Gen:7:12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

According to the above, it rained for 40 days. But later we are told that it rained 150 days:

Gen:7:24: And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Gen:8:1: And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
Gen:8:2: The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Gen:7:20: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Mount Everest is 28,000 feet above sea level. The Bible tells us that within a 40-day period it rained enough to cover this mountain! That would mean that 29 feet of water fell per hour for 40 days! That’s nearly half a foot of water a minute! Today we consider it a heavy downpour if we get an inch or two an hour. Could the ark have survived such an onslaught? Imagine a caterpillar attempting to crawl across some rocks directly beneath the crashing downpour of Niagara Falls. This is the sort of predicament the wooden ark was in.

Whales need air to breathe. They surface and open their "blow hole" and take a breath. Had the rain been falling at the rate indicated in Genesis it is doubtful that they could’ve gotten a breath. Picture the bottom of Niagara Falls again. This time imagine yourself standing amidst the flurry of the pounding water as you look directly upward into the force of the water, open your mouth and try to take a breath!

If the whales could not have survived the downpour (as Gen. 6:17 would seem to indicate), then they had to have been housed in the ark along with Noah and company. There are over a dozen different species of whales. A single blue whale can be 110 feet long and weigh 150 tons. It must stay in water or else its lungs will collapse from its own sheer weight.

How did Noah and company capture and transport 2 of every species of whale into the ark while keeping them in enough water to survive the journey? How did they keep the Arctic-dwelling whales in cool water and the tropical whales in warm water?

Once aboard, the size of the aquariums needed for the whales would have been larger than the ark itself. Had they somehow managed to squeeze them aboard, the weight of the water in the aquariums would’ve sunk the ark like a stone.

There are at least five species of baleen whales. These eat plankton by swimming through the water with their mouths wide open. This means their aquariums aboard the ark would have to have been large enough for them to swim around in (while Noah and company continuously tossed in plankton in between their "potty runs"). The blue whale is a baleen whale. Can someone explain to me how a 110-foot long whale managed to turn around in an aquarium 75 feet wide and filled with a couple of dozen other whales?

Where did this vast quantity of water come from? Genesis 1:6-8 mentions "waters" above "the firmament". Had the earth been encased in a hollow sphere of water 5 miles thick suspended above the atmosphere? How would light and heat from the sun have penetrated such a barrier? We know that five miles down in the sea it is pitch black and cold.

Gen:8:3: And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Where did all the water go?

Gen:8:5: And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
Gen:8:6: And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made.

Noah couldn’t have opened the window at this point; this window had to have been open all the time from the very start if there was any chance at all of keeping everyone inside from suffocating to death!

Gen:8:7: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
Gen:8:8: Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
Gen:8:9: But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

Since the tops of the mountains were already visible 40 days ago, and the ark had been resting on solid ground (atop Mt. Ararat) for two and half months (Gen. 8:4,5), Noah could plainly see for himself how much of the ground was dry, and the birds would’ve found rest for the "soles of their feet".

Gen:8:11: And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

How did an olive tree (or even a fallen branch) retain its attachment to a leaf after being one year under water with a pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch? All of the trees would've been uprooted in the first hour of that downpour and any foliage would've been crushed during the 150 days of enormous pressure under the water.

Gen:8:13: And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Okay, "the waters were dried up from off the earth" and "the face of the ground was dry". This occurred on the first day of the first month. But in the very next verse we read:

Gen:8:14: And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

But we just read that the earth was dry already a month and a half ago.

Gen:8:20: And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

After all the effort to get these animals through the flood, Noah decimates one seventh of the population of "clean" animals! Even more unbelievably, God seems to actually approve of this atrocious waste, calling the smell of the murdered animals "sweet"! And it seems to appease his anger:

Gen:8:21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Remember why God went to all the trouble of the flood in the first place? It was because man was evil (Gen. 6:5-7). Why does God now say that he will not ever "smite every living thing" again? It is because man is evil. The same cause justifies opposite actions. Go figure.

But how could God say, immediately after the flood, that "the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth"? Hadn’t God handpicked Noah as "a just man and perfect in his generations" (Gen. 6:9)? At this point in the story there are only four men on earth: Noah and his three sons. Yet God says that man’s heart is evil from his youth. These men had already passed their youth before the flood began, so they must’ve done something evil in their youth. So why did God choose them to survive the flood? In the end he is right back where he started, with evil men and their evil imaginations! The flood was an exercise in futility, which cost millions of lives!

