Here's the problem though. What's the book I'm about to read?
THE BIBLE.
Oh man, am I fucked or what? Let the confusion begin. (BTW, yes I fully know that theists argue vehemently that the approach I'm using is precisely wrong and I, supposedly, will not be able to interpret the bible correctly. I don't care. I don't need someone instructing on how I should read a Stephen King novel, why should this be any different?)
Here we go...
Okay, um, what? So at first I'm like: "Ok, so according to line 1, God "created" (I guess out of nothing) the "heavens and the earth." So, Big Bang to the formation of the molten earth...some nine billion years. Wow, we're zippin' right along here.
But then, line 2 talks about the existence of water. Oh, so we're talking an earth with oceans, so tack on another billion years I guess.
Ho!! Wait a freakin' second! Now we read in line 3, God just now creates light! Hold up - How were the elements that make up the earth, including the specifically mentioned "waters" which should mean actual water, that is, H2O (unless the author is trying to deceive or is a moron) formed in lieu of solar nuclear fusion? Every naturally occurring element of matter other than hydrogen is made by the immense pressure and even collapse of stars. Almost all stars emit very visible light energy, more and more visible with one's proximity which, if there was a formation of the sphere of matter known as Earth a star would be a mere 93 million miles away called The Sun and its light, even billions of years ago during the formation of the Earth would have been very visible. Maybe God was blind and his command of "Let there be light!" meant He was able to see it for the first time only then?
Let's just shelve this for now and we'll shake our heads and move on...
Line 4, and "God saw that the light was good." Why? I mean, why is light "good?" Light is just what it is, I don't know that it has properties that can be determined to be inherently good.
If we're talking about "light" in the broad sense as in the range of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum then sure, visible light illuminates things allowing our eyes to see, and infrared conveys heat energy to warm us from the cold, but it also has properties not so good for many lifeforms like making them more visible to prey, providing too much heat as to cause harm and UV light which kills lifeforms and harms our skin and eyes if exposed too long or in higher quantities. Not even gonna go to x-ray and gamma ray radiation. So I guess light has good and bad qualities.
But God labels it only as good. Maybe His definition of good doesn't include exclusively what's good for biological Earth-based life including humans? Is it a "good" idea to cause a reader to question and become suspicious of the true motives of this apparently all-powerful creator right at the get go? Is this God character supposed to be on our side or is He ambivalent or even perhaps antagonistic to our existence? Hopefully as this story goes on he starts acting nicer. Light is good. Good for sunburns, disinfection (killing lifeforms who He is supposedly the creator of), blindness and carcinoma. Ya, okay.
5: Light = day, darkness = night...evening and morning = the first day. Okay, totally abstract and simplistic. Basically, why is this explanation even here? Is it supposed to imply that once he made light, it would have been total light all the time until he "separated" the light and darkness? Or since he called light good, are we getting into metaphorical references here meaning the beginning of the definition of the first examples of His morality separating good and evil? Let's read on, maybe it'll get clearer. It must, right? I mean, this book is meant to be adhered to and followed by all mankind so it should be as clear as a bell.
6: "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." Now I'm totally confused. I read three other versions of this book and each one called the "vault" something else like "firmament" (KJV and Hebrew) or "dome" (Roman Catholic). Let's chalk this mess up to interpretation, transliteration and translation. Movin' on...
7 thru 10: My head hurts. I guess I really have to suspend disbelief but it's hard when the writing is put down with such supposed emphasis on detail and chronology while being totally devoid of real detail and accurate chronology. And more of this labeling things as good that have qualities that are good or bad depending on situation. Are the gathered "seas" good for someone who's drowning? Or is this foreshadowing since, as we already know, this book later relates the tale of the Great Flood that, though bad for the bad people (including babies and most plants and animals, but I digress) it was a good thing for the future of Noah's peeps and some hand-picked animals and plants.
11 thru 23: Now we get the first lifeforms. First up, not single-celled life but seed bearing plants, then trees bearing fruits with seed in them, then we get into certain lights (wait, wasn't this created already?) and they're formed into a large light and small light (oh, and let's nonchalantly through in the stars) and separated into day and night and used to tell what sacred day it is and then we get to the seas teeming with life and every in its kind and it was good.
I'm out. This shit is fucked up. Out of sequence, illogical, purposely vague while trying to sound definitive, assuming morality on inanimate states of matter and energy, incomprehensible babble like "in their kind," knowing what comprises the lights in the sky (including the apparent mere decoration of the stars) and the "vaults/firmament/domes" isn't important but knowing the sacred days is, and, to top it all off...we're only on the FIFTH FUCKING DAY in the existence of the universe!
Book burning party: My house, free drinks, loud music and IT WILL BE GOOD!