The First Six Days: Why the Genesis Account is not Compatible with Science
72
Challenge Accepted!
As it turns out, the arrogance of Christians are what propel me to write. This hub is in response to HeadlyvonNoggin and his hub, "Genesis Creation Story is Scientifically Accurate," which can be found here. Headly claims that the first six days in the Genesis account are indeed chronological and therefore compatible with science. I will be taking each biblical day and showing why this creation account in Genesis is incompatible with science. To be fair to Headly, I will use the exact same bible verses he has, so there is no question of translation, even though as we all know, translation is a big issue with any bible. But first, the reason for this rebuttal.
Obviously, as you can see from HeadlyvonNoggin's hub, this is just his personal interpretation of a vague text that can have as many interpretations as there are people in the world. Headly offers no supporting evidence, but assures me in the comments that everything he has stated is verifiable. When asked why he hasn't submitted his "theory" to the National Academy of Science, he skips over that and asserts once again that all is verifiable and both Christians and scientists are just too arrogant to take him seriously. Sigh. Truly, I tire of this childishness sometimes, but I will take his little challenge, and annihilate him in the process.
First Day
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Headly claims that this verse can be placed chronologically as the Big Bang which is thought to have brought the universe into existence as we know it. This verse is vague enough to mean just that. The problem is, that it is too vague for one to claim that it means just that. It can mean anything. There are no definite markers here and hundreds of origin stories from other cultures have started the exact same way. "In the beginning," can mean any time. It can mean in the beginning of a particular tribe's origin, as it usually does in other origin myths like the Kojiki, for example. You can place it in time wherever you like, as Headly has done.
Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Here Headly claims that this represents the end of the Hadeon Eon, which is still very early in the formation of the Earth, but water was already in existence. So, in essence, the earth was created before the sun, or did I miss something here. Headly does suggest that this vague text is chronological, correct? Doesn't chronological mean "in order"? Another point is that the verse states the earth was "without form." The earth most certainly did have form at this stage--it was round--but, as Headly has done, he has taken artistic liberty to interpret this verse as he sees fit, which anyone can do. So far, I see no big discovery here.
Genesis 1: 3-4 - And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Oh! There's the sun! Right after he created the earth. Or is it the sun? It's just so vague, I can't tell. Light must come from a source so we must assume that it is, but it isn't specified. Not very scientific, but, let's give Headly the benefit of the doubt and agree with him that this is the point in time where god has created the sun. Well, Headly, there's still a problem, because he still created the earth before the sun. One can expect that from the primitive desert dwellers that wrote this very flawed book. Now, according to Headly, the sun was created in the very beginning with the heavens, and at this point in time the sun is just becoming visible on the earth. Honestly, how much do you have to read into a vague verse like this to get all of that?
Genesis 1: 5 - And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So, Headly claims that with the sun and the earth all in place we have the first day, even though this day took almost 10 billion years. Even within the first day, Headly's chronology argument is crushed. His claim that the very first verse suggests the creation of the sun is weak. It does not state that at all because it isn't until the fourth day that god creates "two great lights" to rule the day and the night. Why all this redundancy if he already created the sun on the first day?
Second Day
Genesis 1: 6-8 - And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
More redundancy. Why create the heavens on day two? Didn't he already create them on the first day? This is far from being consistent with science. It is a jumbled mess that anyone can manipulate to their liking. But according to Headly, this verse is suggesting the creation of an atmosphere on day two.
Third Day
Genesis 1:9-10 - And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
Then, on the third day the continents are formed, according to Headly. So, let me get this straight, Headly, there is a planet made of rock on the first day, atmosphere on the second, and then the planet made of rock forms continents. Sorry, Headly, once again you are reading exactly what you want into this. It doesn't say anything about continents, it says "dry land," and that was already around before the atmosphere. Your claim was that this was chronologically sound, right? Gathering of the waters? Where was the water before this supposed to be, just floating around? And here you claim to already be in the Proterozoic Eon and we have yet to hear of the moon.
Genesis 1:11-13 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
According to Headly, these verses are speaking of the Cambrian Explosion some 542 million years ago. So, let us recap. We have the creation of the earth before the source of the light has been created, god created the "heavens" twice, then the rock planet he created on the first day forms "dry land" on the third. This is chronological? Sounds like wishful thinking. So, this concludes day three.
Fourth Day
Genesis 1: 14-19 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"; and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Here's where it gets interesting. According to Headly, the sun and the moon were already created on the first day and on day four he merely "positioned" them where they should be. How absolutely and utterly ridiculous. Headly even goes on to caution that the creation story is being told in the past tense, so understandably, anyone can get confused when focusing on a single verse. Well, thanks for that input, Headly. Humanity is so lucky to have someone as astute as you to clear things up for us.
In actuality, Headly fails here. If his claim is that the creation story is scientifically and chronologically sound, the evidence for that has to also be sound. His only evidence is his personal interpretation of an ancient text and he is even telling us exactly how we should be reading it in order to come to his same conclusion. In science, the evidence has to be able to stand on its own. It has to be tested by other scientists and they have to arrive at the same conclusion in order for it to be sound. This just does not measure up. It fails as a scientific argument and it fails as a chronological argument.
Fifth Day
Genesis 1: 20-23 - And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
From these verses Headly tries to insert his own input, just as he has been doing all along. He claims that from this we can see a direct line of evolution from vertebrates, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds. Once again, I don't think it is possible to gather all that from god calling forth all creatures that moveth. It is merely wishful thinking. One can assign this meaning to a myriad of ancient texts. Interestingly enough, though, Headly also makes the claim that the Hebrew word for "great whales" can also mean "the monsters," or "the great ones."
It's interesting that he would choose this specifically to offer a direct Hebrew translation here and ignore the direct Hebrew translation of the first verse of Genesis, Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayamin ve'et ha'aretz, which means simply, "at the head, god created everything," and not that he specifically created the heavens and the earth. This is more of an introduction to the story of how he created everything, as the creation story then goes on to describe. In that case it is accurate to infer that he did create the sun on the fourth day and not on the first day, like Headly would like us to believe. Or, if it is intended to mean that he already created "everything" on the first day, why would he need the other five days to describe what else he created. You fail again, Headly.
Sixth Day
Genesis 1: 24-25 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
So, here one is supposed to infer that this is speaking of mammals. Once again, it clearly states that on day five he called forth the creatures from the sea and on day six he is calling forth land animals. If Headly is claiming that this is scientifically sound, he fails again because we all know that life emerged from the water, so there would be no need to call forth separate life from the land. The life he already called forth from the water would cover it with evolution. More wishful thinking.
