its center." and "that the disc-earth was stationary with neither axial nor orbital motion, while the sun spiral-circuited overhead once every twenty-four hours at a distance no greater than seven hundred miles."

Then after Charles Darwin's first book on evolution, The Origin of Species, there was a debate between Thomas Henry Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, in June, 1860 with regard to whether or not evolution was true.

A follower of Parallax, John Hampden, publicized a bet against any who thought the earth a sphere as opposed to being flat. Alfred Russel Wallace, the man who co-discovered evolution at the same time as Darwin, took the bet. That set off the literal creationists against science that was beginning to bloom in the 1870s.

With the Huxley/Wilberforce debates, and the Hampden/Wallace bets, the Fundamentalists were off and running as science, as we know it today, was in its infancy. In time, the Fundamentalists diminished, but then came alive again with a bevy of preachers keeping it alive.

To this day, with all the science and knowledge we now have, these Fundamentalists still insist that all that the Bible says is true even when it is easily seen that their Bible has many errors.

The latest revival of Fundamentalism seemed to stem from two sources, the first, an Armenian, Rousas John Rushdoony who advocated we be a nation subject to the laws and penalties of the book of Leviticus in Mosaic Law of the Bible, including the penalty of death for homosexuality, adultery, idolatry, lying about virginity, blasphemy, etc. The second source was Jerry Falwell, and his moral majority, who was the more popular and publicly known of the two.
These last two men, Rushdoony and Falwell, did much to push Fundamentalism to where it is today. Recent politician, Representative Michelle Bachman, a candidate for the Republican nomination for President this year, openly praised Fundamentalism as has Sarah Palin. Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, and recent candidate for the Republican nomination for President this year, also was openly biblical in his public stances.

But it is Rushdoony who exemplifies the power of the Fundamentalist belief through his follower, Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr., who donated a reported $900,000 to the Proposition 8 amendment to nullify California's Same-Sex marriage law. Between that donation, the Catholic Church, The Mormon Church, and others, most likely Baptists, and Seventh Day Adventists, but many other Evangelical, and or, Fundamentalist churches, they caused the passage of Proposition 8, and overthrew Same-Sex marriage in California.

All of the Fundamentalist churches push to drive our nation to a theocracy, or a nation much like Iran's, as well as doing what they can to bring about the Rapture wherein they hope Jesus will come and take them to heaven before the much ballyhooed wars of the Tribulation period as written of in many popular books such as The Late Great Planet Earth, and Left Behind by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye respectively.

And a not so hidden agenda

For now, though, it's all about marriage. They're protecting the sanctity of marriage. However, no one tells them that they can't marry, nor does anyone say they have to end their marriage, therefore there is no need to "protect the sanctity of marriage", save for the high divorce rate of heterosexuals. They even passed a national law called the Defense of Marriage Act to try to dictate who could marry.

They blame homosexuality for attacking marriage. To put it bluntly, if there's an attack on marriage, it's the marriage partners themselves who are the ones that marriage needs to be protected from. And since it's all their choice of what to do between themselves as marriage partners, gays, lesbians, transvestites, transgenders, and transsexuals have nothing to do with their marriage.

Are they trying to cover up the falling apart of heterosexuals who wish to dissolve their marriages by blaming someone other than themselves?

Perhaps more to the point, who is it that might be benefiting from creating dissention such as saying same-sex marriage is against the Bible, or that Lesbians are as prohibited from their sexual preference just as men with other men are when the Bible does not specify that? Most likely many actually do believe what they think the Bible instructs. Others? If politicians, maybe they also believe (as Mr. Gipson seems to), and maybe they're just pandering to a select group that hollers very loudly, and sometimes with great intelligence.

Then again, maybe these leaders of the Fundamentalists should be looked at for their silly grab at power, prestige, egotism, or maybe money. Yes, many of them live lavishly, and it's the congregations that set them up as if it was their right to be treated so richly. Or are some trying to be as the Catholic church in power and prestige, and perhaps corruption? There is no doubt that the Catholic church has a history of corruption.

[For a look at possible monetary gain by many of these men, do an Internet search in the following way (for any that aren't familiar with searching): Name of your favorite or best known preacher, followed by a space, then the plus sign, another space, then "Financail worth". You may be very surprised by how much money they've accumulated.]

