Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Berzerker]

Then it is not genesis, is it?

It is the genesis of the hammered bracelet called Heaven, the dry land called Earth, its sky and its life

The concept of having solid land forming underwater requires submerged pre-solid (liquid?) land matter.

Must be my lack of imagination, but I can't quite imagine a world like that. A world covered with bubbling lava beneath a dense steamy atmosphere seems a to be more sensible thing. But this picture can hardly be described a "submerged land", IMO.

The land forming under water now is or 'quickly' becomes solid, but it isn't dry, hence the difference between the "Earth" in Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:9-10. This story is not about the accretion of the proto-Earth (Tiamat, biblical tehom) ~4.5-6 bya.

When God arrives on the scene to create, the world was already covered by darkness and water. That places the story after the planet had already formed with an ocean and before dry land and life appeared. Thats ~4 bya or so, the period known as the late heavy bombardment.

But why cant you imagine a world covered by bubbling lava and water? Thats where most of our bubbling lava forms now. If this planet formed at the asteroid belt it was surrounded by water, maybe an ocean dozens or even hundreds of miles deep covered it.

A magma ocean doesn't preclude liquid water, whatever magma ocean existed would have quickly developed a crust and there's no reason why that crust could not have formed under an ocean.

What I want to know is, how would the Earth colliding with the sun create the asteroid belt? And on what grounds to you assume a "bracelet" refers to the asteroid belt anyway? It's not a very good description of it.

The proto-Earth collided with another planet and/or its moons at the asteroid belt, this was the "wind" of God hovering over the waters before the "Light". Heaven is the hammered bracelet - the asteroid belt.

I base that on the meaning of the word rakia used to describe Heaven (to beat something out as in a bracelet), the reference to its location (in the midst of the waters, in the middle of the solar system), Tiamat's placement in the Enuma Elish and the Fremont and Incan cosmology linked in the OP (between Mars and Jupiter), and the solar system's "snow line" (the point volatile gases like h2o pushed by the early solar wind condensed into ice and water). Thats where our water came from and thats where this world was >4 bya, covered by the deep and darkness.

These are all at the asteroid belt, and the asteroid belt is a hammered bracelet spread out dividing the solar system in two.

 

[Berzerker]

The word for earth in verse 1 is different than in verse 10.

how so?

I would define both heavens and earth in verse 1 as matter, because it was the state of the universe before there was light producing energy.

but neither word means matter

Water is still matter, and the earth had no form, thus there was no ocean. The verse just states that there was a concentration of water in the same area as the formless earth.

Genesis doesn't say God created matter and "the deep" in Gen 1:2 refers to the ocean

The creation of matter, and light all happened on the first day.

how can you argue heaven and earth is matter when neither was created on the 1st day?

The second day or next 24 hour period was when the gravity formed the earth and water into a globe and God separated the water into a water covered globe and a firmament of air between the next layer of water.

the firmament is not air, its the hammered bracelet and is solid

I say it was dark, because God said the light did not show up until day 4.

then why do the first 3 days have night and day?

While the sun was forming, it seems there was not enough radiation coming from it to be considered light, until the 4th day.

the Earth didn't "form" until the 3rd day, therefore the Earth's sky didn't form until the 4th day - that doesn't tell us when the Sun formed

 

[timtofly]

how so?

הָאָֽרֶץ׃ and אֶ֔רֶץ The difference between the planet earth and the crust that we call dry land. The first one being the whole, and the second one being a part of the whole.

but neither word means matter

It does not have to mean the same, both are made up of matter. The verse does not mean nor even define, that God created it a finished product. The point of saying that something was good/finished came later.

You would not say, " I made a metal". You would say, I made a gun". Gun does not mean metal, but metal is understood. Today you can print one from plastic. Gun does not mean plastic either. You could be verbose and let every one know that you created the metal, and all the tools required to fashion the gun, or the printer that printed the plastic and the plastic itself. Or you could just say I created a gun, and depending on what the gun looked like, they may assume all the details or ask you to explain them after they had already seen the finished product.

The Hebrews do seem to have an interesting term for rain though. Water that materializes. This incorporates the understanding that water and matter may be one in the same. When they say the ocean or deep referring to the abyss of Genesis, they may understand that the term used as water was actually the matter and makeup of the universe. They knew about the universe and matter. They called it the deep, or water. This could be why every one thought they were confused about the firmament and water on the 4th day. Instead of the spirit fluttering above an ocean of water, it could be an ocean of matter, or the universe. Not to mention the fact that if the whole universe was an ocean or water instead of matter, where did all the water go? I suppose being just hydrogen and oxygen, which is also the makeup of stars, then we could call a formless star water.