But if Noah was perfect (as the Bible claims he was in Gen. 6:9), then he wouldn’t have been tainted with the imperfection of sin, and just as the descendants of Adam had "inherited" sin, the descendants of Noah would have inherited sinlessness. So Noah’s descendants (which would be the entire human race) would have escaped from "original sin" and wouldn’t need to be "saved from their sins". This makes the whole idea of Jesus’ sacrificial death superfluous.

Gen:9:3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Here God gives humans the okay to kill and eat animals for the first time. But with eight mouths to feed and only 6 animals remaining of some species, and only 2 animals remaining in other species, they would have to have been highly selective in their food choices or they would have easily rendered a species extinct. Of course there was no vegetation whatsoever to eat after the world had been submerged under water for a year. This means that all of the non-human animals also had nothing to eat except each other. That would have made it impossible for the herbivores to have survived!

Gen:9:13: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen:9:14: And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen:9:15: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen:9:16: And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Why would God require a memory aid? He clearly states that the purpose of the rainbow is to remind him of his own promise!

If rainbows had never appeared before this, then how was light refracted through water?

Gen:9:20: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:Gen:9:21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.Gen:9:22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Gen:9:23: And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
Gen:9:24: And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen:9:25: And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Noah got drunk and naked. His son Ham saw him. Therefore Noah cursed his grandson into slavery. This is typical Biblical logic and justice.

Gen:10:5: By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

What do you suppose the writer meant by "every one after his tongue"? I think it’s a fair assumption that he meant people in these different lands were speaking different languages. But now we read:

Gen:11:1: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

But according to what we just read in Gen. 10:5 this simply was not true.

Gen:11:4: And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

It appears that these unidentified people were working towards unity and the common good. They seemed to realize that by sticking together in mutual cooperation they could accomplish much more than they could as scattered individuals. Much like their famous ancestor Noah, they intended to construct something that would protect them from the elements. This "high-rise apartment building" would also protect them from wild animals.

One might imagine that God would now heave a sigh of relief; at last there was a group of people whose thoughts were not "constantly evil", but who were peacefully working together for their common good. Instead we read:

Gen:11:5: And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Gen:11:6: And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen:11:7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen:11:8: So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen:11:9: Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Why would an all-knowing, all-present God have to "go down" to see the city?

God’s words imply that if all the people of the earth had one language, then we would be capable of anything we imagined. This isn’t very likely, but doubtless the "language barrier" contributes to misunderstandings and feelings of ill will between the people of different nations. According to the Bible, this "evil" is directly attributable to God! He purposely divided humankind due to a fear which seems quite groundless.

The reality of languages in the world does not lend itself to the Bible’s explanation of their origin. There are 'families' of languages in which nations living close together have similarly structured languages, whereas those separated by mountain ranges or seas are different. All of which shows a natural development and influence over thousands of years: not an instantaneous creation of languages. Writing, the graphic symbolizing of sounds, is so different in unrelated language-families that it cannot have sprung from one corrupted source but must've had independent origins; even the writing of numbers and methods of counting are diverse.

In any given language you have two things: the names of things, and grammar or syntax (which means the way sentences are put together). Learning a different language would be simple if it involved only the first part--you'd just have to substitute one word for another, and in a short time you'd know the entire 'substitute vocabulary'. But, unfortunately, this isn't the case at all. The first snag is words that mean more than one thing; and the second, greater obstacle, is grammar. Words are not strung together in the same way in different languages, so the patterns of word-thinking differ and make for years of study.

Now, if God 'confounded their languages' there at the tower of Babel, we know that he must've confounded the grammar, not just the names of things. In addition to this, he must've taken away all their memory and put in its place the new language. For when a person learns a new language, he doesn't cease thinking in his native tongue and stringing his thoughts along its grammatical paths. So God had to fill their minds with not just substitute words, but entirely new words separate from all former word-object associations, as well as new, complex grammar. This means that they would've suddenly had to think in entirely new ways. The world they knew an instant ago was no more; God had created a new world inside each and every mind there. And if he had managed to somehow convert all their past memories into thought-patterns consistent with their new language, then he performed a double miracle. That any human being could even survive such drastic tampering with their mind makes it a triple-miracle, and in fact the greatest miracle recorded in the Bible! For God needed seven days to create the physical world, having all space to work in, yet here he created hundred or even thousands of thought-worlds in the tiny area of the delicate minds of men in an instant!

