Alright, day five is the origin of life on Earth. It talks
about god making all the animals and then making man on day six. Now,
scientifically speaking, we know that two days in a bit short for evolution to
have run its course, hence the argument between Evolutionists and Creationists.
Genesis 1
The Beginning
20 And
God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly
above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing
with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill
the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And
God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each
according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made
the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their
kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along
the ground."
27 So
God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God
blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill
the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air
and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the
whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours
for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all
the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything
that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And
it was so.
31 God
saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and
there was morning—the sixth day.
My Commentary
Verse twenty begins day five and
the beginning of life on Earth. Day five is a big day for god. First, he makes
animals to swim in the waters and then he makes birds to fly to fly in heaven.
And, they are going to be fruitful and multiply. So, now we have fish and
birds, made out of nothing by the will of god, despite the fact that they are
very complex organism. Amusingly, a big creationist argument is that animals
are to complex to have just evolved. Apparently, they are not too complex to
just pop up out of nowhere because god willed it.
So much for the fifth day. Day 6,
starting at verse 24. First god makes cows. Then he makes creeping things and
wild animals. What I find very strange is that cows, things that creep on the
Earth, and wild animals are all put in different categories. OK, god does all
this and likes it, but he’s not done with day 6 yet. Now he makes man. “Let us
make man in our image, in our likeness” First this is strange because god isn’t
supposed to have form. Second this is strange because we have few of the
qualities often ascribed to god and we never did, (biblically speaking) even in
the Garden of Eden.
So god made man to rule over all
the other animals. In this particular version of the creation story, god made
man and woman at the same time. He ordered man to subdue the planet and told
them to be fruitful and multiply. And that wraps it up for chapter one.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
between some of what is found in the Qur'an and the Bible but there are major differences that I see between the two books, I see more controversy in this blog I think
since it is about Creation of man and other living things so-- yeah, let the debate begin
I think that I could see your logic and I can relate to being so very doubtful of religious reasoning about the world and humans being made in 7 days/nights or something of that variation
I can see that when we have so much empirical data and concrete findings that have not just been forged/created by scientists-then it does become tough to keep religion and also believe in the science
ah, more thinking needs to be done on this when I am not fasting or just later (i'll come back and edit my comment)
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
When I was growing up, my mom always taught me that "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day," in other words, time means nothing to God and the Creation depicted in the Bible could very well have been over the course of thousands or even millions of years (everyone always seems to overlook that little tidbit).
I also never considered "my image" to be physical in nature (again, an idea that seems all too readily dismissed). What's wrong with the idea of having been created as Homo Erectus (or the earliest known ancestor of Homo Sapiens) and evolving from there? Nowhere does it say that how we are now is how we were created (but that, of course, is an idea that neither the scientists nor the creationists like).
I might post more later, but I have to leave right now. Feel free to comment on what I've said, though.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You've got a great theory going there - a nice happy medium. Why can't more people think that way? I've considered that an option since I was thirteen - it's a lot easier, to my mind.
Unfortunately, science and creation people prefer the idea that one's either right or wrong. One side (as a whole) doesn't want the other to be right, even if it's only in part. They're stuck in a black and white gridlock on an issue that could possibly have shades of gray.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The bible spefically uses the phrase evening and morning. It seems very clear to me that a day equals a day in this case.
As for a mental image, god is given many attributes. Humans do not posses the atributes. Therefore, mentally, we are not the image of god.
As for god starting the evolutionary process, that leaves god's existence as a problem. Where did god come from?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I still see it as metaphorically, especially considering we often use day/night, sunrise/sunset as metaphors for life and our life is hardly a single day.
Though I don't know where god came from, science has yet to prove, without a doubt, that s/he doesn't exist, which still leaves the possibility open.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The people who wrote the bible did not know about evolution. They couldn't date the world. They didn't know much about the sciences period. It made sence to them that an all powerful god could create the world in seven days. It is only when modern science brings the seven days into question does it become metaphorical.
When a property of something is that it can't be proven, I don't think it is likely to ever be scientifically disproved. Logically speaking, I am convinced of the immense improabaility of the Judeo-Christian god.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
The Hebrew word used in this context means a Literal 24hour day. It does not mean a thousand years. There are several ways of interpreting the creation story. I dont know them off the top of my head, and I am not near where I have them written down. But because people do not want to accept the fact that Genesis 1 tells us the earth was created in a 24hour day they have come up with other ways to interpret the passage. One which I have seen mentioned is the day is like a thousand years. This would have made time for some evolution to occur.
