Hidden implications of Genesis

by losthobbit 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • losthobbit
    losthobbit

    As a teenager I read the first book of the bible a couple of times, but I suppose I was so used to the stories that I didn't notice anything strange. Today when I read it, I see a completely different story.

    The bible is completely true, or at least that's what many people believe. When asking them which translation is true, the person might pick their favourite translation. When asking about things that contradict, be logically incorrect, or refer to unscientific things like the four corners of the Earth, one might get a response that some of it is symbolic, and not meant to be taken literally, but everything else is entirely true.

    The same principle can be applied to ANY piece of writing. All writing is entirely true, except for the parts which you don't take literally.

    Of course this is quite ridiculous, so I'm just going to take Genesis as meaning exactly what it says and show you some interesting things that you may never have seen before.

    I'm going to use the NIV, because I think it's the most popular version.

    Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

    It takes a lot of imagination to imagine this. Because this is so unusual, it could probably mean anything. The earth was formless, and empty... how can something be formless? Anyway, it was empty... does that mean there were no trees, or does that mean it was a hollow ball? Depending on your beliefs, you will probably choose your own definition for all of this.

    Gen 1:3 "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."

    So God created the heavens, before he created light? Okay, I suppose this could be possible, depending how you interpret it, like "heavens" could refer to the atmosphere, but it sounds to me like he made all the stars, but they weren't glowing. Lets skip ahead to verse 14...

    Gen 1:14 "And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night... etc."

    Gen 1:16 "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars... etc."

    Confusing... I thought he already made the light, back in verse 3. Anyway, it sounds a bit like God is using a 3D modelling program, like 3DS max, where you can create things in any sort of order, and enable them, and then disable them.

    Gen 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day."

    Now can anyone argue that the bible says that everything was created in SIX days? Scientists think that the world is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13.75 billion years old. If they are correct, then the universe was created 9 billion years before Earth. From the geneologies in the bible, we can calculate that this all happened about 6000 years ago.

    The only sense I can make out of this is that God must have made everything look a lot older than it really was. God tends to take a lot of effort to make it appear as if he does not exist. He's really good at keeping himself invisible, and not talking to anyone, except through dreams and visions, and only cures disease that might have been misdiagnosed, or cured by themselves. He never cures amputees.

    Gen 1:20 God makes all the living creatures. I would assume this includes snakes, spiders, cockroaches, worms, bacteria, germs, viruses, scorpions, lions, wolves, etc.

    Gen 2:5 "Now no shrub had yet appeared on earth and no plant had yet sprung up..." (What? okay, we have gone back in time) "..., for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."

    I guess this means that water didn't used to evaporate and condense? The laws of physics were somewhat different?

    In Genesis 2:8, God builds the garden in Eden. He makes some trees, including the "Tree of life", and the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

    Why did God create these trees? Did he want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? It reminds me of an experiment that Derren Brown did, where he made a girl kill a kitten on television. Well, she didn't actually kill the kitten, because it was just a test, but she pushed the button that she thought would kill the kitten. Why did she do it? Because Derren put her in a situation where she would be unable to control her urge to push the big, red button. God did the same to Adam and Eve by sticking the tree in the middle of the garden, and telling them not to eat the fruit. It's an inevitable result of human psychology that we will want to eat the fruit. God knew this, because he made them, and would have expected them to eat the fruit.

    Gen 2: 18 "The LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.'"

    At this point, I'd like to know, did God create only male animals, or did he create male and female animals and only consider making a female human later? Also, did Adam have the parts required to reproduce, or did God have to modify him after creating Eve?

    No, hang on... the bible's not talking about a woman yet, because the next verses say:

    Gen 2:19 "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found."

    God was looking for a helper for him amongst the animals?

    Gen 3:1 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree in the garden"?'"

