How to interpret the Bible literally

Bodie Hodge of Answers in Genesis wants you to know that you’ve been talking about the book of Genesis all wrong. Heretics, every one of you.

  1. The globe looks like it does today: This would specifically be before the Flood in Genesis 6–8.

  2. Leaving open evolutionary ideas

  3. Not including extinct creatures like dinosaurs on Day Six

  4. Putting modern variations of animals in the creation scene

  5. Drawing Adam and Eve with very light skin and blond hair and blue eyes

  6. Making an apple the fruit

  7. Having a serpent without some form of upright posture or appendages during the deception: Genesis 3:1 calls it a serpent

  8. Neglecting that God sacrificed animals to cover Adam and Eve

  9. When illustrating Cain and Abel, we often get the impression they were the only two kids Adam and Eve had at the time

  10. Ark looks like a bathtub with happy animals sticking out of it

  11. Not including dinosaurs and pterodactyls (e.g., dragons) on the Ark

  12. Putting too many individuals of a kind on the Ark

  13. Tower of Babel being rounded

  14. Tower of Babel reaches so high into the atmosphere that its top is covered with high cirrus clouds

  15. The Tower being only partially built (i.e., a foundation)

  16. Not using biblical dates

  17. Calling the accounts “stories”

  18. Don’t paraphrase the Bible—use a respectable translation

  19. Placing the Garden of Eden based on post-Flood geography

I particularly like #2 — don’t you dare include any ideas that might be interpreted as evolution — combined with #4 and #12, in which he complains about drawing modern animals on the Ark. There weren’t no lions and tigers on that there Ark, no sirree, they was the last common ancestors of modern lions and tigers.

#3 and #11 are the same. I guess Bodie was running out of original ideas for berating the readership, and recycled.

#7 is fun. There was a talking snake, but don’t you dare make the mistake of forgetting to include limbs on that snake. That would be ridiculous.

#5: But…but…I’ve been to the Creation “Museum”. I’ve seen their Aryan Barbie and Ken…I mean, Adam and Eve. Seriously, this is their idea of a multiracial primordial pair?


It is so nice of Answers in Genesis to tell us how to correctly interpret Bible stories — I mean, Bible facts — biblically. I have used their own guide to judge the latest Oglaf, and clearly, it is fully compatible with AiG’s Bible.

In fact, I suspect that Trudy Cooper used The Creation “Museum”‘s own diorama as a guide to drawing that.


I think Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge need to read through the entirety of the Oglaf archive to evaluate their Biblical authenticity.

I would like to be there when they do.


  1. dick says

    It just goes to show that doG, (aka the Bible Bogey), by any account, was a lousy engineer.

  2. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    not surprised:
    his item#2 dismisses evolution as false, then in later items, uses evolution to account for diversity of species post flood.
    I suppose I’m misinterpreting his dismissal @#2 as all evolution en masse; while he is distinguishing “macro evolution” as false, with “micro evolution” to account for variation among the feline, or equine, or etc, “kinds”.
    IE, the Bible only speaks of “kinds”, species is a modern classification system sinners fabricated.
    Odd that he is attacking biblical proponents for attempting to indoctrinate children with their fabricated myths, with the fingerwag of “small differences can be misleading”.
    Is atheism too “out there” to be attacked any more” (or is this a sign of addiction to contrarianism?)

  3. lotharloo says

    They are doing break through research here:

    Did Adam have a Navel?

    If Adam was not born of a woman, he would not have had an umbilical cord, thus no scar, and thus no navel.

    But sadly they are wrong! I have another “scientific theory”! Adam had a navel because God made him out of wet clay and then poked the belly with his finger to see if the clay was dry. See? Who said there is no biblical research?

  4. says

    I’m sure you could find others who believe Adam and Eve did have navels, since they were created with the “appearance of age.

    So many of these people claiming to be biblical literalists are full of it. These tend to be the exact same people who believe in various convoluted interpretations of Revelation and other supposedly prophetic texts, and spend time speculating which current political figure is the Antichrist.

  5. aziraphale says

    #13 to #15: The Bible says nothing about whether the Tower of Babel was round, or how high it reached before building was interrupted.

  6. robro says

    4. Putting modern variations of animals in the creation scene

    The humans and the two tigers in that shot from the diorama look pretty much like the modern versions. However, the water looks unlike anything I’ve ever seen splashing around rocks, particularly the foamy parts. Overall, it seems the antediluvian world was kind of tacky.

    Note that all the humans are properly clothed.

  7. Von Krieger says

    @Robro, 9

    I think it’s that they made it foamy everywhere, without any regard for current.

  8. says

    Rule number eighteen, especially given that so many literalists quote the NIV, possibly the most overtly sectarian “translation” ever produced, almost exclusively.

  9. says

    …apparently I’m using only sentence fragments now. Just put “is ironic” in there somewhere; it’ll make more sense.

  10. says

    I find it really amusing that Eve in Creation Museum not only has strong caucasian features, but also she has waist long sleek hair with witch she covers her breasts. If that is pre-sin image she should be unaware of her nakedness and there is no reason to have hair arranged in such an impractical way. And if it is post-sin image, she should cover herself with garments sewn from fig leaves, not with her own hair. There is nothing in the bible about her covering her chest with long hair.
    As usual, creationists display a truly amazing combination of ignorance, smugness and hypocrisy, when they chastise others for inaccuracies/inconsistencies, whilst at the same time failing at both according to their own criteria.

  11. says

    Charly @ 14:

    If that is pre-sin image she should be unaware of her nakedness and there is no reason to have hair arranged in such an impractical way.

    Yes, yes, but people who come to the museum now are post-sin, and they can’t be looking at breasts or penises, why it would take their minds off the great creation museum, god, and the bible! It would cause people to sin! That’s why the breasts are covered with hair, and they are standing in water!

  12. Amphiox says

    If that is pre-sin image she should be unaware of her nakedness and there is no reason to have hair arranged in such an impractical way.

    Well, you see, pre-fall, her hair just naturally grew that way, and her brain and sensory apparatus was wired up not to be bothered by it. And there were no nettles or burrs or anything else that would catch the hair.

    Things only became impractical after the Fall. Indeed, the whole concept of “impractical” only came into being after the Fall. No such thing as impractical in the perfect pre-Fall world….

  13. thebookofdave says

    Hey Bodie, if God removed the serpent’s limbs, why do we still have lizards? Also, don’t refer to those myths as “accounts”.