Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1: Schematic?
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (68719)
11-23-2003 6:11 AM


This may have come up in some earlier posting, but if so, I would not know how to search for it with any efficiency. But I'll go ahead anyway:
Day 1: Day and night
Day 2: Sky and sea
Day 3: Land
Day 4: Sun and Moon
Day 5: Birds and fish/sea-monsters
Day 6: Land-animals/humanity
Day 7: The first Sabbath in the history of the Universe, celebrated by a very satisfied Deity
Notice the correspondence -- the first three days are the creation of environments, while the second three days are the creation of the inhabitants of each environment created three days before. Yes, Gen 1:16 pictures the Sun as an inhabitant of the day, and the Moon an inhabitant of the night.
Turning to other creations, plants are created as environment items rather than as inhabitants. They are created in Day 3, with the Earth being commanded to produce them, and they are made available for various inhabitants in Day 6, the corresponding "plant inhabitant" day.
About the stars, being created in the second three days means that they are inhabitants. And being celestial, they are created in Day 4, almost as an afterthought.
This explains a variety of oddities:
Separation of light/day from darkness/night
Creation of daytime 3 days before the Sun was created
Creation of plants before the Sun
Creation of birds before land animals
And it clarifies the status of plants and why they are not viewed as really alive -- they are viewed as environment rather than as inhabitants.
The Genesis 2 creation story, however, does not seem quite as schematic.
Someone else had posted here about various schematic-looking numbers in the Bible; Genesis 1 might be interesting to add to that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by JIM, posted 11-23-2003 12:44 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (68740)
11-23-2003 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
11-23-2003 6:11 AM


There are many other questions a curious person might ask about the quoted passages from Genesis. For example, if the reason for the moon's creation was to provide light in nighttime for the inhabitants of the earth, why had God also created multiple moons of the uninhabited planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and others? Of course, the existence of those moons was unknown at the time when the Book of Genesis was written. If the writers of the Bible had known about those moons, would they still insist that the Moon was created "to rule the night" on the earth? Moreover, the alleged "rule" of the night by the moon seems rather poorly designed. On some nights the full moon is bright, but on others it decreases to a narrow sickle barely noticeable in the sky. On some nights it appears early in the evening, when it is not yet needed but on some others it shows up only toward dawn, leaving most of the night which it supposedly "rules" in complete darkness. Its rule is not strong enough to overcome the screening effect of clouds.
As for the sun which, according to the quoted verses, was created "to rule the day," its rule also leaves much to be desired. It makes life unbearable in some areas, like the Gobi desert, where immense heat really "rules the day." In some other areas it barely shows up for a few hours, or not at all for six months in a row. If the purpose of the sun was to provide light in the daytime, why was its light designed to shine so unevenly?
According to scientific data, stars existed long before the Earth came into existence, while verses from Genesis asserts that stars were created after the Earth.
Contrary to the quoted verses, we know that the moon is not a source of light but only reflects the light of the sun, hence listing the sun and the moon in the same category of "greater and lesser lights" betrays ignorance of the author of the quoted verses.
The story told in Genesis is not based on any factual evidence and requires to be accepted via blind faith. Therefore it is not any more plausible than all different stories told in the multitude of other religions.
[This message has been edited by JIM, 11-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 11-23-2003 6:11 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
JIM
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (68743)
11-23-2003 12:58 PM


Aha! I just found an essay written by Sol Abrams from the Internet Infidels archive that compares and contrasts the differences between data of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 schematic accounts.
quote:
Genesis 1 (Elohist): Order of creation in the first account.
1. The heaven and light were made (vs:1-5).
2. The firmament was constructed and the waters divided (vs:6-8).
3. The waters gathered into seas-- and then dry land, grass, herbs, and fruit trees created (vs:9-13).
4. The sun and moon created and the stars made also (vs:14-17).
5. Fishes, fowls, and great whales created (vs:20- 23).
6. Beasts, cattle, every creeping thing, man and woman created (vs:24-27).
Summary: Heaven and earth were created before the sun; all animals created, and then man and woman (both sexes) were created simultaneously.
Genesis 2 (Yahwist): Order of creation in the second account.
1. The heavens and the earth created (v:4).
2. A mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground (vs:5-6).
3. Man (male only) made out of dust and named Adam (v:7).
4. A garden planted eastward in Eden and man put into it (vs:8-17) .
5. Beasts and fowls created (vs:18-20).
6. Woman created from one of the man's ribs (vs: 21-24).
Summary: The man (male only) was created, then all the plants, beasts, and fowls, and finally the woman.
Conclusion: The two creation accounts are in obvious conflict, and the different names by which God was called in the two accounts indicate separate authorships.
Obviously in this day of biblical scholarship people who still think the bible is "infallible" or "reliable" or "without error" have been misinformed and should read the bible carefully for themselves.
[This message has been edited by JIM, 11-23-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-23-2003 1:47 PM JIM has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 4 of 11 (68749)
11-23-2003 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JIM
11-23-2003 12:58 PM