Why would God do this? Why go through all the work of creating new thought-worlds and memories just to make them split up? This was certainly the greatest mass brainwashing in history! It would have been far easier, as long as he was totally rearranging their thinking processes anyway, to simply make them his worshippers.

People have long since gotten together and constructed "sky-scrapers". No evil has resulted directly from this process. So God "confounded their language" for no good reason and to no avail.

Gen:11:12: And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

So Arphaxad begat Salah. But Luke tells a different story:

Lk:3:35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Lk:3:36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

According to Luke, Salah's father was not Arpachshad at all, but one Cainan; and, in fact, Cainan's father was Arpachshad! If the Bible can’t get the physical facts straight, how can we trust what it has to say about spiritual matters?

Gen:11:31: And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

One would assume from this that Haran was a city in Canaan.

Gen:12:1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen:12:4: So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Gen:12:5: And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

But if they had already gone to Canaan in the previous chapter, how could it be that they had to leave the country in order to go to Canaan? It would be as if I told you: "Joe decided to move his family to the United States, so they left Canada and settled in New York. Then God told Joe ‘Leave this country and go to a new country I will show you.’ So Joe took his family and left New York and went to the United States."

Gen:12:11: And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
Gen:12:12: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
Gen:12:13: Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
Gen:12:14: And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
Gen:12:15: The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
Gen:12:16: And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
Gen:12:17: And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

This story glaringly reveals the characters of the principal players. Abram was willing to practice deception and put his own wife in danger, out of fear for his own life. He was willing to sell his wife in return for cattle and slaves. And the God of "perfect justice" saw to it that Pharaoh and his family were "justly" punished for Abram’s actions!

Gen:14:14: And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

There are three problems with this verse.

First of all, this is referring to the capture of Lot, as mentioned in the previous verses:

Gen:14:12: And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

This would make Lot Abram’s nephew (as is also borne out by Gen. 11:27). If Lot was Abram’s nephew, then Lot could not possibly be Abram’s brother as Gen. 14:14 claims.

Secondly, the city was not called "Dan" at this time. It was not until centuries after these events that it was renamed Dan, as it is written:

Judg:18:29: And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.

Thirdly: how can this be the same cowardly Abram who let the Pharaoh take his wife without a word? Now he suddenly develops courage and pursues the kidnappers of his nephew.

Gen:14:16: And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

We’ve already shown that Lot was not Abram’s brother; he was his nephew (Gen. 11:27, 14:12).

Gen:15:6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Why would an intelligent God mistake faith for righteousness?

Gen:15:8: And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

So much for Abram's faith. When God tells him that he intends to give him the Canaanites' land, Abram does not believe, but asks for a sign. God takes the opportunity to kill some more animals and engage in some hokus pokus:

Gen:15:9: And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
Gen:15:10: And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

Gen:15:17: And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

While showing himself as a burning torch passing between the slaughtered remains of the innocent animal, God repeated his promise to give Abram the land that belonged to others. This is referred to as the "oath bound covenant". Why did God happen upon this particular manner of making an oath? How was it an 'oath' simply to represent himself passing between cut-up meat? The answer is that this was thought by the primitive peoples to tie one's soul up with the sacrifice, and if one then proved false to the promise he had made at the time of the sacrifice, what happened to those animals he'd walked between would happen to him as well. It was just another application of sympathetic magic. The Bible even provides us with this very answer in Jeremiah 34:18 in which the Lord declares in one of his more imaginative threats:

Jer:34:18: And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof,

Jer:34:20: I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth.

Gen:16:1: Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
Gen:16:2: And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

Here is yet another gallant action on the part of the great Abram. He willingly complies with his wife's order to have a go with her maid, and succeeds in making her pregnant. But this makes the vacillating Sarai angry when she sees her in this state and she complains to Abram. Now we have one of those 'take charge' courageous actions on the part of the kind Abram:

Gen:16:6: But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.

To "console" the maid Hagar, God sends an angel to tell her the following about her son:

Gen:16:12: And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Judging from that, I’d say that God's a pretty poor consoler.

Gen:17:12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

This God is more concerned with the state of one's penis than he is about human dignity and justice. He does not condemn the practice of buying children from strangers, his only concern is that they get circumcised!

Gen:18:20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen:18:21: I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Why would an all-present, all-knowing God have to "go down and see" if a report he had heard was true?