    Imagine the situation... the serpent is more crafty than the other wild animals. So the lions and dogs might have been crafty, but not quite as crafty as the serpent. That's a pretty wierd thing to say. And then suddenly the serpent talks! If I were writing Genesis, I would probably have written the following at that point: "And the woman shouted 'HOLY CRAP!' and ran to Adam, yelling 'The snake just spoke!' And Adam replied, 'Holy Crap! Where's God? Have you told him?'"

    I also wonder how the snake would have spoken, and what it would have sounded like. I imagine it thpeaking with a lithp.

    Gen 3:14 "So the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this,

    Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!
    You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life...'"

    Interesting to learn that snakes used to walk around on their feet, before this curse. Strange that snakes no longer eat dust, but still crawl on their bellies.

    Gen 3:16 "To the woman he said,

    'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.'"

    I have a couple of things to say about this. Obviously these curses are implied as curses to descendents as well, because women still have lots of pain when they give birth.

    Who thinks this may have been a little bit of an over-reaction on God's part?

    At this point I think I should explain the difference between punishment and revenge, because the bible gets them muddled up a lot.

    Punishment (or justice) exists to make the world a better place for the majority of people. It does not exist to hurt people, but people get hurt so that they will know not to repeat the offence and as a warning to others.

    Revenge does not serve the world. It exists mostly as a way to resolve feelings of anger.

    Now, was this punishment, or revenge? I'm not going to tell you, because you're smart enough to figure it out.

    Gen 3:17 "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat from it,"

    'Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
    It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
    By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.'"

    Again... is it punishment, or revenge... does it solve a problem, or does it exist to resolve anger?

    Interesting that it says "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food", since most people no longer sweat while we work for food. Were we actually able to save ourselves from this curse, or are we sinning by working in air-conditioned offices?

    Gen 3:21 "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."

    I love this bit, and I think I will stop here. Firstly, there's a tree of life, which gives you eternal life... The logical thing would have been to not plant it in the first place, ... or just let us eat and live forever. Anyway, do you think this tree has died now? It is the tree of life, so probably not.

    It's probably still there... all we have to do is look for the cherubim and a flashing sword.

    So the cherubim and flashing sword are on the east side... can't we still get in through the north, south and west? Or does this imply a wall around it? And, if there was a wall around the garden, I would imagine that in order to get to the streams they had to walk out of the east side of the garden, because a stream cannot flow through a wall.

    Maybe God should have just placed the cherubim around the tree? wouldn't that have been easier?

    Since swords had not been invented yet, I wonder if the sword looked more like a light sabre?

    If you've read this far and you're thinking up a load of excuses for each and every one of these problems, just stop and be honest with yourself for once. The bible is supposed to be God's word, the best book ever written, and does not require excuses. The truth is obvious... that the simplest explanation for these problems is most likely the true explanation... figure it out.

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    It's interesting how we had an earth, night and day, oceans and plants, before we even had a sun. If that doesn't tell people it's an allegory (and a corrupted one at that), nothing will.

    It doesn't get any better after Genesis either. There are literally HUNDREDS of verses that either directly state or suggest that the sun, along with the rest of the universe, revolves around the earth, while the earth cannot be budged even one inch from the place it is fastened. A circle is not a sphere, and the author of Isaiah believed that the earth was shaped like a pizza. Quite the cosmologists, those Bible writers.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    Interesting that it says "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food", since most people no longer sweat while we work for food. Were we actually able to save ourselves from this curse, or are we sinning by working in air-conditioned offices?

    Don't be silly. It's literal in that, even in air-conditioning, man continues to have to work in order to eat. If not for Adam, we would have simply picked fruit off the ground or the branches of trees without hardly an effort at all. We wouldn't have to worry about getting fat because it's just fruit- no hamburgers. It would have kept us regular and I imagine there were some kind of leaves to wipe our butts.

    I enjoyed how you took this apart. When we analyze it, it really is a silly mythology. You make excellent points on punishment vs. revenge. I tend to believe that the story of early Genesis was about how the God was a real S.O.B. and you better obey him or he will mess you up. An unfair test would fit in with that purpose.

