Missing sea creatures

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, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen 1:26This quote was written in reply to me in another thread (Gods gender), and a question occurred to me as I read it. God talks of the fish of the sea. A fish is a specific type of life form, and there are several other things that live in the sea besides fish. Why no mention of the mammals, crustaceans, molluscs, etc that also share the seas with the fish?A fish is a fish, whereas whales, prawns, squid, sea snails, dolphins, or crabs for example, are NOT fish. Was it God’s intention that we were only meant to specifically rule over the fish, and not these other forms of life?If God is the all-powerful creator of all life, then He must have been intimately familiar with the various other aquatic creatures besides fish. If the bible is His word, why does it only mention fish? He could have been less specific and said creatures of the sea or something like that.However if, as I believe, the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men inspired by nothing more divine than their own exceptional imagination (possibly enhanced by smoking some serious ganja), then forgetting so many creatures is understandable.It makes the bible appear somewhat fishy to me ( sorry).I am interested in how others may view and/or explain this omission.

Yeah I guess it's nitpicking, but that's what I do, I am a pedant. And to a new low level, cool! Good to push the boundaries sometimes.Yes, true that God may have 'dumbed it down' a bit for the ordinary people of the time, I thought somebody would probably make that point. But it seems to me to be a really basic thing to leave out. God creates all life, then when He dictates His word to man, He raves on about all the creatures on the earth, livestock and birds, but then only the fish in the sea. Just seems like a rather silly mistake to me and definitely not one I would attribute to an all-powerful God.Saying "creatures of the sea" rather than "fish of the sea" is not what I would call "spoon feeding" us the secrets of science.

I’d forgotten all about this thread. Glad to see there’s some interest, so I thought I’d return and get back to what I do best nit picking!Crashfrog -- I think you’ve summed up my original basic point quite well. Despite the average Ancient Hebrew lack of distinction between different sea creatures, God would have known so why didn’t he say something? I’ll try to expand my thoughts on that.Jacen -- yeah, viewing the bible with a modern way of thinking is silly in a way, but the very fact that it is silly makes the bible appear even less credible to me. If the bible was Gods true word to his people, which are supposed to be followed as the very basis for living, then it should be perfectly normal to look at the bible with a modern way of thinking, or any way for that matter. This is because, according to the bible, all of us are supposedly of God’s creation, but the way we think is simply the way we think in today’s world. Yes, the bible has been translated several times from the original, but why didn’t God ensure accurate translation(s) that’s true to his word? Would God have left the translation in the imperfect hands of men, thus prone to error and misinterpretation? This would bugger things up for people of future generations and of different languages, as they wouldn’t know God’s TRUE word, or the correct way to worship. Not a particularly clever way to have a world full of faithful followers that are true to what he wants! Does God have no commonsense?To me, it’s not a matter of poking holes in the bible, It’s more a case of a gaping hole that was already there ‘jumping out’ at me when I read it.Basically the way I see it, what has happened is that the ancient Hebrew term that likely meant every creature in the sea (God would have known all about them all if he created them, so surely he must have meant to include them) has been translated to say fish, which in English has a specific meaning for a specific type of creature.I can only make a couple of conclusions here:1. That if God exists, He had no involvement with the Bible translations, which suggests he didn’t care about the quality of information carried over to people of other languages and culture. Were only people who understood ancient Hebrew to understand the true meaning? Sounds a little like racism to me, or at best, snobbery. Either way, it doesn’t sound like what a just, loving God is supposed to be about.2. That God does not exist, the bible is purely the work of men, and is a work of mythology and fiction, blended with exaggerated stories of actual historical figures. Basically, it’s a load of piffle.

Well, interesting that someone decided to re-ignite this thread. I started it some time ago and have learned much since then and I think perhaps I was being a tad pedantic. However, there is one point that I take from this whole thing which remains. Yes it is, and the original Bible was written in it, which I think we all agree on. Assume for a moment that God does exist and inspired the writing of this original Hebrew Bible. Fine and dandy, this would be the inerrant word of God.What about the subsequent translations? Did god inspire or guide those? Exactly, and in the English language today "fish" means "fish". Yes it does. That original quotation I used was taken from a modern English language Bible. The same one that many millions of people base their entire lives on, and believe that everyone else should base their lives on. I doubt that most Christians in the world have a copy of the original hebrew bible on their bookshelf. No, they use the English one, and People fight, kill and die for the things written in it and it's rival writings. I think it's fair to say it is a significant book. If God had anything to do with the translating of the original bible, why would it be translated for an audience of modern English speakers to show the word fish, when it has a specific meaning in our language? Yes, the original hebrew term may refer to fish, crustaceans, sea-snails, plankton, whales (and randman, PLEASE let this be the last mention of whales in this thread!), deep-sea worms, octopii, squid and everything else besides. So, when the original bible was translated into different languages, did God not keep an eye on things to make sure his original and correct words and meanings were faithfully translated? If he didn't it would be a little difficult for other people besides ancient Hebrew speakers to be able to live by his word.I say again, in our language 'fish' has a specific meaning. So when the translator was doing his job, God should have (metaphorically) tapped him/her on the shoulder and said "Don't use the word fish. I'm referring to everything in the ocean so write 'all ocean creatures' or something like that". It still says fish, therefore the bible that millions of people live by today in the English speaking world, is not inerrant. It is subject to the abilities of human translators. It doesn't make me feel good when I think of all the people who have died as a result of "a good approximation".Of course, if you're like me and don't believe there is a God to begin with, this whole argument is rather pointless.On that note, I'm going to go and have a cold beer.

I do believe you're right. I think it's time for Brother Maynard to bring out the Holy Hand-Grenade."and though shall count to three..."

---

"Thank you Slartibartfast, that will be all."