Gen:19:1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Gen:19:2: And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
Gen:19:3: And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

If angels are spirit beings, why would they require washing, eating, and sleeping? These things can only affect physical beings.

Gen:19:4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:Gen:19:5: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Gen:19:6: And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
Gen:19:7: And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Gen:19:8: Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Lot offered his daughters to the violent mob! This is incredible! How could any father with a shred of human feeling ever have done such a thing? Yet Lot is the one that the angels save from the coming destruction! Was Lot truly a righteous man?

Gen:19:12: And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:Gen:19:13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
Gen:19:14: And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

Because the account mentions his two virgin daughters, two married daughters, and his sons (plural), we see from this that the angels were trying to save at least the following people from the destruction of the city:

1. Lot

2. Lot's wife

3. Lot's virgin daughter

4. Lot's other virgin daughter

5. Lot's married daughter

6. Lot's son-in law

7. Lot's other married daughter

8. Lot's other son-in-law

9. Lot's son

10. Lot's other son

That makes a total of ten people. Since God was (once again) trying to kill all the unrighteous people, it follows that these 10 people were not unrighteous. Otherwise, what would be the point of destroying the city if the angels first removed some of the unrighteous people?

Earlier, God had promised Abram that he would not destroy the city if there were at least 10 righteous people in it:

Gen:18:24: Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
Gen:18:25: That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Gen:18:32: And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Having found 10 righteous individuals in the city, does God keep his word and cancel the program?

Gen:19:24: Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen:19:25: And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

The "God of love" goes ahead with the destruction, even though 6 of the ten individuals slated for saving could not be gotten out of the city!

Gen:19:26: But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Why salt? If we were reading the Tales From the Arabian Nights about an evil magician turning an enemy into a monkey, that might have more entertainment value, but would be just as unbelievable and unedifying.

Gen:19:30: And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
Gen:19:31: And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Gen:19:32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen:19:33: And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen:19:34: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
Gen:19:35: And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Gen:19:36: Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

How could Lot's daughters have been so stupid as to conclude that there were no men on earth other than their father? Why is this act of incest not condemned in the Bible? How could a man be so drunk as to not know that he was having sex? How could a man that drunk get an erection? If God knew these daughters were going to commit the sin of incest, why did he go to all the trouble of miraculously transporting them from the scene of destruction in Sodom (which was destroyed, presumably, for its sexual sins) (Gen. 19:16)?

Gen:20:1: And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
Gen:20:2: And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
Gen:20:3: But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

Evidently Abraham didn't learn anything from having practiced the same ruse in Egypt back in chapter 12. He still didn't have faith that God would protect him and Sarah, despite all of God's promises and signs.

Sarah was 90 years old at this time:

Gen:17:17: Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Gen:18:11: Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Gen:18:12: Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

So was there any real reason for Abraham's apprehension about the beauty of his wife being a temptation to others? Can we honestly believe that this king (who may have had a harem full of the most beautiful girls in the kingdom) would desire a withered 90-year-old woman who was (if we believe the account) pregnant on top of it?

Gen:20:12: And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

According to God's own law, marrying one's half-sister is a sin worthy of a curse:

Deut:27:22: Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Of course, this Law hadn't been given yet, but if the unchanging God abhors such an action, wouldn't he have abhorred it even in Abraham's time? Wouldn't he have "cursed" instead of blessed Abraham?

Gen:20:17: So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children.Gen:20:18: For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Once again God punished the innocent for the sin of his favorite.

Gen:21:5: And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.

Gen:21:8: And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.
Gen:21:9: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Gen:21:10: Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

Gen:21:14: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
Gen:21:15: And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
Gen:21:16: And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.
Gen:21:17: And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
Gen:21:18: Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

This account makes it sound like Ishmael is an infant. Abraham sets him on Hagar's shoulder. She throws him under a shrub expecting him to die from neglect, and God tells her to hold Ishmael in her hand. This is all very strange when we realize that Ishmael was at least 16 years old at the time:

Gen:16:16: And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

So Ishmael was born when Abram was 86. We just read that Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old, and the incident in question occurred after Isaac was weaned. If Isaac was weaned at two years old, that would make Ishmael 16 years old. It's kind of hard to balance a 16 year old on your shoulder, hold him in one hand, or throw him under a shrub to die. I think the author forgot how old a child he was dealing with in his own story.

Prev Next Contents