Whatever they are up to, it is for sure that their loud and bombastic cries of the Bible saying no to this, that, and the other and that people be put to death, is a fraud based on an error-filled Bible that they don't look at, or won't tell anyone about. Many former Christians have become researchers, and have come to the conclusion that the Bible is indeed error-filled.

For sure, just one error makes their claim wrong. It is plain as day for anyone that there are two and very differing accounts of Noah and the flood. Personally, II never heard of seven clean pairs of animals plus one unclean pair ever being mentioned in church. Why? It is easy to see if they are true students of God's word as they went to special bible colleges to learn God's word. Don't those colleges teach of the second account of Noah's flood? I don't know for I've never been to one of those colleges, or seminaries as some call them. If not, why don't they teach it? If they do, why isn't it told to the congregations?

Maybe it's easier to not say anything, and keep the congregation up in arms over homosexuality.

Their lack of outcry over violations of the Law

If it's so important to uphold God's laws such as homosexuality between men, what about the rest of the laws? For instance:

How many Fundamentalists stone their continually disobedient children, or children who curse them?

How many of the preachers that have been caught in sexual violation of the Law have been stoned to death?

Have they raised their voices against the priests, bishops, and other church pedophiles, in the Catholic church as they have against homosexuality, and demanded they be put in electrified fences until they died, or kill them as the Bible prescribes?

Have they demanded stoning the Catholic church, including the Pope(s) and other higher ups, for hiding sexually offending priests so that they could continue their sexual crimes?

Have they screamed about the counselors of the New Tribes Mission who sent both parents out to evangelize while they raped and molested their children? Why haven't they paraded and demanded that they be stoned to death for lying and crimes against children?

Perhaps important personages that covered up the crimes of Jerry Sandusky against children are too important to demand that they be stoned, or is it that the Bible doesn't make that a sin?

How about Mr. Sandusky himself? I saw no outcry against him by a collective of Fundamentalists as I hear over homosexuality. Why not?

Has there been a hue and cry over the minister of the huge church in Hammond, Indiana over his having sex with a minor, not to mention committing adultery? Has any said to stone him? There's been no collective outcry to stone him, or electrify him, or anything else. Or would they rather stone just the woman as in the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 3. No, thank goodness they haven't tried to stone her. But what about the man she was supposed to be having sex with?

Do Fundamentalists scream out to have those who rape stoned?

Do they demand that women prove their virginity on their wedding night, or be stoned?

Do they holler and demand stoning for every kidnapper?

There is so much wrong with how Fundamentalists pick out what they will demand, and for now, it's easy to demand an end to homosexuality, as well as making that a springboard to convincing people that this "shameful" sin is good reason to make this nation a nation that obeys God's laws as in the Old Testament.

My personal rant against Fundamentalists

There is a sickness in what the Fundamentalists are trying to do, and it's tearing up too much, especially many innocent girls who can't help how something in their person tells them to desire another woman as a mate.

Fundamentalist preachers scream endlessly from their pulpits, and incite their congregations to push their views against others like girls who love other girls, women who love other women. They make it intolerable for any peace of mind in these unfortunate girls who are shamed and made to feel guilty for feeling as they do. They frighten them with their words of damnation, and the threat of separation from God and consignment to the burning fires of hell. In other words, they terrorize their minds, humiliate them though they hide it, and stress them out to where it's hard for them to function as they normally would in good health, especially mentally and psychologically. They can't help how they were born to be.

Born to be? Why, God made men, and he made women, and they're supposed to be married and have children, and nothing else in between, right? No, that's not right. Yes, the God of the Bible says something like that, but it's also said many other things that we cringe from if we stop and take a look at them.

God doesn't make mistakes, and how men and women are supposed to be is all there is to it.

Okay, what about the man in the news, Steve Cercelius, who went to have a medical problem looked at, and found out he was intersexed [being both sexes simultaneously], perhaps more female than male. He was born that way. He did father some children with his wife. Doesn't that tell Fundamentalists, and others, something about how things are supposed to be? Things are as they happen within an individual, not as a very error-filled Bible says.

Will Fundamentalists look for laws to blame their God over this? Will they perhaps seek to stone him for embarrassing them, never mind that Stevie's wife and children accept his change to be a woman as he was also born to be? No, God doesn't make errors, at least not the God of the Bible. Maybe the Fundamentalists will give God absolution in this case and not demand to stone him for making Steve/Stevie both man and woman just as they don't demand that priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, mission counselors, preachers, or any other important person.

