Specific Critiques of Genssi Chapter 1

[BIG NIGE]

Wow I had no idea my thread would become so popular. Somebody called into question the meaning of light, with regard to my claim that Genesis says that light came before stars, saying that God is light, but not physical light, or something like that. So now I have the text of Genesis in front of me and I'm going to give specific critiques.

1. Clearly, like Sephus said, the light referred to in Genesis MUST be physical light, because 1:5 says that God called the light Day and the darkness Night. This is further supported by the mention of "evening and morning" which are distinguished exclusively by the amount of physical light present (because evening in one part of the world can be morning in another part at the same time).

2. In 1:1, God creates the heaven and the earth. In 1:7, God creates "the firmament" which he calls "Heaven" in 1:8. How is this apparent inconsistency explained? Are there two "types" of heaven?

3. In 1:14, God creates lights in the firmament of the heaven (seems circular/redundant since God called the firmament Heaven) to divide the day from the night. However, God already did this in 1:4, dividing the light from the darkness and then calling the light Day and the darkness Night. What did God do in 1:14 that He hadn't already accomplished? And how was the light he created in 1:14 different than the already-existing light?

4. In 1:16, God creates two light, a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night, and God creates the stars also. One blatant inaccuracy here is that the moon, which is presumably what the "lesser light" is referring to, is not a source of light at all, it merely reflects the sun's light.

5. Also concerning 1:16, this is the third time that God created light (He also did so in 1:3 and 1:14). What exactly are all of these lights? In 1:4, God defines the first light he created as Day, thus in 1:16 God is essentially creating a greater light to rule the light. I am at a loss as to how this could possibly be explained. We already determined that the light referred to in 1:3 is physical light, so besides the question of how it could be possible, why would it be necessary for God to create a "greater light" to rule over the light he had already created and called Day? The point is that God never referred to Day as a time period or part of a cycle, but strictly as "light".

6. 1:17 says that God set the two great lights in the firmament. Again, how are these lights different from the ones He put in the firmament in 1:14?

7. Another case of redundancy and repetition, as the phrase "to divide the light from the darkness" appears again in 1:18, EXACTLY as it does in 1:4.

8. In 1:26, God says "Let us creat man in our own image." This really puzzles me. Who else is God referring to when he says "us" and "our"?

9. Not really a critique, but I noticed that there are several cases of words being placed in italics for no apparent reason, especially "it was", although there are plenty of other words put in italics. What was the purpose of doing this?

[vulturesrow]

Nige,

I am sort of curious why you are so interested in these critiques since they are based about a literalist interpretation of Scripture which I'd say not too many of the Christians here subscribe to. Here is my take on Genesis, from a Catholic Christian perspective: Genesis is basically a myth story. What are the spiritual truths of Genesis, the things that we really need to take away?

1. God is the Creator. I dont give a flip about the mechanisms, far as Im concerned evolution is on pretty solid ground and physicists are doing a pretty fine job themselves.

2. Somewhere along the way, sin entered the world due to some poor choices. Original sin is part of our spiritual makeup much as a rogue gene in your family that causes some sort of disease.

Hope this sheds some light, even if it doesnt address your specific critiques of a literalist perspective on the Creation story.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis is basically a myth story.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere along the way, sin entered the world due to some poor choices. Original sin is part of our spiritual makeup much as a rogue gene in your family that causes some sort of disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice design... the children pay for the sins of the parents! Being alive is some sort of disease! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[GoodCallYouWin]

Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

[t.conley]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was weak and scared and wrong, and the moral lesson is don't offer daughters to homosexuals... that just doesn't make any sense and obviously won't work to save you neck

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was weak and scared and wrong, and the moral lesson is don't offer daughters to homosexuals... that just doesn't make any sense and obviously won't work to save you neck

[/ QUOTE ]

The moral is he was correct to do this.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so. IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And many don't admit it because they don't realize that they're picking and choosing. They just assume that they are living their lives as "good Christians" and following all the rules -- without really knowing what the rules are to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

We see this time and time again from certain theists on this board. No two theists on this board seem to agree on questions of theology, but this doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in their own minds as to the validity of their beliefs.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so. IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when a xtrian takes on a sects tenets as presented ( and many don't) they are still picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe. They're just doing it wholesale. They could have chosen the xtrian sect down the street or islam or Buddhism , etc.

