Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Genesis 1

I begin with the assumption that god is omnipotent (can do anything) and omniscient (knows everything). Also I must assume that the bible is literally true. If the bible were not literally true then it is open to various interpretation. If it is open to various interpretation then there can't be one truth since any single passage can have an infinite number of interpretations and thus would be useless as a guide onto itself. Lastly I must also assume that the translation into English of the KJV is absolutely flawless, meaning that every verse and collection of verses lost and gained nothing in translation from the original Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and/or Aramaic. This is the most problematic assumption because any good translater knows that something is always lost (or gained) through translation.

It begins like this:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[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.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
My first issue is with the way verse 4 is written. God saw the light, that it was good. But if God is omniscient then he knew the light would be good before he created it. This oddness of this wording appears again and again (verses 10, 12, 18 and so on), where we are told that after God sees a thing is good then he can move on, the intended assumption being that if God didn't like what he saw he would try again or maybe just stop there.

[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters
[7] 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
[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[9] 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.
[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
It was always confusing to me that water was always there before anything else. These passages above seem to imply that the earth must have been a ball of water and land appeared after the water bits were separated from the sky bits.

[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, 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.
[12] And the earth brought forth grass, 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.
[13] And the evening and the morning were the third day.
[14] 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:
[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16] 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.
It was always difficult for me to understand what exactly is meant by two great lights. We know that the sun is a great light, but the lesser light to rule the night can't be the moon because the moon does not produce its own light, it simply reflects the light of the sun. Furthermore, the moon is actually in the daytime sky as often as it is in the night time sky. So this second light can't be the moon, it must be the light of the stars. But as we now know, starlight is actually the amalgamation of billions of lights, some actually brighter and more powerful then the sun, only more distant. Also, the stars are mentioned separately at the end of verse 16. So the stars are ruled out and the question is "what is this second great (but lesser) light?"
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] 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.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
[23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
According to these passages, God made apes before he made man. This is interesting to me because apes really resemble human beings. We share so many features that it almost seems like no accident. Thus, this would lead me to believe that God was already making creatures in his image before he moved on to Adam. I'm not saying God looks like a chimpanzee, but a chimpanzee looks a little bit like a human, and a human is made in God's image so by transition a chimpanzee must look a little bit like God. So when God was creating a chimpanzee was he simply being inspired by his own image or was he practicing for the human form?

[26] 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.
Why is God using the plural "us" here? Does us refer to God and the angels? Were the angels created already at this point?

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We're back to singular "his" rather than "their"

[28] 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.

I don't understand what it means to have dominion over something. Does that mean that we have God's permission to dominate a creature once we figure out how to dominate them or once we develop the technology to dominate them? Or does this mean that, in the garden of eden or in heaven we had the power to dominate all creatures, but we lost that power after being expelled?

[29] 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 the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] 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.
[31] 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 like that, in 6 days everything came to be. Now we have plenty of evidence that new stars are being created all the time. The implication then is that after initial creation, the universe continues to create on its own.

2 comments:

serapio said...

The assumption of literal truth (in the sense of straightforward meaning) is particularly problematic for Genesis 1, since there are plenty of clues that it wasn't meant as literal history. I think to take the old testament seriously, to give it the benefit of the doubt about claims to its divine authority, you have to back off to inerrancy or infallibility of the original text, while allowing details to be obscured by language and culture.

Taking it like a man said...

I agree that the old testament cannot be read as literal truth. I want to attempt to read it as literal truth for two reasons:

1) The vast majority of my Christian (catholic and protestant) family members and friends believe the old testament to be literally true and I believe this is because they have not read it thoroughly, but more like a high school freshman reads the adventures of tom sawyer. That is to say, if they read it at all, which most haven't.

2) I hope to deduce whether anyone reading the bible is even able to take ANY claims of the old testament as enlightening or useful IF they cannot be sure of how to decipher them.

My current hypothesis is that because the old testament cannot be taken literally the vast majority of its lessons must be excised entirely because it is impossible to get a clear understanding of their (or the author's) intentions.

Taking the literal approach simply allows one to highlight the difficulty of comprehending innocuous and critical passages alike.