Genesis doesn't say God created matter and "the deep" in Gen 1:2 refers to the ocean

Genesis does not say that the God of the waters came out one day and said, Let there be light."

It says the very first thing God did was create the heavens and earth, not completed, but formless and void matter. Then said, Let there be light."

The deep does not mean ocean in this context. You have to have a formed planet to have an ocean. It meant the abyss or an endless amount of water. This is where you could compare it to the other myths. The name for God here could mean the God of the ocean or sea, and it could mean that he created everything from water. Or it could mean that he created water itself. I still hold as do a lot of humans through history that it is understood that God created the entire universe which has to include matter, and water, and all the gasses.

how can you argue heaven and earth is matter when neither was created on the 1st day?

The universe and earth are still matter today. Why argue they are not? The original Hebrew said that God created all things. During the time of Christ, they still held that God created all things. Why would that change even if science has figured out that all things are made up of atoms, and that atoms are made up of subatomic particles. All things means all things, even the subatomic particles.

the firmament is not air, its the hammered bracelet and is solid

The firmament is the atmosphere between two bodies of water with the earth in the center of one of them. The atmosphere is hardly solid, and it is fixed in it's position as a place encircling the earth. You cannot have the earth with no dry land appearing above the water, without that water encircling the earth. The Flood was not the first time the whole earth was covered in water. Unless the earth before the Flood was a flat disc and humans would fall off the underside if they dug through. Then the earth was a ball totally covered in water, and then there was an atmosphere of gas, and then more water, there is no other way to separate two bodies of water, and still have no dry land.

The firmament is sky or air.

The only other possibility is to separate the water with the earth's crust, so you have water, crust, water, but then you could not put light into the earth's crust, if that is the firmament. The wording IMO can lead to all sorts of science fiction tales. Flat earth with water under the earth, as the earth was floating on water even when it had oceans. Or there was a vast body of water around the whole solar system, or even the rest of the galaxy, or universe. At this point we could say a black hole in the middle of a vast ocean.

then why do the first 3 days have night and day?

Why would a human want to be any where in the universe without there being night and day? We need to have some down time. There was light the first day. According to the standard cosmology, there was also a period of darkness. God said that he separated the darkness from the light. The earth was still without form. It could not spin, until form was given to it. Call it gravity, or God, the earth took form during the next 60 hours of darkness, and then sunlight came through the water canopy, the atmosphere, and the plants started to produce oxygen. Unless you change the definition of formless, and void, then the earth had no form, and was void. Meaning a bunch of matter with huge empty spaces next to an abyss full of water. Or a black hole in the middle of a universe full of water. There is a theory that the edge of the universe is a black hole. Even in space humans tend to synthesize periods of night and day.

the Earth didn't "form" until the 3rd day, therefore the Earth's sky didn't form until the 4th day - that doesn't tell us when the Sun formed

The earth was forming in the darkness between the evening or beginning of the second day and the dawn halfway through the fourth day. The light that dawned was not from any other place in the universe, other than a fully formed sun. Those plants needed sunshine to synthesize oxygen. The whole universe was forming at the same time. Why does formation have to be different in one section of the universe from any other section of the universe? According to observed phenomenon, the universe is homogenous. Even if things are happening differently locally it is all happening at the same time as every other part of the galaxy.

The discrepancy lays in the fact or notion that the oldest rock on earth is not as old as the universe allegedly is, so therefore, we will insert the solar system into a different time slot instead of at the beginning of time. I don't think we have samples of rock from across the universe to prove that each system has their own time stamp when they were inserted into the universe.

 

[Berzerker]

הָאָֽרֶץ׃ and אֶ֔רֶץ The difference between the planet earth and the crust that we call dry land. The first one being the whole, and the second one being a part of the whole.

Those are the same word, arets/erets mean land (earth). Search אָֽרֶץ and you'll see its used for the various countries/lands in the Middle East too, even ground or dust. The definition does not include the waters or the deep. Heaven and Earth are made during the 6 days of creation, the deep (tehom/Tiamat) wasn't made and appears before the 6 days of creation.

It does not have to mean the same, both are made up of matter. The verse does not mean nor even define, that God created it a finished product. The point of saying that something was good/finished came later.

You would not say, " I made a metal". You would say, I made a gun". Gun does not mean metal, but metal is understood.