    It's probably still there... all we have to do is look for the cherubim and a flashing sword.

    All JW's know that the tree of life was removed at the flood. No garden, no tree, no need for the sword and cherubim.

  • julian
    julian

    It is a mix of the literal and the metaphoric. As you say, people will believe their own truths. But you can get the truth out of one word, or even no words at all. It is you who give the words meaning. It is the writer who gets your attention with making the meaning hard.

    Like a chicken house. The truth could be told about a chicken house.

    If you believe the earth revolves around the sun. It does. If you believe the sun revolves around the earth it does.

    If you believe you can light a room without a candle. You can.

    But who would believe in the truth?

    Those who can truly believe.

  • julian
    julian

    If not for Adam you would not exist. Smarten up. You are to Adam, as what you say Adam is to God.

    Before you he is.

  • ssn587
    ssn587

    Its odd that people think that certain parts of the bible are scientificly right, i.e. the earth in the shape of a circle. so to test this and see how it could only have been something from God to tell man that he, man, didn't already know. My neighbor has a 3 yr old daughter and she knows her shapes so we asked her what shape is the moon, she replied circle, what shape is the sun, again a circle, so what shape is the earth, she looked at us like something was missing from our brain and again replied a circle. When asked if the sun, moon and earth are sitting on something or being hung up she said no. So so much for the info passed in Isaiah that man supposedly didn't know.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    losthobbit - "It's probably still there... all we have to do is look for the cherubim and a flashing sword."

    I just had a great idea for an Indiana Jones fanfic.

    OnTheWayOut - "All JW's know that the tree of life was removed at the flood."

    Slight correction; it was "evidently" removed...

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    While not meaning to contradict your belief or that of others who accept the Scriptures as inspired of God, if I may be so bold to add some things to think about regarding what might add to our understanding of Genesis.

    1. Both Jewish history and textual analysis reveal that the first chapter of Genesis (more precisely Genesis 1:1-2:3) was added to the book after the return from Babylonian exile. It also appears that the story of Noah and the flood was greatly expanded and interpolated (with its most recognizable details) at this time also into the format we are now used to reading it.

    Because the Jews believed that it was their failure to follow the Mosaic Law (exemplified in keeping the Sabbath) that led to their being exiled in the first place, the old creation story that begins at Genesis 2:4 was re-told in the form of a mnemonic lesson—similar to putting a story to music—a lesson that used a creation as a reminder to keep the Law (by means of remembering to keep the Sabbath) as well as use the days of the week as the main mnemonic device in which to recall and remember the various facets of creation that come from God.

    Key to realizing it is not meant to be taken literal: the “creative days” are each only 12 hours in length in this narrative, beginning with the lack of light well after sundown and ending with the crack of dawn. The Hebrew day is sundown to sundown, and the modern day is likewise 24 hours in length (midnight to midnight). The writer is using a lot of holy symbolic numbers in this story, and obviously not by accident (7 days in a week, 12 hours in a day, etc.). There is also a clear pattern as to why the order of creation in this account is different from the one that follows, demonstrating a set of created elements on one side, and then identifying them as “players” in God’s “drama” over which the Lord asserts control:

    Day 1: The heavens, light, and darkness

    Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars of the sky

    Day 2: Water that comes from the sky as rain, and water that comes from the earth in rivers and seas

    Day 5: Birds are created to inhabit the sky, and fish and other water animals are placed into the rivers and seas

    Day 3: Land comes forth from the seas and vegetation sprouts from the earth

    Day 6: Animals are created to inhabit the land, and humans are created to cultivate the earth and care for it

    God has control of what is first chaotic, and his final act of control is in governing obedience to his Law, again seen in the narrative device that describes God as “resting on the seventh day.”

    If this were meant to be a literal account and the days are meant to be taken for some sort of equivalent for years, then what does that mean for the older account that follows? Why blatantly contradict it? Apparently it is not meant to be a contradiction but a complimentary lesson.