Genesis 1: 26-28 - And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Headly claims that this is consistent with the evolution of man. Really? So, god looks more like an ape and we have evolved beyond his unsightly appearance? And why would he need to create humans separately? We evolved from sea life just like every other living thing on earth. Day five should have covered that. This is not consistent with science at all.
Genesis 1: 29-31 - And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat"; and it was so. And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
So, here we come to the end of day six. Nothing scientific here, either, just a recap of what he created.
I have to say that for someone who claims to be scientific Headly does not know or perhaps ignores things like scientific method and honest inquiry. And when asked for his sources he has none other than the bible. I don't know of any honest and reputable scientist that would only offer his own personal interpretation as evidence for anything. That has to be the most arrogant thing a man of science could do. Obviously, there are really no sources he could provide because, let's be honest, what rational person who calls themselves a scientist would waste time trying to connect such vague verses to solid, testable, provable, scientific fact. It isn't necessary to do so. We have already established that god is not necessary for evolution, and we pretty much have the birth of the universe covered minus a few details. The point is, we are making discoveries every day. Every day we are learning more and realizing that god just doesn't fit. In fact, he only seems to complicate things. Here is the proof. How many hoops did Headly have to jump through to justify this mess?
Conclusion
For someone who claims to be scientific Headly is an absolute disgrace. The National Academy of Science would agree. He claims that the National Academy of Science would not know enough about this because not enough research on this exists in order to assess it correctly. How funny! The elite scientists of the world would be stumped by Headly's magnificent discovery. If that doesn't spell arrogance I don't know what does. However, I suspect that this will not phase Headly since what he is hoping that I will dispel is the science, not the rhetoric. In a comment to me he states, " I expect your rebuttal hub to contain scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts what I'm claiming." I don't think I have to go that far, Headly. Your logic fails, therefore the rest of your argument fails.
More Interesting Hubs
- NEETs and "Eden of the East"
A review and explanation of this wonderful anime. - Kenneth Miller: an Unlikely Hero
Kenneth Miller is a very needed voice in advocating evolution in schools, and ironically, he is a Christian. - Know Your Memes
Every atheist should know their memes. This is an important weapon to have in our arsenal, so pay attention. - Why God as an Answer Makes You Definitively Wrong: More on the Arrogance of Christianity
To continue with the discussion of why Christians are arrogant, let us talk about the need to always have an answer, and if no answer exists, let's say, "God did it."
Vote Up and Share!Loading...
emma,
You might want to ask Headly why the second chapter of Genesis does not match the first chapter, as far as order of occurences. Also, you might see if Headly can explain the similarities in these stories:
"The Cherokee creation myth says that Mother Earth was suspended from the Father Sky, Gulanlati, by four strong cords. These cords protected the Mother Earth from falling down on the ocean of water. She was like a floating island."
" The Zulu creation story begins with the almighty Unkulunkulu. They believe that the creator originated from the reeds and it is from there that he brought forth the people and cattle. According to Zulu’s the creators created everything in the universe."
"The Bantu creation story mentions the great god Bumba. Once when there was no light and whole world was full of water...."
The Genesis creation story is certainly not unique, and only a moron would suggest it has any scientific merit.
Thanks for the comments guys! Yeah, he's deluded alright. I'm sure he'll see these comments, AKA. I wanted to fit more in but I felt like I was making this hub so freaking long! He was clear that he wanted me to dispel the science, though. I think you have to have sound logic first, before claiming that your science needs to be dispelled. LOL!
Originally, the Hebrews - certain Caananites actually] were polytheistic,but the priests under JOsiah, I think, had scribes make up all the fables of the Tanakh from their malicious,mischievous misanthropy. Maybe the plural remained as a royal prerogative.
Anyway, the Tanakh errs in contradictions within and with reality.
And Yeshua, that cult leader,god-man, miracle monger, man of his times, was as unique as all the others! How he loved Hell! Therefore, the mysteries he used to block his message from most people ensued.
Emma, I appreciate the time you took to dig into this. I wish I had gotten a more accurate depiction of what I was saying, but you did include the link so anyone who really wants to know can read for themselves. There's no need for me to really try to pick this apart as everything's covered in my hub already. The link I provided to you, which is also in my profile, goes into even further detail. A side by side comparison of what I'm saying versus what you said says it all better than I ever could.
Like I said before, I don't expect you to just read and accept this. I understand the entire concept is illogical to you. I get that. And I'm not going to be able to convince you I'm not just delusional. I get that too. For you to even consider for a moment that I may be onto something would be a truly earth-shattering experience for you, which would maybe explain the emotional reaction I often got.
"He claims that the National Academy of Science would not know enough about this because not enough research on this exists in order to assess it correctly."
Most of the stuff you mentioned as my 'view' I could at least get some sense of how you might have gotten what you got, as twisted up as it may have been, but that one totally stumps me. I have no idea where you got that. I can't even 'un-twist' it and make sense out of it. However, I'll be glad to forward this on to the National Academy of Science. I hadn't even considered it.
I just hope that those that read this don't simply take your word for it and read my view for themselves.
"You might want to ask Headly why the second chapter of Genesis does not match the first chapter, as far as order of occurences."
This is covered in my other hub. I only have two so far. But here's a spoiler... they're not the same event. That's one of the centuries-old interpretations that really throw things off. The humans in Genesis 1 were the early humans, Genesis 2 was Adam.
Don't you just love how Heady speaks like he KNOWS something no one else knows! And, Heady, really? You don't know where I got that from? Let me help you.
"The only thing is, the scientific understanding that actually verifies it's correct is still very new. And yes it would be very easy to miss because Christians are arrogant and think they already have it figured out to the point that they can completely dismiss science categorically, and people on the other side of the fence miss it simply because they have the same view as you, that there's basically nothing to see here."
That's your direct response to my comment where I tell you you should alert the National Academy of Science. I'm not twisting anything. You are arrogant and deluded and I hope you do send your "findings" in to the National Academy of Science. Please keep us updated with hubs on that little adventure.
So, I take it that means that Headly will not be responding to my claims that his argument is not logical, first of all, and far from scientific. Typical. Dead before he hit the ground.
lmao oh that was nice. I love how Headly actually admitted xtians were arrogant. Nothin' like proven your point right? Classic, just classic.
Okay, thank you for 'untwisting' that for me. Let me see if I can help you.
This response had nothing to do with the National Academy of Science or your suggestion that I send it to them. This was in response to your comment about me being so arrogant as to think I could maybe have found something that nobody else has.