How many realize they do this ... 1% or so, if that.
Your beliefs merely reflect who you have become.

luckyme

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mind people disputing my beliefs. What I do mind is the snide and condescending attitude I see displayed towards believers on a daily basis. I was merely trying to give the OP somewhat of answer in spite of the fact that I am not a bible literalist. I was actually going to try to give Midge a good faith answer to his question to me in spite of his being one of the primary people in this forum who display the attitude I mentioned. When someone wants to have a civil discussion with me and treat me with a modicum of respect than I might respond. Or at least until Im not posting long enough when I then tend to forget the hostile tone of this forum towards believers.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Or at least until Im not posting long enough when I then tend to forget the hostile tone of this forum towards believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? What does it take to satiate your delicate sensibilities? This is an internet forum, after all...

Additionally, one can easily argue that BELIEVERS are the ones taking an a priori hostile stance. After all, most religions hold that nonbelievers are in a state of mortal sin that justifies punishment of the utmost severity. Atheism, on the other hand, makes no implicit moral judgments at all.

That is, people such as txag007, NotReady, etc. begin every discussion with the premise that dissenting individuals should and will be subject to eternal torment.

This is an immoderately hostile sort of worldview, no matter how gently or politely it is presented.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mind people disputing my beliefs. What I do mind is the snide and condescending attitude I see displayed towards believers on a daily basis. I was merely trying to give the OP somewhat of answer in spite of the fact that I am not a bible literalist. I was actually going to try to give Midge a good faith answer to his question to me in spite of his being one of the primary people in this forum who display the attitude I mentioned. When someone wants to have a civil discussion with me and treat me with a modicum of respect than I might respond. Or at least until Im not posting long enough when I then tend to forget the hostile tone of this forum towards believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you will continue to post on this forum. I know it's tough, but try to ignore the arrogance of some of the posters here. I feel like you bring a needed viewpoint to these discussions.

[BIG NIGE]

My critiques go beyond simply questioning the plausibility of Genesis' account of Creation, and thus God's existence. Even if scientifically ignorant humans wrote Genesis, and it was certain to be made up, my points would still be valid. There appears to be a ton of redundancy in the early verses, with God doing the same things over and over, especially with respect to heaven, earth, and light. Why would someone write a story like this when it is shaky at best on logical grounds alone? Creating light three times? Creating a light to rule over another light? Creating heaven and then another heaven? These have nothing to do with science; they are dubious from a logical point of view alone. I'm sure these verses have been defended and explained in some way or another but I'd like to know how. I'm also intrigued about 1:26 which says "Let US create man in OUR own image." WHo else is God referring to?

[t.conley]

I do not claim to be an expert, but I'll give it a shot

[ QUOTE ]

1. Clearly, like Sephus said, the light referred to in Genesis MUST be physical light, because 1:5 says that God called the light Day and the darkness Night. This is further supported by the mention of "evening and morning" which are distinguished exclusively by the amount of physical light present (because evening in one part of the world can be morning in another part at the same time).

[/ QUOTE ]

For number one I am not quite sure what you are asking since you wrote a statement and not a question. Also if you are writing a critiquing statement, I don’t quite know what belief you are critiquing, so if you could write something easier to understand for a guy like me it would be helpful.

[ QUOTE ]

2. In 1:1, God creates the heaven and the earth. In 1:7, God creates "the firmament" which he calls "Heaven" in 1:8. How is this apparent inconsistency explained? Are there two "types" of heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

1:1 seems to me to be a topic sentence, like In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, here is how.

