The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    The Heretic's Bible - Genesis 6: God gets pissed (again)

    The “sons of God” thought that human women were hot, so they took the ones that they wanted. The offspring (God’s grandchildren) were mighty giants. Meanwhile, God decided that humans were living too long, so he cut their maximum life spans to 120.

    Commentary: God has sons? Who was the mother? Or mothers even? I must say, this is one weird passage. I cannot help but reflect upon the awesomeness of God’s magnificent manhood, or rather Godhood. Fortunately, the Great Rabbi Ezekiel Bezekial offers wise words to relieve my awe and confusion:

    “The sages have long been troubled by the Torah’s mention of the sons of God, for how can God, who is pure, have produced sons? One should not however take ‘sons of God’ to mean God’s offspring. The term is meant metaphorically. The ‘sons of God’ are obviously fallen angels who have been banished from Heaven and thus roam the earth raping human women.”

    When the Great Rabbi says something, of course it must be true, but I wonder if the same words uttered by a more humble soul might be considered blasphemous and earn the humble soul a humble stoning. After all, the Torah does not say, “fallen angels.” It says, “sons of God,” and surely God meant everything he said in the Torah. But the Great Rabbi isn’t called the Great Rabbi for nothing, and I’m sure that he has a deep and subtle explanation beyond the comprehension of a poor latriner for why revising God’s words is an act of piety.

    Eventually, God got sick of the people that he made because they were wicked. We don’t know what they did that was so wicked, but it must have been pretty bad because God said,

    “I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth - man, livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them.”

    Commentary: I imagine that the livestock, land animals, and birds of the sky may have wished to appeal this plan, since they weren’t the ones being wicked and never asked for God to make people in the first place.

    Fortunately for us people, God had a soft spot for Methuselah’s grandson, Noah, and enjoyed walking with him. God told Noah that he would unleash a great flood on the Earth but that he would spare him, his wife, his sons, and their wives. He told Noah to build a boat out of cypress wood and caulk it with pitch. He commanded that it be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, with three decks subdivided into compartments. He further specified that there be a door on the side and a slanted skylight, one cubit wide.

    Commentary: God is bit of a micromanager. Though I hesitate to question His infinite knowledge of ark design, I wonder if the skylight was such a good idea considering that there was a high chance of rain.

    Then God commanded Noah to fill the boat with a male and female specimen from every species of bird, livestock, and land animal. He also advised Noah to bring food for his family and the animals.

    Commentary: Once again, the trees and plants get screwed. Was the flood really necessary? Couldn’t God have simply applied his limitless power to kill off the bad guys directly? I’m sure that the plants and animals would have appreciated it.


    The Heretic's Bible is a translation of a recently discovered commentary by a notorious first century heretic, Joseph the Latriner. The commentary is presented in italics with footnotes by the translator.

    Previous: Genesis 5 - Lifespans of the old and pious
    Next: Genesis 7 - The earth gets wet

    Comments

    I am curious as to why Bible literalists (typically Chrisitan fundamentalists) think that we don't have to take "sons of God" literally.

    *spoiler alert*

    Also, it seems that between the last verses of chapter 6 and the first verses of chapter 7, God decided that so-called "clean" animals (I'm also curious to get the latriner's take on the emphasis of clean) get to have 7, although I'm confused as to how the "seven" is equated with "a male and its mate" in the beginning of verse two of chapter 7. Perhaps God counts differently than the rest of us?

    *end spoiler*


    7 pairs, so 14 total. Some animals, like pigs, are considered unclean and therefore unsuitable for eating, sacrificing, or fornicating with. God's reasons for the extra clean animals will be revealed in the Ch. 7 commentary. Be patient.


    So, does that mean 2 pairs of unclean animals as well, or 4 total? Here's the text I'm getting from BibleGateway.com:

    Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate…

    I know, I know. I have to wait until the next installment.


    Joseph doesn't really get into the 7 vs 14 business, he just mentions 7 pairs. The literal translation from the Hebrew is "seven by seven," and biblical scholars debate the interpretation.

    This dude literally throws up his hands:

    It is impossible to determine certainly whether the Hebrew phrase, shibb’ah shibbah means “by sevens” (KJV), that is, seven animals of all clean species, or “seven and seven” (ASV) or seven pairs (RSV, NEB), that is fourteen animals of all clean species.... There can be no certainty on this point

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=12&itemid=2180


    I prefer the interpretation (my own, naturally) that the clean male gets 6 mates, for a total of seven.


    Yeah, baby! Life is good 'til you sacrificed.


    I had to read your previous link to understand the whole "sacrifice" bit. While doing so, I explored a bit further and found this veritable trove of scientific treasure.


    Yeah, I just gave away ch. 7. Oh well.

    Thanks for the "treasure."


    I wish that they would have addressed how come the dinosaurs on the ark didn't kill everybody.


    Don't be a smartass. Ever wonder what happened to the dinosaurs? That's right: too big to fit on the ark. Poor bastards.


    Don't give me that. I saw proof that dinosaurs were on the ark when I went to the Creation Museum. There were model dinosaurs on their model ark. And there was a movie. But they never said what they ate.


    I should not have questioned our resident Creationism expert.

    According to this site, http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dino_ark.html, there were baby dinosaurs on the ark, and all animals were vegetarians until after they disembarked, so there was no fear of dinosaurs eating anyone. (Scriptural note: This is speculation. According to the Bible, people didn't eat meat until after the flood, but there is no word on when animals became carnivorous. The Bible is also notably silent on the question of dinosaurs in the ark.)


    Unicorns.


    Or the six spare animals from each "clean" species. That should have lasted them 40 days.


    No, they're for sacrificing! Ok, that's it. I'm publishing chapter 7.


    That's a Far Side ripoff


    Ja. I was looking for the accompanying image, but it appears to have been purged from the internets.


    In the Bible, sexual differentiation is presented as a creation by God and not part of the inherent nature of divinity itself. So, in your question, you were asking how God created without a consort, however, God created gender apart from himself. The Christian God, Yahweh, unlike other pagan gods in literature, did not procreate with goddesses, He simply created mankind (male and female) from the dust of the ground.

    God is, of course, spirit, so God does not possess gender, per se.

    However, Jesus Christ, took on humanity (specifically, becoming male,) but the Father and Spirit do not possess gender.


    Latest Comments