I guess I could have summed all of that up by simply saying there aren't many who respect both sides of the story enough to really consider both equally. As I state in my profile, I thought I might be delusional. I understand how absolutely arrogant this sounds. For a long time I never shared this with anyone. But it kept making sense out of things across the proverbial board. So, I was either actually onto something, or I was delusional. In either case, the best thing to do was to bounce the idea off of others.
I've now been pretty engrossed in this for over a year now, engaging in extremely detailed discussions covering everything from science to history to the origins of the books of the bible to reading and comparing the original Hebrew translations. There's way more to this than just creation. This is just the tip of the iceberg. If I sound arrogant, if I come off as knowing something no one else knows, it's maybe because I've been through this quite a few times. I've had many conversations with a lot of really smart people who have brought much stronger arguments against my claims. And these have only further confirmed I'm very likely onto something. So I guess by this point I may come off as arrogant. That's understandable.
In fact, I can pretty much sum up what you've brought to the table thus far as 'typical response #3', which is really the saddest one to me. That's when I'm discussing with someone who has a fairly strong grasp of science and who likely already has a base knowledge of things I'm referring to, and who could possibly even teach me something I've never known before, yet decide to dismiss me as stupid because I'm a big enough idiot to believe in God. These same people who demand respect for science and it's methods, yet don't give the same attention to detail when considering the text of Genesis because they have personal hang-ups tied to it that they just can't get past. So they end up lashing out at me.
If you ever consider approaching this as if you didn't already know it all, if you decide to come with something more resembling an actual valid response, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.
Alright look, I should probably apologize for calling you a dumbass, it was in the heat of the moment, and I actually do feel bad about it, so my apologies.
Allow me to properly phrase my opinion. And that's all it is, opinion. Personally, after 20 years of Catholicism, I came to the revelation that the bible was nothing but fiction. I have a very analytical mind, and always need proof for such outlandish claims. However, at the same time, you are talking to someone who actually follows a pagan spirituality, I am a witch. While logic, science and witchcraft seem to have nothing in common, to me they do. So, I can understand your "quest" (for lack of a better term), to find the truth in something you believe in so deeply.
This may come off as insane to many people who have commented thus far and have read my previous comments, however, I don't think your delusional. I don't believe your interpretation has any scientific merit, but I don't think your delusional. At this point we're getting into the psychology of religion. People have tried to prove the bible for years. No one will ever prove God exists or that the bible is scientifically sound for two main reasons. One: It was written by man, and man does not have the ability to look at any issue or tell any story from a completely unbiased perception. We are just not evolved enough for our brains to filter out all perception. Two: if God or the bible was proven by science, religion would cease to exist because all religion is faith based. If there is proof, there is no faith and therefore, no need for religion.
So, while it's a fairly moot point to argue science versus religion, because either side will never change their mind, it is still worthwhile simply to, as you said, bounce ideas off of one another. In essence, we are all looking for the same thing, a valuable reason for life as we know it to exist. Whether we find it in religion, spirituality, or logic and reason, is a matter of personal perception, opinion and psychology.
There. I feel better, which means I was right to apologize and attempt to make some worthwhile conversation out of a terrible mess I made.
:D
I appreciate that, Daughter Of Maat.
I understand your point about faith. I don't expect what I'm trying to point out to prove God's existence. I more want to show that our modern scientific understanding can coexist with God and the bible. That the case isn't closed.
Basically, right now, we're almost split in half. Just over half the world's population is either Christian or Muslim. The next largest group are athiests/agnostic/non-religious. We can't get anywhere if half the world completely dismisses the other half. Either direction.
Christians dismissing science has hampered progress for generations. Lately there's been a backlash coming the other direction, which is warranted I think but still ultimately counter-productive. Like my discussion with Emma. We can't simply discuss anything because there's an immediate condescension there.
I have too much faith in humanity and human intuition to be able to accept that half the world's population is completely wrong. In fact, in my mind it would be right up God's alley to ultimately find out we're all mostly right if we could just simply get past the bickering, show some mutual respect, and come together to find the actual truth that's been lying right there in the middle between us the whole time.
Headly the issue here is that you are trying to assert your personal interpretation of a very flawed text as science, and that will never fly. There is nothing else to discuss, sir. You have failed at providing any kind of supporting evidence that can affirm that your personal interpretation is correct. You stated that the Genesis account is chronological, it isn't. I proved that. You claimed that it is scientifically sound, it isn't. It can't be because it is not chronological. You interpretation may seem great to you, but you are, as Daughter of Maat stated, biased towards your own opinion. Of course you think it's great! You have now bounced it off an educated person, and my conclusion is that it is nothing. Deal with it.
Oh, my. He's still at it!
Really, this is sad. The man is likely very troubled and may be in need of professional help. I think it's best to ignore people like this.
I think I might have to. He challenged me to prove his "theory" wrong. I have. He hasn't even addressed the arguments I make in my hub. He just keeps insisting that I am condescending. Okay, he's not delusional. He's just insane.
Headly, I do have to agree with you on that point. Unfortunately, Christianity has a horrible historical reputation, and I believe it's simply a matter of the evolution of the human mind at the time. (I'm speaking of the crusades etc.) Every religious group has had some sort of historical reputation that has doomed them in the eyes of the non-religious, and I have to say from my perspective, the pagans are pretty ticked (I say this with humor) and I'm sure other religious groups who have been slighted by Christians feel the same. Unfortunately, again, those groups are most likely holding onto a grudge they have had for millenia. This does neither side any good.
I say this next part with respect, have you looked into the history of Christianity? Not the bible, the religion itself? I ask because I studied it in great detail before I converted to paganism. I was surprised by what I found. The rituals, the devil, even Hell have all been derived from pagan religions. Hell specifically was taken from the Norse Goddess Hel. Hel was essentially, the Goddess of the Norse version of the underworld although she only received a portion of the dead souls unlike, say, the Egyptian Underworld. This is also where Christianity gets the distinction between heaven and Hel.
I could go on and on, but I should probably just write a hub on it. When Christianity began, it was easier to assimilate the pagan holidays into Christian ones, because it promoted conversion. So, all religions have their historical demons.
I, unfortunately, do not share you faith in humanity for this reason. There has been too much bloodshed over who's God is the right one, and too many people have died standing up for what they believe. Humanity has quite along way to go in it's evolution before either side will be able to sit down and actually talk without it resulting in a war. But I'm also a misanthrope, so I'm not really optimistic about humanity's future, although there are some people in the world today, who are wise enough to listen and discuss instead of going straight for the throat, and I guess that should give me some hope. Hope is a bit emotional for me however, not fond of emotion... lol
Emma -
"He just keeps insisting that I am condescending. Okay, he's not delusional. He's just insane."