[ QUOTE ]

3. In 1:14, God creates lights in the firmament of the heaven (seems circular/redundant since God called the firmament Heaven) to divide the day from the night. However, God already did this in 1:4, dividing the light from the darkness and then calling the light Day and the darkness Night. What did God do in 1:14 that He hadn't already accomplished? And how was the light he created in 1:14 different than the already-existing light?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1:4 God separated light and darkness. In 1:14 God creates lights to separate light and darkness and also for them to be signs for the seasons and for the days and years. So it seems to me that God just separated light and darkness in 1:4 and thus did not necessarily create the sun, stars, etc..

[ QUOTE ]

4. In 1:16, God creates two light, a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night, and God creates the stars also. One blatant inaccuracy here is that the moon, which is presumably what the "lesser light" is referring to, is not a source of light at all, it merely reflects the sun's light.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moon is a source of light, just not a direct source. If there was no moon then there would be no lesser light in the night. The moon is an indirect source of light, therefore a source.

[ QUOTE ]

5. Also concerning 1:16, this is the third time that God created light (He also did so in 1:3 and 1:14). What exactly are all of these lights? In 1:4, God defines the first light he created as Day, thus in 1:16 God is essentially creating a greater light to rule the light. I am at a loss as to how this could possibly be explained. We already determined that the light referred to in 1:3 is physical light, so besides the question of how it could be possible, why would it be necessary for God to create a "greater light" to rule over the light he had already created and called Day? The point is that God never referred to Day as a time period or part of a cycle, but strictly as "light".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, first it is only the 2nd time, not the 3rd since 1:16 is still explaining 1:14. Second I would say that the necessary aspect, or the reason given is that they were created for humans to be able to tell the seasons and years and days since that is the reason given.

[ QUOTE ]

6. 1:17 says that God set the two great lights in the firmament. Again, how are these lights different from the ones He put in the firmament in 1:14?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like you need to read this like a book and not sentence by sentence, it seems clear to me that 1:17 is still explaining what was started in 1:14.


[ QUOTE ]

7. Another case of redundancy and repetition, as the phrase "to divide the light from the darkness" appears again in 1:18, EXACTLY as it does in 1:4.

[/ QUOTE ]

New American Standard Version... which I believe is the translation which translates most literally to English (a comparison would be the NIV bible which tends to translate more poetically to the bible, much the same way translators will translate the Aeneid in different ways.. etc). 1:4. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from darkness.... 1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw it was good. Maybe you can explain more clearly what you mean here, I don't quite understand... what I read is that God separated light from darkness one day. And on a fourth day God created specific things (sun moon stars) whose purpose was to keep the day and night separated and be signs for seasons, days, and years.


[ QUOTE ]

8. In 1:26, God says "Let us create man in our own image." This really puzzles me. Who else is God referring to when he says "us" and "our"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first piece of evidence towards the Christian belief of the trinity.

[ QUOTE ]

9. Not really a critique, but I noticed that there are several cases of words being placed in italics for no apparent reason, especially "it was", although there are plenty of other words put in italics. What was the purpose of doing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask the publisher, don't see it done in my bible, sorry.

[bigpooch]

Let me try to address as many as these issues as I can
before I have to leave with my wife this morning (it's after
7 am in Hong Kong and I will have to leave at about 7:30 am)
and excuse me if my writing is verbose. If I get a chance,
I'll stop by a Pacific Coffee (where there is internet
access) if I need to add (!!) anything else.

First, I would like to say that my parents were never
religious and most would consider me "heretical" when
comparing my beliefs with the dogma/tenets of normative
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant beliefs (yes, this
order is correct!), but since I put a premium on truth and
not on what anyone else (besides the God of Israel) thinks
or believe, some of what I believe in may be erroneous;
however, since I have looked into such matters more closely
than many others in the past, even where I could be wrong,
it won't matter if you have faith in the Living God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The key verse is Genesis 1:1.