The Generations Of Genesis
Jim,
You challenged that those who believe the Bible to be without error should take care to read it carefully for themselves, and I have done just that. I recently posted some of the findings of this study in another forum, and I would like to present it here as an explanation of the supposed contradiction between the first two chapters of the Bible. It reads as follows:
___________________________
Most biblical passages are arranged in an order conducive to oral teaching. This arrangement is easily seen in such passages as Psalm 119, Proverbs 31, and Ecclesiastes 3; but it is present to some degree or another throughout every book of the Bible. Many of the narrative passages of the Bible are laid out in an arrangement very common to public speaking. For each main topic, the Bible presents an introduction followed by the major subject matter of the topic and concluded with a recap of the current subject and a transition into the next topic.
An example of this can be seen in the first fifteen chapters of the book of Exodus. These chapters can be broken down into four main topics: the birth of Moses, the calling of Moses, the deliverance of Israel, and the crossing of the Red Sea. The following outline diagrams the arrangement of these topics in an order conducive to oral presentation.
I. The Birth of Moses — Exodus 1:7-2:25
II. The Calling of Moses — Exodus 3:1-7:7
III. The Deliverance of Israel — Exodus 6:28-12:51
IV. Crossing the Red Sea — Exodus 13:1-15:22
Now the book of Genesis also has a particular arrangement of content. It is not simply a conglomeration of multiple stories; it can be read as a single, seamless document in which each part is connected to the whole through a series of chronological links. In other words, each section of the book of Genesis is connected to the other sections through the generations presented at the conclusion of each portion. Thus the book can be broken down into five different generations: the generations of the heavens and the earth, the generations of Adam, the generations of Noah, the generations of Jacob, and the generations of the sons of Jacob. The following outline presents the arrangement of these generations within the book of Genesis.
I. The Generations of the Heavens and the Earth — Genesis 1:1-2:25
II. The Generations of Adam — Genesis 3:1-5:32
III. The Generations of Noah — Genesis 6:1-10:32
IV. The Generations of Jacob — Genesis 11:1-37:2a
V. The Generations of the Sons of Jacob
If we were to look at these passages in more detail, we would discover that they all follow the same pattern found in the first two chapters. Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents the major content of the creation account, and the remainder of chapter two presents a review of that account and a transition into the setting for chapter three.
Now, there appears to be some controversy over whether chapter two is a separate and thus contradictory creation account; however, if we do a thorough study of this chapter we will find that it is indeed a conclusion to the account of chapter one.
Most of the arguments for two creation accounts begin with verses 7-9.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It is argued that these verses have man created before the creation of plants which of course would be a contradiction with the order given in chapter one. A closer examination, however, will reveal that this is not the case. Verse seven does speak of the creation of man, and verse eight does say that God planted a garden, and verse nine does say that God made trees, but this is not all that is said in these verses. These verses do not state that God created man before He created plants. It simply states that God after God created man, He formed a garden for the man to dwell in and caused all the trees that could be eaten from to grow in that garden. These verses are part of a transition from chapter one in which God created man to chapter three which takes place within the garden.
Likewise, verses eighteen through twenty are often incorrectly interpreted as stating that man was created before any of the animals. However, simple logic will reveal that this is not a necessary interpretation.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
The passage does not state that God created all of the animals after He created man. Instead, it states that He formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air for the express purpose of finding a helper suitable for man. (On a side note, the word made in Genesis 1:25 and the word formed in Genesis 2:19 are translated from two different Hebrew words.) Now if God had created all of the animals on earth before creating man, and if those animals had differing habitat requirements, then it makes sense that He would have created them each within its natural habitat. Thus the animals would not have been created all in one location but would have been created all across the globe. Such a widespread creation would require days of travel for all of these animals to come before Adam in Genesis 2:19. But what if after creating man the Lord formed one of each animal within the garden of Eden and brought each of those animals before man. This would not contradict chapter one, nor does it strain in any way the text of chapter two. It does, however, focus on the creation of Eve who is one of the three central figures in chapter three. In other words, this passage of chapter two is part of a transition from chapter one in which God created both man and woman to chapter three in which the woman is a central figure.
Therefore, if we view the first two chapters of Genesis as parts of a cohesive whole, we find that they fit the pattern of presentation found in other passages in which each passage begins with an introduction followed by the major subject matter of the topic and concludes with a recap of the current subject and a transition into the next topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JIM, posted 11-23-2003 12:58 PM JIM has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 11-23-2003 4:16 PM w_fortenberry has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 5 of 11 (68769)
11-23-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by w_fortenberry
11-23-2003 1:47 PM


Life Before Man
fortenberry quotes:
quote:
And the LORD God formed man ... And the LORD God planted a garden ...
fortenberry writes:
These verses do not state that God created man before He created plants. It simply states that after God created man, He formed a garden ...
If one reads carefully one may note that verses immediately preceding the ones you quote reveal the context in which the man is created:
quote:
... when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up ... then the LORD God formed man ...
If there are no plants "in the earth" before man is created, then your theory has a problem.
db
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-23-2003 1:47 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-23-2003 6:22 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 8 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-23-2003 10:21 PM doctrbill has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 6 of 11 (68813)
11-23-2003 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by doctrbill
11-23-2003 4:16 PM