These two sentences are literally butted up against each other. You typed one, then the other. All in the same thought. This resembles insane much more than anything I've said.
"I think I might have to. He challenged me to prove his "theory" wrong. I have."
To prove my theory wrong you first have to understand my theory. Your hub clearly illustrates you don't. Trying to argue from this point would just be a lot of wheel-spinning.
Condescending - Assuming a tone of superiority, or a patronizing attitude.
If there is not mutual respect, there is condescension. Whether that be respect for me or the source material I draw from. You respect neither, yet want to have a discussion. What is so hard to understand about that?
Headly, either put up or shut up. I have done my part, all you are doing now is whining. Get over it, move on, or provide the supporting evidence. Your interpretation just doesn't cut it. It's basically the equivalent of moving the decimal point over. "Look, I know all of our data concludes that the answer is this, but what if the decimal point were here? huh? Huh?" That is laughable, sir. And that is all you have done.
Daughter Of Maat,
I am familiar with the history of Christianity. A lot of blame lies at the feet of organized religion. It's man-made. Humans muck things up.
If you look at the commandments God gave the Israelites, there is a theme. The first ones say to recognize God as the authority. The rest have everything to do with how we treat each other. When Jesus was asked what commandments were most important, he simply said, "Love God and love one another."
All the rest of those horrible things all throughout history done in the name of God show no resemblance to what God actually asked of us. Religion and God are two separate things. Though most religions are based on the bible, including Genesis, Genesis and religion are not the same thing. I think it's important to keep that distinction in mind.
Genesis is very old. There are plenty of theories regarding how old it is and who wrote it, but we simply do not know. Yet it's still believed by half the world's population thousands of years later. Whether or not you agree with it or believe it, it plays a vital role in humanity's existence. It speaks to people on some base level that keeps it relevant.
As much as people want to believe we can finally get past all the negative things done in God's name, we can't dismiss Genesis even with all we know now scientifically. Science only clarifies it further.
"Headly, either put up or shut up. I have done my part, all you are doing now is whining. Get over it, move on, or provide the supporting evidence. Your interpretation just doesn't cut it. It's basically the equivalent of moving the decimal point over. "Look, I know all of our data concludes that the answer is this, but what if the decimal point were here? huh? Huh?" That is laughable, sir. And that is all you have done."
Emma, think about it. What we're basically discussing here is the difference between how you interpret what Genesis 1 says and how I do. That's all. So by your own standards you have not proven me wrong because you can't confirm your interpretation with any evidence either. You simply don't agree with how I interpret it.
I know you think you've got the entirety of scientific understanding on your side. I'm not arguing our scientific understanding. I completely agree with it. That's a big part of my argument as well. We agree.
The fact is, I don't have to do much to make it fit. The parts that you're just not buying are because they conflict with your already-decided interpretation. I know that's hard to recognize. I've been through it with many people. Some finally get it. Others simply don't.
Then you have no scientific discovery here! Are you so dense that you just don't get it? Your claim was that you were on to something, now you are agreeing with me that this is just your interpretation? You are insane. My initial point when I first read your hub was that you should be honest and responsible when posting garbage like that by stating that this is merely your interpretation. I would not have had a problem with it then at all. But you were so arrogant to insinuate that you had some kind of scientific breakthrough. What nonsense! I am coming down hard on you because you are foolish and selfish! Grow up! People work hard all their lives to make scientific discoveries. It would be sooooo easy to just move the decimal point over. That would just solve everything. But that wouldn't be ethical. What you have done is not ethical. And continuing to argue about this with me proves how truly childish you are. No one will ever take a person like you seriously because you are the equivalent to a cheater. You just want to put some nonsense out there, not provide any evidence, call it a theory, and then argue with those that criticize you for it. Go waste someone else's time. you have wasted enough of mine.
Don't confuse you're misunderstanding me with me being childish or cheating or whatever. It's your own assumptions you're wrestling with over there, not what I said. I said the creation story is scientifically accurate. Everything on the science side of the fence that I reference can be confirmed. You then insisted that I provide evidence that my interpretation is accurate. I said over and over again there's nothing to provide, and asked you repeatedly what exactly it is you think I could.
Maybe you should just walk away from this for a while, get some air, think about something else for a while, then re-read what I said. I've been consistent all along.
I'll have all weekend to think about, but asserting that Genesis is scientific based merely on your own personal interpretation is just as bad because you did not stop at, "this is just my interpretation of it," your entire homepage on Hubpages goes on and on about this "discovery" you have made. I think you are the one that is confused and you conveniently change your claim when necessary.
I haven't changed anything. The actual 'discovery' I'm talking about in my profile isn't covered in creation. It's chapter 6...
Genesis 6:1-3 - When HUMAN BEINGS began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the SONS OF GOD saw that the DAUGHTERS OF HUMANS were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] HUMANS forever, for they ARE MORTAL[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
Adam wasn't the first human and Genesis confirms it. All through Genesis there's references to 'others' that just never made sense. Now they do. As do many, many other things.
That's the discovery. That's what takes Genesis out of the realm of mythology or metaphorical rhetoric and places it squarely in real history. Adam was not the beginning of humans, he was the beginning of free will.
This offers an explanation, carved in stone and extremely old, that can potentially explain how the Sumerians became a civilization so quickly. They themselves say they were taught in the oldest known written records that we know of. Older than the bible many believe.
There's much more to this than what we've covered here. I have not changed my claim. I stand behind it. What else could my interpretation be other than my interpretation? I simply show that in the context of known science, creation, as well as everything beyond it throughout the rest of the bible, as well as unexplainable things far outside of the bible, make much more sense.
Once again, no evidence. Just the rumblings of a madman. That is not a scientific discovery, sir. You are deluded. You are going by a translation of a text that has been changed to fit the criteria for an origin of the entire world, when the Hebrew confirms that is is merely speaking of the origin of a tribe, one people, not the world. A REAL scientist would want to confirm that the translation he was working with was correct, FIRST, before spouting such ignorant drivel. I already proved that the first verse in Genesis is incorrect in this hub, and you have completely ignored it. You are just going to ignore any criticism and go on down your path of madness. Go right ahead, sir. I will continue to embarrass you every step of the way.
Where exactly did I say this was a 'scientific discovery'? Once again you're wrestling with your own assumptions. In this case the assumption appears to be that words like 'discovery' and 'theory' only apply to the definition attributed to the scientific method. If nothing else, the bit further down where I say "I am not an expert..." should help clear that up.
"A REAL scientist..."
Again, never claimed to be a scientist, real or fake.