Making a gun doesn't mean you made the metal, but if you're right why does Gen 1:1 contain words - Heaven and Earth - that are defined by God on the 2nd and 3rd days? You seem to think they were created before the 1st day, and even if you think the Earth was created without form and was revealed on the 3rd day, how do you explain the creation of Heaven twice? That problem is compounded when we learn this Heaven was placed between the waters. That means the waters were there first.

When they say the ocean or deep referring to the abyss of Genesis, they may understand that the term used as water was actually the matter and makeup of the universe. They knew about the universe and matter. They called it the deep, or water.

The deep does not mean ocean in this context. You have to have a formed planet to have an ocean.

The deep in Gen 1:2 differed from the oceans ("Seas") we have today in that the land was underneath it back then. But it was the same "deep" that burst forth during Noah's Flood. This is the deep and darkness covered its surface:

from wiki: Tehom, literally the Deep or Abyss (Greek Septuagint: ábyssos), refers to the Great Deep of the primordial waters of creation in the Bible. Tehom is a cognate of the Akkadian word tamtu and Ugaritic t-h-m which have similar meaning. As such it was equated with the earlier Sumerian Tiamat.

The firmament is the atmosphere between two bodies of water with the earth in the center of one of them. The atmosphere is hardly solid, and it is fixed in it's position as a place encircling the earth.

The firmament is sky or air.

The firmament is solid, the word rakia means hammered bracelet. How did the Earth have a sky or air before the Earth appeared from under the waters?

You cannot have the earth with no dry land appearing above the water, without that water encircling the earth. The Flood was not the first time the whole earth was covered in water.

How would we describe the earth if it was covered by water? Could we call the dry land "Earth" if there was no dry land? Or might we say the earth was without form, or in another form? Gen 1:2 tells us what form it was in, covered by darkness and the deep (water).

 

[timtofly]

Those are the same word, arets/erets mean land (earth). Search אָֽרֶץ and you'll see its used for the various countries/lands in the Middle East too, even ground or dust. The definition does not include the waters or the deep. Heaven and Earth are made during the 6 days of creation, the deep (tehom/Tiamat) wasn't made and appears before the 6 days of creation.

Are you agreeing that the earth in verse 1 is still the same earth as in verse 10 just in different forms?

The deep is the expanse of the universe. Liquid water was part of the earth that had no form when the universe (heavens and earth) was created in verse one.

The creation in verse one, was placing the matter, including water, as the building "blocks" of the universe. It was the creation of the elements before energy was released producing light/radiation. The concentration of hydrogen and oxygen surrounding the other elements in the swirling matter of the still formless earth would be water. The spirit was fluttering/vibrating the hydrogen and oxygen causing it to be called water. Thus it was called water even before the rest of the energy had been pronounced.

Making a gun doesn't mean you made the metal, but if you're right why does Gen 1:1 contain words - Heaven and Earth - that are defined by God on the 2nd and 3rd days? You seem to think they were created before the 1st day, and even if you think the Earth was created without form and was revealed on the 3rd day, how do you explain the creation of Heaven twice? That problem is compounded when we learn this Heaven was placed between the waters. That means the waters were there first.

The whole of the universe and the location of the stars in the universe was the creation of the heavens in verse one. It was the placement of matter, and I hold that the matter was placed in the whole of the expanse (face of the deep). Some say the infinite center of a black hole. This is confusing, because it means a very tiny area of space. It also explains that time was completely different yet considered a day to the creator. The "deep" contained the whole of the universe with the correct spacing of the matter as it would appear as a complete universe when the command of light put the universe in motion.

The deep in Gen 1:2 differed from the oceans ("Seas") we have today in that the land was underneath it back then. But it was the same "deep" that burst forth during Noah's Flood. This is the deep and darkness covered its surface:

from wiki: Tehom, literally the Deep or Abyss (Greek Septuagint: ábyssos), refers to the Great Deep of the primordial waters of creation in the Bible. Tehom is a cognate of the Akkadian word tamtu and Ugaritic t-h-m which have similar meaning. As such it was equated with the earlier Sumerian Tiamat.

That is the word picture that humanity accepted for thousands of years. Even a sphere with only one land mass would seem to have water above and below. There was water and at that point enough to enclose the newly forming/ed earth. An ocean is still a body of water that covers the earth. One ocean. Land appears, and still one ocean. Even with multiple continents, there is still basically one ocean with different names depending on which hemisphere one is in. When the fountains of the deep opened up that was the division of the first continent. The earth was being reformed. There was even more dividing later on. Part of that first continent can be found both in Africa and Australia.

The firmament is solid, the word rakia means hammered bracelet. How did the Earth have a sky or air before the Earth appeared from under the waters?