You might find this translation of the Bible interesting...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
It is called an Interlinear Bible. It takes the original Hebrew it was written in and translates it to the letter. From there on the side it gives the version that is put into the Bibles. They are not too different just sometimes it has some different wording to make it more understandable. They also have Greek for the New Testament.
I believe that it reffered to a 24 hour day. That's my point. There is no reason to assume that they did not mean a 24 hour day.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Jsaj,
You are letting yourself fall victim to a common fallacy known as chronological snobbery, which is just what it sounds like: You think that because you live now, in a time of advanced science, that you are smarter than those who lived in the past. I happen to think this isn't the case. It's true science and technology have progressed immensely in the last centurey but the human mind, I would argue, has not changed much at all. Our tools have gotten better and our lives have gotten easier so we can devote more time to the search for knowledge but the human desire to know and order hte world has not been altered.
You argue that the men that wrote the people couldn't date the world and were being literal when they used the phrases morning and evening. I disagree. Remember, Shakespeare didn't know as much about his world, probably couldn't have dated it accurately, as we can but he was still able to utilize poetry and create stunning metaphors all in the strict form of the sonnet! So too with the great authors that predate him, going back to Homer, and even the author(s) of the Gilgamesh tablets.
One of the truths of human lives is that things are cyclical. In Ecclessiastes, anotehr very old book, we are told that every thing has it's time and it's place. In other words, that writer understand that things happen in stages and cycles in a human life. Would it be so impossible that the authors of Genesis thought the same way and applied that understanding to the creation of the World? Again, it is very human to want to know and to order the world around us. That is a large part of what the Genesis author(s) was doing in writing the tome. I think it very likely that he would of put things he didn't perfectly understand (and I must point out that we, with all our knowledge, can't agree exactly how the world started) into a metaphor?
About being human, I believe the Genesis reference to man being like God uses a Hebrew word for similar in the way parents and children are alike. You can see the resemblance but you wouldn't confuse the two people. I beleive that humans have a lot of God-like traits, the thirst for knoweldge being one. Desire for justice, the ability to show compassion, the ability to question, curiosity, the ability to organize, plan for the future, and the desire to better ourselves are, I think, all vestiges of God in us.
As for where God come from, I let you know if I figure that one out ;)
Sincerely,
Jaime
*Points up* Yeah, all that. Wish I could explain it that well.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I don't think that I am smarter than people in the past. I do think that I am more informed about the Universe. Yes, our tools have gotten better. Those tools have allowed us to look at the world in new ways and come to more informed conclusions about the Universe.
I know that Shakespeare is a good writer. I know that Homer is a good writer. I know that amazing things were done by people in times when science was less understood. That does not make them right about everything. The fact is, there were things about the world that they didn't understand. That doesn't make them stupid. It just makes them ignorant about such things.
I have said that given the knowledge available to the writer's of Genisis, these beliefs are not particularly irrational. However, given the knowledge we have today, they are.
Well, your examples of god-like qualities can all be explained by an evolutionary drive for survival and betterment, but whatever.
Oh, and as for logical fallacies, ever heard of the Straw Man Fallacy?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
What do you suppose his motive is for this blog?
A fact is always better than an ideal
No need to suppose, since I will tell you. I enjoy theology. Funny, I guess, for an atheist. It's just a field that interests me. You could probably guess that my views are somewhat different from those religious people in the field. During arguments on the subject, there are often references to the bible in an attempt to uphold the religious (Christian, almost always on this site) point of view. Well, that is a logical fallacy, since the bible requires the conclusion to be true in order to be taken seriously. I decided, however, that it would be interesting and, yes, enjoyable, to look at the bible from my standpoint. That is the motive.
I will not defend myself a second time from the accusation of "cronological snobbery". Read my first reply.
And, yes,
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Like pure research you never know where value will be found.
Some of the Bible is intended to be an actual history. I find that the oldest parts, and words of jesus and the prophets are very often more like fables where the moral is the important point, not the detail. In the case of the creation story in genisis we know that full technical detail for 'how to create a universe' is not present or if it is the capabilities of the architect are beyond our understanding. I have always seen the primary moral of this story to simply identify God as having full control and ownership of all creation. This helps establish who and how great God is compared to pantheistic gods previously popular, and known to the people hearing the Hebrew oral tradition that this began as.