"You are going by a translation of a text that has been changed to fit the criteria for an origin of the entire world"
Again, we're working with assumptions. I only supplied you a translated version because I assume you don't speak Hebrew. If you do then that's a mistake in assumptions on my part.
"I already proved that the first verse in Genesis is incorrect in this hub, and you have completely ignored it."
Again, I'm not going to pick and choose what to argue and what not to when the whole thing shows such deep emotional resentment towards me and my beliefs. However, if it makes you happy, I'll cover this one.
I'm not sure what source you're getting that from. The Hebrew version found here ... http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTp ... says e-shmim (the heavens) and e-artz (the earth).
"I will continue to embarrass you every step of the way."
So far the only thing embarrassing has been your emotional outbursts.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with your God versus religion distinction. All religion has a God at the heart of it, I don't think you can really separate the two.I do agree that humans have made a mess of organized religion, but the reason organized religion came about was what I was really getting at.
"All the rest of those horrible things all throughout history done in the name of God show no resemblance to what God actually asked of us"
I agree here, but this also is where interpretation of the bible comes into play. Those horrible things were done because of how the offenders interpreted the bible, Genesis included. This is where the arrogance of Christianity really gets bad, people were killed if they didn't convert, that's not following the commandments. It's following an interpretation of the commandments. Again, yes, humans screwed it up, the commandments and bible were twisted into whatever they wanted it to say so that they would have evidence that they were right. This is the problem with all the religions that use the Bible as their foundation. That book can be twisted into whatever you want it to be, and I believe that's the point everyone was trying to make.
But, because religion is what it is, interpretation is par for the course. There's nothing wrong with interpreting the bible into a personal meaning, until it leads to the killing of others and loss of human rights. This is the fundamental flaw in all religion. Perception is everything.
I personally believe anything and everything in the bible is fiction and mainly because it was written by man. It truly doesn't matter how old it is. The Egyptian hieroglyphs in the tombs of the pharaohs are older than the bible, but that doesn't make them the ultimate truth. They, too, were written by men. Man is inherently corruptible, and that corruption finds its way into everything, and the bible is no exception.
Well done, Emma. How could the earth form in the absence of the sun, when we know the sun is the center of the solar system and was essential to creating all of the planets?
And the verse clearly says God "made" the sun, not that he "positioned" the sun. Haha.
The fact of the matter is that Headly and anyone else of this view could take any of the great myth books of the world--the Vedas, the Upanishads, ancient Greek myths--and construct an equally viable theory, filled with all kinds of assumptions, metaphors, generalizations and pseudo-science. These are all extremely long, winding, complex texts with running themes and narratives. They were designed for the purpose of fostering faith.
If Headly is honest, he can open up these other texts with the same open-minded spirit he has opened up the Bible, and see what conclusion he comes to.
hey what's going on here? are you all atheist here?
Uh, I can only speak for myself, I'm a pagan, but I do support the athiests on this issue.
Secularist, I whole-heartedly agree with you.
Daughter Of Maat,
I see what you're saying. A big component here is our free will, as in will outside of God's. That's why I think you can separate the two. That's part of what I'm trying to illustrate here. Everything in creation, including the humans on day 6, did exactly as God commanded. If that were still the case then there wouldn't be an issue. But starting with Adam, we did things on our own. Including everything done in the name of God by religion. It's free will. It's humans. Not God.
Standing in judgement of others is another one. If you choose of your own free will to kill based on beliefs, or torture, or in some way try to force your views, you're putting yourself in a place of authority over the other and passing judgement.
Human history is full of people trying to control wiley, free-willed humans to behave the way they want. Parents scare children, religious institutions scare the masses.
Like you said, misinterpreting the bible is fine. It's only when you then take that misinterpretation and use it to somehow inflict your will on others that it becomes a problem.
"The Egyptian hieroglyphs in the tombs of the pharaohs are older than the bible, but that doesn't make them the ultimate truth."
The main distinction here is that half the world still believes in and lives by the bible. No other ancient writing can make that claim. Even if it were fiction, it's at the very least the most successful hoax of all time. Something about it speaks to people. Whether or not you believe it, that alone makes it relevant.
secularist10,
Though I've never tried it, I'm not so certain I could do the same with just any 'creation myth'. I know people here keep talking about how vague Genesis is and how it's easy for someone to manipulate, but is that really true?
Look at how many things are listed specifically. Just the first two verses could have blown the whole thing out of the water if the oceans weren't actually the first thing to form. But it turns out the oceans did form first. And we only really figured that out very recently.
Or verse 20 which specifically says that birds came from the sea. We now know, also relatively recently, that this is true. It also says 'moving creatures that hath life' came from the sea. The traditional interpretation has always been that this means fish and sea life. But why? We know birds don't live in the sea, yet Genesis says that's where they came from. Why would we think 'moving creatures that hath life' could only mean animals that remained in the sea? This could have easily debunked the entire thing if we had ultimately learned birds did not come from the sea, but they did.
Genesis is much more specific than many are giving it credit for, and giving me way more credit than I deserve saying I'm twisting things around to make it work. If it didn't work then I'd have to perform some serious acrobatics that Emma and many others here would easily pick apart. But that's not the case. It doesn't take much at all because all of those things specifically mentioned did actually come along in that order.
Headly, I hate to tell you, but the Egyptian civilization evolved over 3000 years, and that's not including their prehistoric days. In the beginning (wow that sounded like Genesis... sorry lol), They were a pagan civilization based on the hieroglyphs in the tombs. (This is from the book "An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt" by Kathyrn A Bard, just in case your interested. The book is fascinating.) So, the Egyptian religion is actually the oldest, and it happens to be pagan.
But otherwise, we agree. Free will is the ultimate issue. I think the one thing I'll never understand is what corrupts man. Obviously this day and age it's money, but back in ancient times most civilizations were egalitarian. Currency hadn't been conceived it was all barter and trade. The only thing then to corrupt that I can think of is power. But maybe you have an idea I haven't thought of quite yet.
:D
Headly:
There are plenty of specific things listed in the other creation myths too, as well as throughout those texts. Meanwhile, there are plenty of nonspecific things in the Bible, which can be interpreted in many different ways (and Emma has indicated some here). I've heard exactly the kind of narratives and theories I am hearing from you, from Muslims vis-a-vis the Quran, from Hindus vis-a-vis the Vedas, etc.
Also, the Bible is filled with metaphor and allegory, as well as literal statements and descriptions. This is a problem. How are we supposed to know what is a metaphor, and what is intended to be literal? Here again it is totally up to the interpreter.
This is why we have some Christians who claim to take EVERYTHING in the Bible literally, and others who claim everything is metaphor, and others who are everywhere in between. Who's right? Why? How do you know?