Second, many "Christians" are looking at the text with some
preconceptions, many of them helpful, but some of them a
major hindrance; in the same, way, modern thinkers, bring
to the table the exacting terminology that their discipline
requires (I should know, since pure and applied mathematics
were my disciplines) although anyone with enough sense can
see that the text of Genesis wasn't written with this kind
of audience in mind. I'll also have to admit that even
though I am not Jewish, my predilection is toward rabbinical
exegesis even if some of the commentaries do seem fantastic
(the Throne of God really reaches the earth?) so commentary
by Rashi, Rambam and Ramban are worth reading even if you
don't necessarily agree with what they have written.

You should find the following links helpful. In addition,
you might want to research more conservative Protestant
(not fundamentalist) websites with commentaries, but as
there are a plethora of them, perhaps someone else can give
you a shortlist.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8165&showrashi=true

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenTradRashiRashbam.html


Third, there is no question in my mind that when we meet
God (there is NO if!), it will be clear to all that what
is written in 1 John 1:5 "And this is the message which we
have heard from him (the Logos = Word) and proclaim to you:
God is light, and there is no darkness in Him - none!"
(Jewish New Testament, Stern) is true. Also, from Psalm
104:2-3:

"[2]He (God) wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent". As I mentioned
before, you'll have a much better idea after you finish
your earthly presence: "God is light" is something any true
believer understands. I think it is a moot point to ask
whether that the light that God emanates is physical or
spiritual light (I don't know, but I haven't really looked
into it either; I don't discount the former but think it is
the latter).

Now, let me address your concerns.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Clearly, like Sephus said, the light referred to in Genesis MUST be physical light, because 1:5 says that God called the light Day and the darkness Night. This is further supported by the mention of "evening and morning" which are distinguished exclusively by the amount of physical light present (because evening in one part of the world can be morning in another part at the same time).


[/ QUOTE ]

In context, this would seem to be the case, but Rashi has
mentioned otherwise in one of his commentaries ("spiritual
light"). From the reading of the text, starting with verse
2, I think it is best to believe that IF physical light were
created, it was created in verse 1 since it refers to the
physical and spiritual cosmos, the former would include
stars and the latter would include beings of light (other
than God; e.g., angels).

From verse 2, the context is geocentric: YECs (I am not one
but see some of their points/ideas) put the emphasis that
"the earth BECAME formless and void, ..." but the mystery is
how did it become that? In any case, verse two shows that
the earth was already in existence, it was dark (perhaps
the atmosphere didn't admit much light) and was covered by
waters (over which a great wind/ wind of God/ "Spirit" of
God hovered, if you believe Rashi or what most Christian
exegetes state). It's very likely that stars were already
created in verse 1 when we have arrived at the setting in
verse 2. We have the earth in a state of darkness, and
the Wind of God/Spirit of God hovering over the surface of
the waters portends what He is about to do: simply to let
light shine in the darkness.


[ QUOTE ]
2. In 1:1, God creates the heaven and the earth. In 1:7, God creates "the firmament" which he calls "Heaven" in 1:8. How is this apparent inconsistency explained? Are there two "types" of heaven?


[/ QUOTE ]

This "heaven" is the sky, or atmosphere. We aren't given
any technical details about whether it was hydrogen, carbon
dioxide, yada yada yada, but somehow there is an atmosphere
that makes it possible that water exists below it and some
water (likely to be in the form of clouds) exists above it.
The NIV renders this word as "sky".

[ QUOTE ]

3. In 1:14, God creates lights in the firmament of the heaven (seems circular/redundant since God called the firmament Heaven) to divide the day from the night. However, God already did this in 1:4, dividing the light from the darkness and then calling the light Day and the darkness Night. What did God do in 1:14 that He hadn't already accomplished? And how was the light he created in 1:14 different than the already-existing light?


[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow, the sky clears up so that from the surface of the
earth, both the sun and the moon can be clearly distinguished
and can be used to serve as demarcations for seasons and days,
which may include religious timing of Jewish holy days. I
think there is a technical difference between the separation
of "light" and "darkness" in verse 4 and the separation of
the "day" and "night" in verse 14 and almost certainly has a
deep spiritual/mystical meaning that I don't yet grasp. Rashi
may have a point. In any case, somehow the skies clear so
that the stars can be used in navigation, the sun can be
used to keep track of hours of the day (using sundials or
whatever the Jews may have been thinking at that time) and
the Jewish Calendar (based on the moon) can be used to keep
track of days in the year.