The expanse/firmament in verse 4 was singular describing the earth's atmosphere between the two bodies of water with the earth still in the center. The firmament is still "solid" today. That is why meteors burn up upon entry. That is the friction from entering the earth's atmosphere prevents them from doing more damage, due to the gas content. At one time it prevented a body of water from falling back down to earth.

In verse 14, it states the expanse as plural heavens or firmaments. According to Josephus the Hebrews believed the sun and stars were fixed to the vault of the sky/heaven, but even the Mesopotamians who they allegedly used as a source believed there were three levels of heavens containing the creators/gods and the stars. The Genesis account says nothing about the stars being fixed, only that there was an expanse of heavens. God "hammered out" the whole universe. Perhaps that is what it took to "reboot" the sun and stars. One would have to be literal as we still call the universe an expanse/hammered out like a bracelet. According to the dictionary it is from Latin "to expand". I think that it is also likened to the stretching of fabric. A flat universe being stretched out like the rubber of an expanding balloon, not necessarily the same shape as the balloon, but how the rubber expands?

Why would a body of water cancel out the ability of the earth to have a sky and air?

How would we describe the earth if it was covered by water? Could we call the dry land "Earth" if there was no dry land? Or might we say the earth was without form, or in another form? Gen 1:2 tells us what form it was in, covered by darkness and the deep (water).

The earth was forming in darkness after the initial process of energy throughout the universe ie, the big "bang". There was water also during the interaction of energy and matter which produced that light. The final form was a sphere covered in water with no continents, until the continent appeared, which God called dry land/earth. God called the matter swirling in the emptiness of the deep surrounded by water earth, and then again when the first continent appeared, he still called it earth.

The reason why the firmament was solid and looked hammered out was because it separated two bodies of water. In verse 6, God gave the command. In verse 7 God did the command. In verse 8 the action was called the fixed space between two bodies of water. In verse 9 when the first continent appeared, he said the waters under the heavens, which would have included the universe, the body of water from the previous hammered out expanse, and the atmosphere/hammered out place itself, was the water from which the continent emerged. Before continents it would be considered a water world. Water still covers about 70 percent of the earth. Still a water world.

 

[El_Machinae]

Was it? Or was it a true story, first told in prehistory and garbled in transmission? Schliemann discovered the ruins of Troy because he chose not to take a similar stance on the Illiad.

J

One could say the same of every single creation myth.

 

[onejayhawk]

One could say the same of every single creation myth.

No, you cannot. That applies only if you assume all the myths have a factual core. Hence the Schliemann reference.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't need to assume all myths have a factual core. Only that any specific myth does

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am pretty astounded at the effort of Christians to shoe horn a pretty interesting creation story like Genesis into modern cosmology and try to find ways to work in physics and chemistry as well. Unfortunately, all those additions and technicalities just diminish the power of the story it self and for readers to wander though a maze from which there is no real way out. It is far better never to have trespassed there to begin with. All one has to do is read the words:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

 

[Berzerker]

its just poetic gibberish if there's no truth to it...but the science is telling us something happened to a world covered by water about 4 bya and the result was plate tectonics (dry land) and life

 

[onejayhawk]

You don't need to assume all myths have a factual core. Only that any specific myth does

Which is why you cannot say that all myths can be based on a true story, which is what you did say. It is not necessary to say it about any or them, but certainly not all of them.

I am pretty astounded at the effort of Christians to shoe horn a pretty interesting creation story like Genesis into modern cosmology and try to find ways to work in physics and chemistry as well. Unfortunately, all those additions and technicalities just diminish the power of the story it self and for readers to wander though a maze from which there is no real way out. It is far better never to have trespassed there to begin with. All one has to do is read the words:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

Why is that surprising? First, the Bible purports to be divinely inspired. Hence, it is important that it be true. Archeology is full of instances where the Bible was correct and then-current thinking was disproven. Second, you expect God to understand cosmology, even if his servants have trouble conveying the knowledge.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

its just poetic gibberish if there's no truth to it...but the science is telling us something happened to a world covered by water about 4 bya and the result was plate tectonics (dry land) and life

Why is that surprising? First, the Bible purports to be divinely inspired. Hence, it is important that it be true. Archeology is full of instances where the Bible was correct and then-current thinking was disproven. Second, you expect God to understand cosmology, even if his servants have trouble conveying the knowledge.