Before you use the Bible as a source of knowledge, you must legitimate it. And that is impossible. Just as it is impossible for all other mythical texts of ancient world religions.
When God said let us make man in our own image; It means in the Image of The Father, Son & Holy Spirit...
Headly - try to use your mind in a more critical, structured way of thinking!
You would like for some god to have created things? Why is this so important to you? Why don't you take some natural science courses, like astronomy ... you may find out that natural forces exist without any help from any gods - for nature to require some man made god for her creation is totally ass backwards in my rational way of thinking.
Why don't you ask yourself the basic question, what is rational and what is absurd. Why would you cling to such irrational ideas?
Franto in Toronto
secularist10,
I'm trying to understand, are you saying you agree my interpretation does match the chronological order of the geological formation of the earth and the evolution of life, but that you could do that with any 'creation myth' if one were so driven to do so?
f_hruz,
"you may find out that natural forces exist without any help from any gods"
Okay, so you're saying there is material out there right now that shows how 'natural forces', like say gravity for example, came about naturally, thus needing no help beyond the natural order?
The heavens and the earth formed as a direct result of the big bang and matter's natural reaction to the law of gravity, basically. Genesis says God did that. So, please point me to the natural science course that can tell me what caused the big bang to happen in the first place or where gravity came from. If you can do that, I'll go take that course. If it's in a book, I'll buy it.
Headly:
Sure, you are reading into the passages as you wish. Someone else who reads the same passages will come to a completely different conclusion--which is exactly why you have creationists, citing the Bible, saying evolution is incompatible with Genesis. You say it is compatible. Same exact text, totally opposite conclusions. This is because the whole shebang is unscientific, and arbitrary. As it is with all mythical texts.
Going by your assumptions and presumptions, sure, your conclusion makes total sense. If I assume the moon is made of cheese, it is totally reasonable to say that it can feed thousands of people.
Sorry I haven't been commenting, guys. I am at a convention and not on my laptop 24/7 like I usually am. I will be home tomorrow in the late afternoon, so until then, keep the conversation going without me!
emmaspeaks... inline with all the hubs you have wrote it is very obvious that you do not believe on bible and most especially to GOD who created all things in the universe ..so my question is very simple "why did you exist??"
I'd have a question for touchmenot, but it could get me banned :)
Daughter Of Maat,
"So, the Egyptian religion is actually the oldest, and it happens to be pagan."
The first Pharaoh of a unified Egypt was in power around 3150 (the 1st Dynasty). Before that city-states existed along the Nile around 300 years prior.
The first cities to ever exist were the Sumerian 'pre-flood' cities of Mesopotamia. The first, Eridu, was established around 5300 BC. These cities were built around temples that Sumerian writings say their gods physically inhabited. They believed they were made by these gods to serve them.
The Sumerians are credited as the inventors of civilization, as well as wide-scale agriculture, the first government (a Monarchy), astronomy/astrology, the first calendar, and writing, just to name a few.
That transition from humans living within, and at the whim of, nature to forming civilizations and first inventing things we still use to this day happened in a very short amount of time. This to me suggests a free will that wasn't there before.
Sumerian mythology claims they were taught civilization by their gods. Immortal, human-like, physical, living on the earth, male and female, moody gods. They say they were given the gifts of civilization, each called a 'me'.
The Egyptians also advanced very quickly in a short amount of time, just later...
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsAfrica/Egyp – “From around 3500 to 3000 BC there were great and very sudden advances in craftsmanship and technology, which culminated in the working of copper, stone mace heads and ceramics.”
Not long after that, the other direction in the Indus Valley ...
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/Ind – “As the first great civilizations took shape in Sumer and Egypt, a people of unknown origin who were centered in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan and India began constructing their own series of cities. These were as remarkable as any the world had yet seen, and at the same time trade flourished, and a system of writing evolved.”
The amount of time that passed between the Sumerians being given the gifts of civilization at Eridu (5300 BC), before the great flood, and the advances in Egypt and the Indus valley, is roughly the same number of centuries as the bibles says passed between Adam's creation and the Tower of Babel where the once single language was confused into many and each of Noah's descendants were dispersed in different directions around the world, each carrying their own language, knowledge of agriculture and building, and a really compelling flood story.
"I think the one thing I'll never understand is what corrupts man."
This to me is all related. Ultimately I think it's free will itself that corrupts man. Like Eve eating the forbidden fruit of her own free will and against God's because of what she would gain personally. People with free will want to be able to do whatever they want, go where ever they want, with no restriction or limitation. The problem is, especially in a dense population, everybody else has free will and wants the same things too. Not everybody can have it. Wills conflict. Strength overpowers weakness. Political or economical power enable freedom. Personally, I think it's as simple as that.
Secularist10,
"Sure, you are reading into the passages as you wish. Someone else who reads the same passages will come to a completely different conclusion--which is exactly why you have creationists, citing the Bible, saying evolution is incompatible with Genesis. You say it is compatible. Same exact text, totally opposite conclusions. This is because the whole shebang is unscientific, and arbitrary. As it is with all mythical texts."
The only reason the creationists you speak of are so resistant to evolution is because it conflicts with the traditional interpretations they were taught. Interpretations formed by humans well before we knew any of this. They feel that questioning these interpretations is a lack of faith in God, rather than just faith in those interpretations. So they get irrational trying to defend something that just doesn't work.
But mine is not just a willy-nilly interpretation. My interpretation simply removes the old ones, recognizing that they are dated and man-made, and reads just what it says in the context of known history. And it fits, just as you agree. I list numerous things that are specifically mentioned in a specific order, all of which have been confirmed scientifically.
"If I assume the moon is made of cheese, it is totally reasonable to say that it can feed thousands of people."
True, but science doesn't back you up on that one.
Headly:
Neither does science back you up on your claims, as Emma has pointed out.
I said that given your assumptions, your conclusions make sense. But I do not accept your assumptions, so I do not agree with your conclusions.
A contextual reading of the Old Testament makes clear that these were myths of a prescientific, pre-Enlightened people. They were referring to 24-hour long days, not epochs or eons. If they were referring to six ages, they would have said ages, not days. This problem alone negates everything else in your theory. You assume that "days" does not refer to days, but "God" does refer to God, "earth" refers to earth and "animals" refers to animals.
This is the kind of arbitrary thinking I am talking about. You pick and choose which words are literal and which are metaphorical.
If everything makes sense, then nothing makes sense.
"Neither does science back you up on your claims, as Emma has pointed out."