[ QUOTE ]
4. In 1:16, God creates two light, a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night, and God creates the stars also. One blatant inaccuracy here is that the moon, which is presumably what the "lesser light" is referring to, is not a source of light at all, it merely reflects the sun's light.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that the moon doesn't give its own light. But
in the eyes of a reader or the Jewish audience at the time, it
really didn't matter. The major point is that somehow God had
dominion over both the greater and lesser lights, so that both
these objects are NOT to be worshipped.

[ QUOTE ]

5. Also concerning 1:16, this is the third time that God created light (He also did so in 1:3 and 1:14). What exactly are all of these lights? In 1:4, God defines the first light he created as Day, thus in 1:16 God is essentially creating a greater light to rule the light. I am at a loss as to how this could possibly be explained. We already determined that the light referred to in 1:3 is physical light, so besides the question of how it could be possible, why would it be necessary for God to create a "greater light" to rule over the light he had already created and called Day? The point is that God never referred to Day as a time period or part of a cycle, but strictly as "light".


[/ QUOTE ]

Before we get to verse 16, the creation of the moon, the sun
and stars had already occurred in verse one. These are simply
not visible to the surface of the earth. Also, as I mentioned
earlier, although the light in verse 3 is simply light that is
visible to the surface of the earth, but an observer on the
surface won't be able to see that it is from the sun.

[ QUOTE ]
6. 1:17 says that God set the two great lights in the firmament. Again, how are these lights different from the ones He put in the firmament in 1:14?


[/ QUOTE ]

Verses 16 and 17 together make a parenthetical statement about
the lights in verses 14 and 15. These lights are simply the
Sun, Moon and stars. Verses 14 and 15 are words of God and
verses 16 and 17 are just the details of what happened.

[ QUOTE ]
7. Another case of redundancy and repetition, as the phrase "to divide the light from the darkness" appears again in 1:18, EXACTLY as it does in 1:4.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just what happened according to the Word of God.

[ QUOTE ]
8. In 1:26, God says "Let us creat man in our own image." This really puzzles me. Who else is God referring to when he says "us" and "our"?



[/ QUOTE ]

God is addressing the other beings of light. Christians will
sometimes say this is referring to the Trinity, but I don't take
that line of thinking. Although it is true that THROUGH the Logos
all things came into being, here God is addressing those that will
make human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
9. Not really a critique, but I noticed that there are several cases of words being placed in italics for no apparent reason, especially "it was", although there are plenty of other words put in italics. What was the purpose of doing this?


[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to consult your specific bible about this. Almost
certainly, there will be something written about it in the preface
or introduction.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mind people disputing my beliefs. What I do mind is the snide and condescending attitude I see displayed towards believers on a daily basis. I was merely trying to give the OP somewhat of answer in spite of the fact that I am not a bible literalist. I was actually going to try to give Midge a good faith answer to his question to me in spite of his being one of the primary people in this forum who display the attitude I mentioned. When someone wants to have a civil discussion with me and treat me with a modicum of respect than I might respond. Or at least until Im not posting long enough when I then tend to forget the hostile tone of this forum towards believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all do respect, welcome to our world. Atheists are held with such contempt in the Christian community that I still have not yet told my parents that I am no longer Christian, and I don't know if I ever will.

[OrigamiSensei]

[ QUOTE ]
9. Not really a critique, but I noticed that there are several cases of words being placed in italics for no apparent reason, especially "it was", although there are plenty of other words put in italics. What was the purpose of doing this?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure which translation you're using but this technique is used in the King James translation. The italicized words were added by the translators to make the verses parse better but they are not in the phraseology of the original source language. They do this to ensure the reader knows what the original source text contains and what was added to make things easier to read. In most cases it doesn't result in any material difference although in one or two cases I seem to remember that eliminating the addition made the translation and original intent clearer.