J

Well I would contend that there are scientific truths that can be proven in some manner by math and science and there are other Truths that cannot be proven by math and science. Trying to show that the Bible (or other religious texts) are scientifically true is a fool's game and one that will only lead to ridiculousness. By entrenching themselves in proving the Bible to be literally true (can be proven by math and science) many evangelicals have done Christianity a disservice. They are making its truth/value dependent upon science and not faith. The "good news" was never about proving anything. It was about being transformed. If the story of the New Testament is true, then it needs no more than to be told. The power of words does not come from their scientific truthfulness, but from the power of the Holy Spirit lurking in the pages.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Archeology is full of instances where the Bible was correct and then-current thinking was disproven.

Examples, please. And don't even consider mentioning the Shroud of Turin. That was proven to be a hoax.

 

[timtofly]

Well I would contend that there are scientific truths that can be proven in some manner by math and science and there are other Truths that cannot be proven by math and science. Trying to show that the Bible (or other religious texts) are scientifically true is a fool's game and one that will only lead to ridiculousness. By entrenching themselves in proving the Bible to be literally true (can be proven by math and science) many evangelicals have done Christianity a disservice. They are making its truth/value dependent upon science and not faith. The "good news" was never about proving anything. It was about being transformed. If the story of the New Testament is true, then it needs no more than to be told. The power of words does not come from their scientific truthfulness, but from the power of the Holy Spirit lurking in the pages.

Unless God turns out to be a scientist, and words are part of a sophisticated program. Which religious works have been alleged to be inspired by God? It can also go both ways. Technology is not a test of genius. It is how humanity treats each other with the knowledge they have that makes a genius. It would be quite a feat to have a manual that explained all of history, yet was fully comprehended by any one who read it, at any point in history, no matter at what advancement they were technology wise.

The Holy Spirit is not confined to the pages of a book. The Holy Spirit works in the thoughts and bits of information, that is stored in the subconscious part of the human brain. The only thing any human can lay claim to is the consequences of their own actions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Unless God turns out to be a scientist, and words are part of a sophisticated program. ... It would be quite a feat to have a manual that explained all of history, yet was fully comprehended by any one who read it, at any point in history, no matter at what advancement they were technology wise.

Been there, done that, watched the TV series, read the books, bought the DVD, and found where someone uploaded the series to YouTube.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a most amazing book, but all you're going to find in it about Earth in the updated edition is "Mostly Harmless."

When the Vogons come, don't forget to drink your beer, eat your peanuts, and make sure you always know where your towel is.

Oh, and the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is "42" (because that's what you get when you multiply six by nine).

 

[Leoreth]

its just poetic gibberish if there's no truth to it...

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well I would contend that there are scientific truths that can be proven in some manner by math and science and there are other Truths that cannot be proven by math and science. Trying to show that the Bible (or other religious texts) are scientifically true is a fool's game and one that will only lead to ridiculousness. By entrenching themselves in proving the Bible to be literally true (can be proven by math and science) many evangelicals have done Christianity a disservice. They are making its truth/value dependent upon science and not faith. The "good news" was never about proving anything. It was about being transformed. If the story of the New Testament is true, then it needs no more than to be told. The power of words does not come from their scientific truthfulness, but from the power of the Holy Spirit lurking in the pages.

This entirely misses the point. All truth is not equal. Divine truth is of a higher kind. As Hamlet said, the are more things than can be dealt with by science and human thought. Divine truth takes those things into account.

J

 

[Senethro]

This entirely misses the point. All truth is not equal. Divine truth is of a higher kind. As Hamlet said, the are more things than can be dealt with by science and human thought. Divine truth takes those things into account.

J

So say a bunch of folks about their own personal yet oddly mutually exclusive "truths".

 

[timtofly]

Been there, done that, watched the TV series, read the books, bought the DVD, and found where someone uploaded the series to YouTube.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a most amazing book, but all you're going to find in it about Earth in the updated edition is "Mostly Harmless."

When the Vogons come, don't forget to drink your beer, eat your peanuts, and make sure you always know where your towel is.

Oh, and the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is "42" (because that's what you get when you multiply six by nine).

I am supposed to accept there where copies of the guide in existence before Douglas Adams wrote it?

 

[warpus]

The "good news" was never about proving anything.

It's mainly the minority doing this - those who look at religious texts through very literal eyes. Some of them (a lot of them?) see the world around them accepting things that contradict what it says in the Bible about some thing or other, and go off trying to prove what they believe and to prove scientists wrong, because they have such a high stake in their version of reality being right. Plus I bet they have a lot time on their hands. Those who don't view their religious text so literally probably don't care as much, and from my experience that is the majority of Christians in the west.

These stories were meant to be parables and tales to not be taken literally, for the most part. Those who miss this message and start trying to prove stuff are going to go down a curious path, unfortunately, but it happens in all religions it seems.