If you like to debate Christians, some of this detail might come up in discussions with literal interpretationists. So your excersise may not be in vain. I spent more time studying it back when I was an athiest and an agnostic.
You ask a question in one of your replies that I can answer well enough for my own sake, so perhaps you will find it useful.
"Where did god come from?"
Paraphrase of an imperfect translation:
"In the begining was the word, and the word was God." -Begining of John
"I am the Alpha and the Omega"
"Iam that I am"
So simply put God is the Truth and He is all existence as one conciousness.
Certainly not the type of thing a legalist or strict interpretor would buy, but I'm a bit more simple minded.
I went back and forth on this topic with Persivale (I really like him) on this blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/035310-is-god-real
We went on for a while, he likes to pick at outlying issues.
A fact is always better than an ideal
I read that debate and I enjoyed it. I do not think that the bible is without merit. I merely don't believe that it is worthy of being upheld as truth. And, yes there are a few literalists, although I don't recall any responding to any of my commentaries. I may be wrong.
I personally believe that the existence of a creator god is logically impossible because we are left with the question of god's origin. Either something created god or god is eternal. If god's eternal, why can't existence be eternal?
My philosophy on deities in general is this: If they exist and prove themselves to exist, I will readily believe, if they do not prove themselves to me, either because they choose not to or can't through lack of existence, I will not believe. The reason? The flip side of old pascal's wager? If I believe and I'm wrong, I'll have wasted my one life. And if there are denevolent deities, I do not believe I would be punished for that. If there are evil deities, well, I don't really think that there's much I can do.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
the significance of what Virgil has said, which is Jsaj's signature (or whatever it's called, thanks for that, i have liked it ever since i first read it and yes I'm still a Muslim ;)----- "Every man makes a god of his own desire."
We do build up the image of god out of our desire to understand this world and we do it out of a necessity which forces us to understand how this world and life works/evolved/how it began/how it will end and for most of these answers, people either turn to religion or they turn to science (and can you say science is also god?)
in that am I saying that some of the writers/or Jesus created a god of his own desire?
That Muhammad made it up to fulfill his desire and need?
For someone who doesn't have the kind of faith and belief in things that don't have to be explained in a rational and reasonable manner, YES, Jesus and Muhammad did.
But for a believer it is a totally different thing
They don't even want to question or doubt (on the whole it seems that way)
"Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right."
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
You are profiding reasons for yourself not to believe in mohamed, do you relize that?
But that probably doesn't matter to you if you think you cause Christians to lose their beliefs.
I'll tell you something though, a true Christian has Christ in his heart and does not need physical proof, but has all the proof he needs in his heart.
----"For someone who doesn't have the kind of faith and belief in things that don't have to be explained in a rational and reasonable manner, YES, Jesus and Muhammad did."
religion is faith, in the unseen and unknown (for muslims it is complete faith and submission into the teachings of Islam and belief in one God and prophet Muhammad as the last prophet)
i'm not providing reasons to anyone to falter in their faith and NO i did not for a second think I "caused Chrisitans to lose their beliefs"
my attempt was to explain and try to understand it myself
"Things have a life of their own. It's just a matter of waking up their souls."
--Gabriel García Márquez
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
Hey, Jsaj!
Sorry I didn't respond earlier; I was kind of indisposed for the first half of the week. I do remember the Straw Man fallacy but I don't think, in all fairness, I can be accused of it. Give me one more try to make my point and then accuse me of whatever you want. You say,
"The people who wrote the bible did not know about evolution. They couldn't date the world. They didn't know much about the sciences period. It made sence to them that an all powerful god could create the world in seven days. It is only when modern science brings the seven days into question does it become metaphorical."
What I was trying to point out in my last post was that, although the Biblical authors didn't know about Genesis they did know about everyday life. They know about animal husbandry and how it takes time for a calf to become a cow. They knew about pottery and how it takes time to turn clay into pots. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they knew enough about the world and how much time it takes for things to be created that they too would find it incredible, even unbelievable, that the world was created in six literal days. What I'm arguing is that it isn't just when modern science questions the seven day theory that the language becomes metaphorical. I think it was a metaphor all along.