Yes, in those cases where other, special people intentionally sin against the Law of God, there's been an eerie silence from Fundamentalists. They don't want a church war, they want to war against what they see as a helpless, easily defeated enemy that will satisfy their burgeoning need to aggrandize themselves and puff their chests out as defenders of all the lies they've tried to make us all believe. Adulterers who do threaten marriage? No, no one cries out for them to be stoned to death, though they are truly a threat to the sanctity of marriage. If there's an outcry, it is a whispered one in these special cases.

Why don't the Fundamentalist preachers scream at them loudly, and terrify them as they have so many young girls. Why don't they make them feel their wrath, the wrath of their God, maybe as Nathan did to David over Bathsheba [II Samuel, chapter 12, verses 1-12]? For whatever reason, it seems that they don't dare. Those aren't helpless girls. Thou whited sepulchers, purveyors of the lies herein exposed. Why don't they make those others feel the guilt, the humiliation, the shame they pour out like hot oil on those who storm their hellish castles. But no, they do not, will not.

Does their inerrant Bible say that "you shall not have sex with children in any manner, shape, or form or ye shall be stoned to death?" No, it doesn't. Indeed, the Fundamentalists strain at their preferred gnats, and permit pedophiles to swallow children's lives and self-esteem without even a peep out of them, and certainly not any screams such as they proclaim loudly, boisterously, when confronting homosexuals. For shame, for shame. No, the children don't seem to matter to them, nor the priests who did their lust-filled deed on far too many children, and with the protection of their church. They only complain loudly about their pet laws among the many, but not any against abusing children just as they don't pay attention to most of the other laws.

Even more, these Fundamentalists of a perfect God, should read their own Bible with eyes that do not fail to notice what is written there, if they dare. See the lies that are so easily seen by those who have training in their scriptures. Will they dare acknowledge that they see them? Go ahead, reread the story of Noah's ark, and tell the congregations of the two vastly different versions if the truth is dared to be told. And do tell them how it was that God told Noah, so the Bible says, that Noah was to put up food for all in the ark to eat for over a year, and confess to the congregations, if any dare, that this is obviously not possible.

Remember Jesus' words: Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Truth is not what you decide is worthy of knowing, or what you should say that will get provide the most attention and adulation; it is what is there for those who have eyes to see.

As I said, it is madness. The Bible is definitely in error, and therefore should not be taken literally. Not only that, but no one should be able to dictate how another should love and live if it is consensual, and the parties are of legal age.

Religion is not to be shoved down people's throats. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"The subject of religion, a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved, I have considered it as a matter between every man and his maker,in which no other, & far less the public had a right to intermeddle."[Bold mine. Quoted from "Citizen Jefferson," by John P. Kaminski, and written by Jefferson to Richard Rush, May 31, 1813.]

This is how it should be, not as Fundamentalists would force us to be, or to shame any with the lies they quote from a book that is full of errors and contradictions.

Sixty-three (63) major errors, and eight (8) probable errors, and that's only in the first eight chapters of Genesis. I challenge any Fundamentalist to prove, by the Bible itself, that these are wrong, but remember, just one error, and the Bible is proved to not be inerrant. And trust me, there are many more errors to be revealed.

Another essay may follow this one for there is still much hidden that those preplanned Sunday school "lessons" do not say anything about. There are more words that are contradictory, words that are false, that have yet to be mentioned.

Let's end the madness with some real light thrown on the truth of the Fundamentalist lies, and the errors that definitely are in the Bible. And remember, this need never have been written save for the ignorance and egotism that so drives so many Fundamentalists.

But they are deviants, they say, and do as is against God's wishes that a man be a man, and a woman must be a woman who loves a man and procreates. Then tell one and all of the many other laws that are forever being broken, like mowing a lawn on Saturday (or whatever other day is deemed to be the day of rest), and that those also deserve to be put in an electrified fence until they are dead, or kill them outright as that outrageous representative from Mississippi demands.

And, please, tell me why it is that the Bible does not make it a sin to sodomize a child, or otherwise abuse them sexually or otherwise? Don't children matter? If it is necessary to write another essay, we may find that there are even more heinous errors in the Bible than simply putting two people out with nothing but a skin over their bodies to scarf up a living.

And tell me, you Fundamentalists: Who hast been his counselor, or who has known his mind? You? Not hardly.

End (for now)

This is an original essay copyright © by the Author, wistfall1. No use, or copying without the express written consent of the author, wistfall1.