Yes it does and no she hasn't. In fact, the bits where she paraphrases my statements of anything related to science are wrong. Like the part about a rock surface, something about hovering water, and rocks coming from rocks that are continents. Or the part about positioning the sun/moon/stars with no mention whatsoever about the position of the continents which is very much relevant and confirmed scientifically. If she had quoted me directly maybe we could have a conversation.
"A contextual reading of the Old Testament makes clear that these were myths of a prescientific, pre-Enlightened people. They were referring to 24-hour long days, not epochs or eons. If they were referring to six ages, they would have said ages, not days. This problem alone negates everything else in your theory. You assume that "days" does not refer to days, but "God" does refer to God, "earth" refers to earth and "animals" refers to animals."
How do you know a 'day' in the context of Genesis means 24 hours? It doesn't say that. When someone says, "Back in the day", are they referring to a 24 hour period? The difference is you're putting self-applied limitations to what it's saying because it can't possibly be true. I believe it can be so I consider every context of every word. And have looked into it, through many translations, through the original Hebrew, comparing to other places those same words are used and in what context, at great length. Don't just assume that because I haven't directly stated something here or in my hub that I haven't done the leg work.
"This is the kind of arbitrary thinking I am talking about. You pick and choose which words are literal and which are metaphorical."
As you just did with 'day'.
"You might want to ask Headly why the second chapter of Genesis does not match the first chapter, as far as order of occurences."
Intellectual laziness. Sigh.
Headly, you are ignorant. Just like secularist says, the references you are making have 21st century connotations, so you think they make sense, but they don't. As a historian the first thing we are taught is that we have to put ourselves in that time period to analyze correctly. For example, in studying about Japanese Shinto in the 7th century, I have to understand that there was neither a thing called "Shinto" or a thing called "Japan" back then. We can refer to those terms for the sake of clarity because that is what we now know them to be, but the truth is that there was only "Kami worship" and the "Yamato Plain." So, as I have stated before, when the bible refers to "Earth" it isn't referring to our planet, but to the people of Israel specifically. The bible is not a creation story of the earth, it is an origin story of one people. That negates your argument. If you can't prove that the Hebrew word that we have conveniently translated to "earth" meant something else, your "theory" falls flat on it's face, and all you are doing now is throwing a temper tantrum. Your research should have started with the actual translation, not with science. This also speaks volumes of your knowledge if you think 21st connotations can be applied to ancient texts. Go to school for crying out loud and educate yourself.
Let's rewrite Headly.
It'll be fun. We redefine words like "god" as "chocolate milk shake", "worship" as "slurp" and so on. Pretty soon we'll have a great story of Archie meeting Veronica in the malt shop!
Headly:
Believe what you will. But as soon as you say "the writers meant X as a metaphor" you have opened the door to all passages being metaphor. It's simple logic.
"How do you know a 'day' in the context of Genesis means 24 hours?"
How do you know it doesn't? When one reads something, the default interpretation is literal--in other words, the words on the page mean what they say. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that your specific interpretation of these words is correct. You believe that "day" is metaphorical but "animals" is literal, for instance. This is arbitrary. I could just as easily claim that "day" is literal and "animals" is metaphorical. It's totally arbitrary, no matter how much research you are doing. You choose to give the words the meaning you want.
Emma:
It's also worth noting that "earth" is often the same word as "land" in many languages. So "origin of the earth" can easily refer to origins of a specific plot of land, and of the people living in that land.
Emma,
Why exactly do you think I haven't taken context and perspective into account? Assuming I'm ignorant doesn't argue your point very well. Your paraphrasing of the scientific references I point to show an ignorance in the very field you strongly defend. I'm tying these events to well known, widely accepted, theories. Stuff I thought you might know. I have since provided a link to a more detailed account I'm sure you probably haven't looked at.
I take the context into consideration. What context can be nailed down. I consider the context of scribes in the southern kingdom of Judah around 950 BC (Yahwist source), scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel around 850 BC (Elohist source), exile, etc....
You're right, when they said 'earth' they don't mean the planet as a globe floating in the universe. They don't mean the people of Israel either. The same word is translated as 'land' most everywhere else it's used. This causes a lot of confusion where the flood account is concerned in my mind because bible translators obviously lean towards a more global account.
I stated that perspective is important. It was actually a rather big theme. I didn't specify the Israelites in their particular time because we don't know for certain they created the books of Moses, only that they wrote them down. I specified a human perspective. Looking up at the sky, from the surface. Everything relevant to humanity.
Your issue is that this isn't logically possible to you. Humans with an ancient understanding of the world couldn't possibly have listed events in order. I get it.
secularist10,
Emma's latest point to me applies here. Context should be the primary goal. A strictly literal reading of an ancient language translated into a not very compatible language like english is tricky. Even in this case you're doing what she suggested I was doing, you're applying your modern understanding of the word to a text thousands of years old. Simply calling it a 24-hour day is modern compared to Genesis.
Suggesting 'day' means an age doesn't suggest metaphorical. It's just another definition of that term. Whether these are scribes of ancient Israel or earlier, they're still talking about events in the past. Even today we use this word the same way.
I simply applied the most accurate context available to me, our modern scientific understanding, and read Genesis from the context of how it would be described to a human.
you should go to CNN and investigate what SCIENCE says PRAYER does for the BRAIN!
Then look up the missing day in space and see how SCIENTISTS as NASA ONLY found their ANSWER in the BIBLE....
I applaud you for your views and stands, but there is a greater truth than you and that truth is JESUS CHRIST!
Headly, I can't even force myself to read through your babbling. You are ignorant, sir, and only making excuse after excuse now. You are conveniently ignoring any and all suggestions intelligent people like secularist and Pcunix have made and are sticking to your tired old logic, which is only taking you on a ride in a great big circle. I am done with you. I have important things to do. Unless you have some proof to offer, which you don't as of yet, I have no further business with you.
Emma,
I'm sorry you feel that way. You're obviously smart and you're a good writer. I hope you can someday understand how a personal hang-up like the one you have with Christians, or anything else for that matter, will cloud your ability to see things clearly. You don't have to agree with the views of others, but you have to be able to respect the other and their views if you ever hope to get to something meaningful. Maybe you'll teach them something, maybe they'll teach you something. Otherwise, what's the point? If you could find that capability within yourself, I think you could become a really good writer.
You can call it a personal hangup, or whatever you need to to make you feel better, Headly. And I already know I am a great writer. I don't need a willfully ignorant person like you to point that out. Have a good life.
Headly,
"Simply calling it a 24-hour day is modern compared to Genesis."
I said 24 hours just to clarify what was being discussed. Whether they measured a day in hours or whatever is not relevant.
Now, you say you like science. Science is all about facts. Ok, let's look at some facts.