On a slightly different note, to you ever wonder what people in the future would/will make of our journals and blogs if they are ever interested enough to read them. Not the forseeable future, but way they hack out there in 3***, if we make it that long. Sometimes I write things in my journal like, "all is dark and dreary," or, "this is the sunrise of my life," or, again, "this is the twilight of my youth." (Um, I have a flair for the dramatic, maybe, a bit). Do you think people way the heck out in the future will read those lines and think that for some reason the climate of earth in the past was such that people only experienced one sunrise in their lifetime, or avoided sunlight, or something weird like that. Sometimes I wonder. This brings me to an almost unrelated thought. If I was a vampire and sunlight was death to me, I would totally live way up in Alaska were it's sunset/twilight/dark for half the year. Just a random thought.
Well, I hope I've acquitted myself of logical fallacies. Although with the vampire comment I might have acquitted myself of logic altogether. . .
Sincerely,
Jaime
Alright, I get what you are saying about the growing calf thing. However, the point is they didn't have the same tools we do. They could not know the origin of existence. If a god created everything that they saw, why couldn't he have done it in six days.
If it is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? How much stuff that doesn't make sense can you claim is a metaphor, because there is a whole lot of that. What about Adam and Eve, if thy are metaphorical, one of the foundations of the Christian Religion, original sin, stops existing.
There is a difference between a blog and a Holy Book. The difference is that people uphold a holy book as the source for all truth.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
You're right, there is a vast amount of difference between a blog or journal and a holy book but it still is an interesting supposal isn't it? I mean, what if people did take our words literally in the future or tried to construct the past based off of one person's account. It sounds like the stuff of a good movie but I can't think of one on the subject off hand. Would anyone else recommend any?
Well, back to la Sancta Biblia, you are right, they couldn't have known the origin of existence, but I would argue that we don't either. To be perfectly honest I have an equally hard time wrapping my mind around the universe beginning with a singularlity that bends the laws of physics as I do with wrapping it around a literal six day creation period. The beginning of the universe is hard to comprehend no matter what.
Why couldn't God have created the universe in six days? I kind of see you're argument there, at least I think I do. Is it something along the lines of they didn't know how the universe started, so they ascribed it to an omnipotent God, and since He was omnipotent why not make the story really cool and have Him do everything in six days?
I kind of see that but I don't think it does justice to the truley revolutionary view of God that the Hebrew people held. The Hebrew God, and I am talking specifically about the God of the nomadic Hebrews and doing my best to leave out Judeo-Christian principles here, is a God that is intimately connected and interested in the laws of nature. The laws of nature not only were, for lack of better expression, written by Him but are a reflection of part of His character. In short, the laws of nature are consistent with, though not binding to, the God that created them. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that a God who appoints a seasona and a time within that season for plants to bear fruit would take seasons and times within those seasons to make His creation.
If it is a metaphor what is it a metaphor for? Well, like most metaphors it is a way of explaining something we don't fully know but can relate do something we do know. In my mind it plays out like this. Some Hebrew nomads are writting down their world view for whatever reason. They say to each other, "Hey we have the earth, we have light, water, land, animals, and ourselves which we think are superior to animals. We're not really sure how we got all these things but we believe God made them in succession. We're not really sure when but there's an order and it seems like some things would need to come first so maybe it would be like you got a few things in one period, and that would be like the first day and then when those things were settled that would be the end of their day and then some more stuff would come from that." Aside from using first person plural and ridiculously long, run-on, English sentences, in my imagaine they are drinking lemonade and playing cards. Go figure!
Also, I don't think the idea of original sin breaks down if the creation account is metaphorical. What is the original sin according to Genesis? The original sin is trying to put oneself in the place of God. To humans do that? To a Christian way of thinking, yes, all the time. The basic theme is that there is a consistent tendency observed and then a story is told to educate people about that tendency and why it is so much a part from human nature.
Phew! This has gotten ungodly long and we've left the first chapter of Genesis.
Sincerely,
Jaime
PS: I love your icon!
If someone worshipped what we wrote today, I think it would be just as foolish as what are doing today.
I find that a highly improbable singularity is still less improbable than god. Adding god to equation makes everything even more improbable.
If you admit that Genesis is an attempt to explain the Universe even if that explanation is wrong, you leave the whole bible up to the same scrutiny. When you do that, you admit that it is fallacle and therefore, there is no reason to believe any other unsupportable events in the bible.
If being curious and trying to expand human knowledge is sinful, then the Christian religion is messed up. There is no gentler way of putting it. Anything that tries to stunt human growth is wrong in my eyes.
Icon- ever hear of a British Sci-fi commedy called Red Dwarf?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"If you admit that Genesis is an attempt to explain the Universe even if that explanation is wrong, you leave the whole bible up to the same scrutiny."
