Fundamentalists and the Bible 01

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. *****