Fact: the text says "and the evening and the morning were the fourth day" and such.
This supports a literal interpretation of the word "day."
Fact: we know that the Hebrews, from the time this text was written all the way to today, define the week in 7 days. This again supports a literal reading of the word "day."
Fact: The Old Testament incessantly refers to "keeping the Sabbath holy" and that the Jews must "observe the Sabbath" and whatnot. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, and the Jews are meant to rest on that day because that is when God (in Genesis) rested.
Fact: There is a smooth and seamless transition in the OT between the "days" of Genesis and the "days" of the Hebrew week. Nowhere does it say "Just as God worked for 6 long days and rested on the 7th, we will work for 6 short days and rest on the 7th," for instance, or "Just as God worked for 6 ages, we will work for 6 days," for instance. The days of Genesis and the days of everything else are described in exactly the same way, in the same terms, with the same style.
All of this supports a literal reading of the word "day" in Genesis. And plenty more facts where those came from.
There is no compelling reason to read this "day" as metaphorical. A contextual reading remembers that this was an ancient pre-scientific culture. Thus it is totally reasonable to conclude they were referring to an actual day, since it is essentially impossible that they would know anything about the actual development of the earth, much less the timescales involved.
secularist10,
"There is no compelling reason to read this "day" as metaphorical. A contextual reading remembers that this was an ancient pre-scientific culture. Thus it is totally reasonable to conclude they were referring to an actual day, since it is essentially impossible that they would know anything about the actual development of the earth, much less the timescales involved."
No matter the length, humans were created at the end, so the creation story depicts events before their time. As you said, they had no way of comprehending the timescale. Not to mention it didn't matter. That was irrelivant to its purpose. These were ages past to them.
The Hebrew word translated as day is 'yom'...
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)
"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."
The same word is also translated elsewhere in the bible as Time, Year, Age, Ago, Always, Seasons, Chronicles, Continually, Ever, and Evermore.
As for evening and morning, this could be taken either way and still not effect my claim. Because this is always stated at the end, when each portion completes, it could be the first literal evening and morning of a new age on the earth, so that literal days are just that, just not sequential, or it could be used in the figurative sense just as it is in Psalms (Psalm 30:5, Psalm 49:14,15, Psalm 90:6).
The fact remains, whoever wrote Genesis wrote it back when humans still believed the earth was the center of the universe, yet managed to list 6 key eras, including 11 specific creations, in the order they appeared.
No matter my resolve or motivation or delusion or level of ignornace, no matter the miriad of possibilities in arguing translations and word usage, twisting a text this specific around to match actual history would be impossible if it didn't manage to match so closely already. You shouldn't have to go to such lengths to dismiss it.
"No matter the length, humans were created at the end, so the creation story depicts events before their time."
They got lucky. There isn't much in play here: humans, animals, sun, moon, the earth itself, water, heaven. That's pretty much it. That's pretty much all there is, from an ancient person's point of view. The odds that they would place humans at the end are about 1/6 or 1/7. That's pretty good, considering.
And no, they did not get the order right. But that's another topic.
"Not to mention it [timescales] didn't matter. That was irrelivant to its purpose. These were ages past to them."
Voila. That, my friend, is your own assumption. Unscientific. Time is most certainly relevant when describing any process of change.
I am aware that a single word can have multiple meanings. But you have not demonstrated that your particular meaning is the right one. Again, there is no compelling reason to diverge from the primary meaning of the word "day." Moreover, there are plenty of other Hebrew words available to more precisely describe an era or epoch of time.
I am not going to "such lengths" to dismiss it. I am trying to get through to you, but failing.
Fact is that nothing you have written remotely challenges the standard interpretation that this was a creation myth written by an unscientific tribe, and can be interpreted in many different ways arbitrarily, if one has the desire.
Check out the Vedic and Upanishad creation myths and the modern interpretations of them in the context of the Big Bang and evolution. You might be surprised at what you find.
"They got lucky. There isn't much in play here: humans, animals, sun, moon, the earth itself, water, heaven. That's pretty much it. That's pretty much all there is, from an ancient person's point of view. The odds that they would place humans at the end are about 1/6 or 1/7. That's pretty good, considering."
Success! Thank you. That's all I wanted. Understand, I'm not on a crusade here. I'm not trying to convert you all. I understand you're not going to read this and immediately shift your whole world-view. I just want to illustrate the case isn't closed. The fact that someone as uneducated and 'ignorant' as myself can interpret what's there and match it up with known history means the description in creation is not utterly proven wrong. Only the traditional interpretation of it. Whether you agree or not, whether you think I'm delusional or not, the fact is with very little babbling and rhetoric I can make it match up using only what's written.
I am done, though I would like to clarify one last thing just for posterity...
Me - "Not to mention it [timescales] didn't matter. That was irrelivant to its purpose. These were ages past to them."
You - "Voila. That, my friend, is your own assumption. Unscientific. Time is most certainly relevant when describing any process of change."
That is your assumption that I was speaking about anything as being scientific. I was talking about the proper perspective being the Israelites, humans, and how they would read this. To them, whether it be a week before Adam was created, or spanning billions of years that happened before Adam was created, was irrelevant to them. I was not making a scientific claim of any kind.
Oh, and this...
"Check out the Vedic and Upanishad creation myths and the modern interpretations of them in the context of the Big Bang and evolution. You might be surprised at what you find."
Not necessarily. If you look into further into the entirety of my theory that would actually make a lot of sense. I'll just leave it at that.
Good riddens to bad rubbish.
That's not proof that God made man out of dust, that's proof of evolution because EVERYTHING is made up of all of those elements. You can't prove God exists, it just can't be done. If you could there would be no athiests or agnostics, or even pagans. Faith would no longer be required. Just because someone wrote a blog on how man is made up of 80% water with some iron and calcium, doesn't prove the bible to be fact. It's a fictional work written by fallable men.
Emmaspeaks and DaughterofMaat: Here's my take on creation... If God made man out of the dust of the earth, then men were prototyped by the Original Dirtball. Women were then prototyped from used parts of said Dirtball (you know, Adam's rib), and the species has been inbreeding for @ 6,000 years. Wouldn't that explain why we act like we do?
lmao yes civil war bob, I believe it would! lol
Daughter Of Maat Level 6 Commenter 3 months ago
Hey, have you ever noticed that it says "Let US make man in OUR image"... Us and Our... aren't those PLURAL pronouns?? So why is xtianity MONOtheistic? Wow... another blatant typo apparently...
That part about letting man have dominion over the earth has always irked me. You can't control a planet... it's a bit too big I think...
Great job... hahaha I love you're stuff. This guy was clearly one of the delusional xtians.