Isn't scrutiny what we are up to here?
I think it is important to consider the historical context of the origins of the Hebrew religion. These events took place long ago, but at the time they were modern thought.
The people at the time were not inventing religion, they were improving it. All of the existing mostly pantheistic beliefs had their own version of the origin of existence.
No account of how the details of creation are communicated to the authors is given. Poetic license by the authors could be assumed by any but the most dogmatic readers. More recent books like Leviticus actually claim dialog from burning bushes. Nothing of this sort is attributed in Genesis. It came from oral tradition for an unspecified time before they were written as they exist in the oldest copies.
Suppose you had a sincere revelation/inspiration that God was a single being in control of everything. How would you share the benefit with the people around you? Preaching, stories (No TV back then) and your stories had better be entertaining or the audience is going over to see the show they put on at the fire god temple. The Prophets/Storytellers were up to the task, and a few hundred/thousand years later they added some passages that outlawed the other temples. Sometime later someone added a passage that insisted every word was inspired and thereby outlawed discussion of inconsistencies.
The inspiration (s) that resulted in monotheistic theology succeeded in a social Darwinist sense. I would suggest that creation stories were a required part of the religion business, and their accuracy has no importance. If those stories had accounts of single celled to multi-celled evolution, and dinosaurs skeptics would have ridiculed the authors out of the religion business long before we could develop sophisticated theories to demonstrate that the might have been accurate.
Giant Lizards, maybe but the tiny invisible creatures is too much! Do you take me for a fool?
A fact is always better than an ideal
Scrutiny is what I am up to. I am not opposed to it. It is perfectly fine with me to get rid of things that don't make sense.
As for the rest, there are stories outside of creation that don't make sense and, if part of the bible was written for entertainment purposes, why not all of it?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"if part of the bible was written for entertainment purposes, why not all of it?"
History, instruction in righteousness, Inspiration, understanding. The best teachers I ever had were entertaining as well. The kingdom of God is not a place it is a concept, or spiritual kingdom. A book can only contain a tiny fraction of creation, or its laws. It can contain an idea, or seed that enlightens a ready mind. Picking at details of any 2000 year old book is not going to be as valuable as looking for the lessons and meaning it contains.
I wish you would skip forward to Job or Ecclesiastes.
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
A fact is always better than an ideal
I intend to do this cronologically. Anyway, like I told you, there are plenty of people on the site who take the bible literally. That's the whole point of this series. This is not an attack on faith or god. It is an attack on the bible. The basis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Do you believe in original sin?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"Do you believe in original sin?"
Adam eve and the apple is one of the more obvious fables IMHO.
Eden is a metaphore for the innocence of a child, or a dumb beast. They have been created with a certain nature and any action they take is innocent. The truth (god, their environment) is all they react to (walks beside them).
The apple is clearly described as the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Thus as the fruits of intelligence greed, pride, and the rest enter the picture the lies that we like to beleive (satan, the serphent) interfere with their ability to see the truth (god). We can imagine (with inteligence) a reality that fits our desires. The temptation to do so is hard to resist, and everyone does so to some extent. We KNOW subconciously that we are doing this, so guilt (shame of nakedness) creeps in. Innocence lost.
There is also a hebrew lineage factor embeded in the story. Just to PROVE they are gods chosen. That is an ironic reenforcement to how I interpret the moral IMHO.
A fact is always better than an ideal
So, I gather that you do not believe in original sin. Am I right?
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Exactly what you are asking is not really clear to me.
If you mean that the exact scene and characters actually played out as described in the story of the garden of eden I am forced to reserve judgement due to lack of evidence. The relationship of that story to my faith in God, by my best understanding, is alegorical as I described. There are Many things that may or may not be true, both in the bible and in every doctrine including that of science. I do not arbitrarilly assign factuality, or falsehood.
I actually worship, and pray to the Truth. That devotion (love of the Truth) is not based on thinking that I own the truth, but rather that the Truth owns me. It is central to that faith that I am wrong (sinful) in many ways.
"Repentance involves a change of mind -- waking up to reality, seeing things as they really are, and recognizing the error of your ways"
http://www.believers.org/believe/bel192.htm
Not superstition, obedience to the Truth.
A fact is always better than an ideal
You know, I'm sorry, I was going somewhere with all this, but I'm not sure where. So, yeah. That's a bit problematic.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil