Fundamentalists and the Bible 01

PUBLIC BETA

Note: You can change font size, font face, and turn on dark mode by clicking the "A" icon tab in the Story Info Box.

You can temporarily switch back to a Classic Literotica® experience during our ongoing public Beta testing. Please consider leaving feedback on issues you experience or suggest improvements.

Click here
wistfall1
wistfall1
135 Followers

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, 'Letus [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. *****

wistfall1
wistfall1
135 Followers