Re: Life Before Man
If there are no plants "in the earth" before man is created, then your theory has a problem.
Perhaps it's the difference between 'theory' and 'rationalization'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 11-23-2003 4:16 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by doctrbill, posted 11-23-2003 7:09 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 7 of 11 (68844)
11-23-2003 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ConsequentAtheist
11-23-2003 6:22 PM


Re: Life Before Man
ConsequentAtheist writes:
Perhaps it's the difference between 'theory' and 'rationalization'.
Sometimes I use the word theory rather loosely; and in the above case, quite generously.
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-23-2003 6:22 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 8 of 11 (68874)
11-23-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by doctrbill
11-23-2003 4:16 PM


Doctorbill,
Here are the verses in question.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:4-7 AV)
The phrase "and every plant of the field before it was in the earth" is simply a statement that God created every plant "from scratch" rather than from other plants. There is no indication within these verses that man was created before God had created plants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by doctrbill, posted 11-23-2003 4:16 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 11-24-2003 12:33 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 11 (68963)
11-24-2003 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by w_fortenberry
11-23-2003 10:21 PM


quote:
... in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: ...
fortenberry writes:
The phrase "and every plant of the field before it was in the earth" is simply a statement that God created every plant "from scratch" rather than from other plants.
by what circuitous logic do you arrive at such a spin?! These Bible translators appear to disagree with you.
quote:
1) "... no shrub of the field was yet in the earth ..." New American Standard
2) "... there was neither shrub nor plant growing wild ..." New English Bible
3) "... there was as yet no wild bush on the earth nor had any wild plant yet sprung up ..." Jerusalem Bible
4) "... there was as yet not a shrub on the earth, nor any plant sprouting in the field ..." Modern Language Bible
5) "There were no plants or grain sprouting up across the earth ..." Living Bible
6) "... no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up ..." Revised Standard Version
fortenberry writes:
There is no indication within these verses that man was created before God had created plants.
Well, let's look at that: Verses preceding creation of the man say there were no plants in the earth. Verses following creation of the man have God creating plants.
2+2= ?
Like the man said, One has to read carefully.
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by w_fortenberry, posted 11-23-2003 10:21 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 11 (69129)
11-25-2003 12:51 AM


Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2?
You guys seem to have gotten into an argument over the G1 vs. the G2 creation stories; I'd started my thread on the structure of the G1 story. Do you people think that it's a reasonable analysis or not?
For my part, it seems like an attempt to construct some sort of cosmogonic theory, though one that's far from anything that we've found out over the last few centuries. Here's another way of expressing the pattern:
Environment - Inhabitant
Celestial:
Light - Sun
Dark - Moon
() - Stars
Far Terrestrial:
Air - Birds
Water - Fish, Sea Monsters
Near Terrestrial:
Earth - Land Animals, Humanity
Plants - "You may eat them"
However, plants as environment vs. animals as inhabitants is absurd by the standards of modern biology, and is questionable even by what was easily knowable at the time.
Plants and animals grow and reproduce.
When they die, their corpses decompose.
It's possible to live off of both plant and animal flesh.
Meaning that plants are too animal-like to be worth calling environment items.
Aristotle's three kinds of soul, the vegetable soul, the animal soul, and the rational soul, seems much more reasonable. At least when interpreted as sets of features:
Vegetable soul - ability to grow and reproduce
Animal soul - ability to move around and quickly respond to one's environment
Rational soul - ability to think and communicate in full-scale language
However, modern biology recognizes a variety of boundary-blurrers, like intracellular and intra-organism signaling, flagellate algae and (non-human) animal cognitive and communicative abilities, so Aristotle's schema is not quite useful.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 11-26-2003 11:57 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 11 (69407)
11-26-2003 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by lpetrich
11-25-2003 12:51 AM


Re: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2?
lpetrich writes:
it seems like an attempt to construct some sort of cosmogonic theory
I agree.
Aristotle's schema is not quite useful.
Genesis was commited to writing long before Aristotle came on the scene. I don't know how many of Aristotle's ideas were original, but his view of the 'elements' seems to have been familiar to the compiler/editor of Genesis. The Greeks credited their own guys with a number of advanced notions first proposed by Babylonians. I suppose this is not unusual in the history of conquest.
{Remember how Ensign Checkov credited Russians with every significant discovery in science?}
You may find interesting some observations which I have made on the subject of Aristotle's ideas in relation to Genesis One. These views were probably 'old hat' to the 'scientists' of Babylon. The editor of Genesis undoubtedly received his education in that most prominent center of advanced 'scientific' theory. Please let me know your thoughts about this page.
Primal Elements
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by lpetrich, posted 11-25-2003 12:51 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024