    2. Why create trees with fruit that were not meant to be eaten?

    It isn’t likely that the “trees” were as literal as we imagine them today. This is not to say that there is not some historicity to be gained from this account, but that we might be reading it with the wrong approach.

    In the Bible animals never talk outside of the “fable” scenario. Now I don’t mean fable as in the vernacular to mean a false story. I mean “fable” as in the genre, namely a story or parable that teaches a lesson. Aesop’s fables used animals almost exclusively, but the morals were never as make-believe as the characters or situations he created.

    This is a very ancient formula that is followed today to teach people lessons. We aren’t crazy about being “preached” to. I don’t like being told I am wrong about something I am doing, nor do I like being corrected. Never have, and probably never will. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that pretty much everyone is the same.

    Ancient moralists understood this about humanity. So when they had some lesson to teach, they changed up their stories to look like fiction by disguising the narrative into a story with speech-enabled animals. Often the animal taught the lesson or exposed the fault of humans and made the moral more palatable as a result.

    Now if Genesis 3 is a literal account of sin’s origins, then if you are like me you probably have asked yourself why it’s missing the most important thing that any good historical account requires. What is that? An explanation.

    The account doesn’t tell us what “sin” is. It never does. It also doesn’t tell us what connection the fruit has with “sin” or how exactly sin settles into Adam and Eve, why it makes them cover their bodies and hide from God, and why God has to guard the Tree of Life from being taken from if just a few sentences earlier (in 3:15) he promises to change things around so that nobody has to die. Couldn’t God just forgive them there and lead them to eat of the Tree of Life instead of sending them away (as well as why would God give in to their “sin” of thinking they were “naked” by making clothes for them once outside the Garden of Eden)?

    Do you suddenly see what I see? Yup, the story is “missing something.” And if you can’t put your finger on what the story is missing, don’t worry. If it’s a story with a lesson (and I am sure most of you have caught on by now) then this is a purposeful element to the story—as much as the talking snake was.

    Sure there’s a connection with Satan and the snake, but not until Christianity comes around. So originally you’re not supposed to read the snake as being Satan. Satan is the interpretation of what the snake is meant to be (another indicator that this is not a literal tale). If the snake represents something, obviously everything else does too.

    While there is little time or space to go into all the details (and it is really within reach of most basic Bible commentaries, so find one you like and read the interesting details—which are as ancient as Christianity itself), the main point is that the story is not telling us “how” sin came to be, but the sin is as old as humanity itself.

    Which is as old as God’s purpose to end human suffering, to bring all the elements into obedient order (see the connection with the addition of the narrative of the first chapter yet?), to bring things to their final “rest” with God. (Compare Hebrews 4:9-11) The writer doesn’t know about sin’s actual origin. He also can’t explain what sin is or why it affects us like it does. The only thing the writer knows is that God cares for our needs “outside the Garden” and that God intends to set all matters right.

    Yes, a “nude man” who doesn’t “sin” like the woman does and the “tree” of life (both which are absent from the presence of the talking snake at the moment “sin” comes to play in the story) will play a part much later in the fulfillment of God’s purpose, but none of this is understood at the time of this writing.

    I personally agree that this is not the only way to interpret the story (that is if one accepts it as something worthy to be interpreted in the first place), but this limited view into current accepted exegesis on Genesis should at least be considered as at least worthy of some consideration when we try to understand this narrative for ourselves.

  • JuanMiguel
    JuanMiguel

    Correction: My first sentence should read, "While not meaning to contradict your belief (or lack thereof)..."

    Tanx.

  • startingover
    startingover

    Losthobbit,

    I too was like you reading Genesis and being so used to hearing it my whole life never gave it much deep thought. It really is amazing to read and anaylze what it actually says. Thanks for your post.

    You might enjoy the writings of Runningman, the links no longer work but the whole book is on the second page http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/154236/1/The-Atheists-Book-of-Bible-Stories

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit