Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Birdjaguar]

My theory is that God created matter, but energy and by extension motion did not happen until light was added. The first day was the first day of the universe. Not even the solar system. The first day of the solar system was the third day of the "creation" week. In the first chapter some of the actions were stated twice. Each time with different wording. "Let it be" "made" and "created" were used several times for the same action. I have no idea why some people repeat statements using different wording. I have been told that it is done to get the point across to a wider variety of individuals.

It makes sense to me, that God did not re-create the items from having done so in the very first statement. He manipulated what was already there. The creation of matter before such matter became the known universe does not contradict what we do know. Every one agrees that there was time between the formative period of the earth and the beginning of the universe. It was more than the stated 3 days. Time is relative, and even early believers pointed that out in relation to God. My point was there was no energy, time, and motion until God introduced light into the universe. Even the formless water world known as the planet earth was created before time, light, and energy. I can imagine even the solar system in chaos before the planets were placed in their proper orbits. Except for the so called fixed constellations, the universe shows signs of chaotic exploding "births". We assume that even the constellations had traumatic starts, yet Genesis points out that God put the stars in a fixed position.

When the light was added there had to be a tremendous amount of energy happening. God seemed to have created some fixed "art work" with some and left others in a chaotic state.

Thanks, that is helpful. I am not sure how you can separate mater and energy though. Matter is not inert stuff. It is all about chemical bonds and quantum physics and those are all about energy holding things together and breaking them apart.

 

[timtofly]

I agree it is a very rough example. We don't really know the full extent of the definition that the writer was referring to with the term "light" either. I am just trying to point out that it referred to something more, than just an illumination event, and was different than the manipulation of luminaries on the stated day three. Most people understand today that the moon does not produce light, but just reflects it, even though at the time of the writing it may have been hard to convince humans that the moon did not produce it's own light.

My claim may sound a little odd, but it would seem that at the very beginning matter was inert for a brief period of time. Light is the result of matter releasing energy. If there was no light, what state was matter in, that there was no radiant energy. The other side of the coin would be matter that does not produce radiant energy, but eliminates it altogether.

Why would the next phrase after the creation of "matter", even be necessary? The motive behind it could simply be that God can manipulate the very makeup of the universe, and is outside the reality of space and time.

 

[warpus]

Matter and energy are sort of different forms the same thing, though. e=mc^2 and all

 

[brennan]

So... all matter in the universe was created but all at absolute zero so that it could not emit any EM radiation and presumably in some strange configuration that prevented any gravitational cohesion or tuings would have heated up pretty fast. Time (which did not exist) went by for three days and then god turned on the heater? This allowed time and energy to exist (except that almost all the energy already did exist in the form of matter).

 

[warpus]

So... all matter in the universe was created but all at absolute zero so that it could not emit any EM radiation and presumably in some strange configuration that prevented any gravitational cohesion or tuings would have heated up pretty fast. Time (which did not exist) went by for three days and then god turned on the heater? This allowed time and energy to exist (except that almost all the energy already did exist in the form of matter).

You get radiation and other energy release even at absolute zero due to quantum effects I believe, so that doesn't seem to make sense either.

 

[brennan]

I'm continually amazed by the cognitive contortions some people will go through to pat their ludicrous beliefs on the back.

 

[timtofly]

So... all matter in the universe was created but all at absolute zero so that it could not emit any EM radiation and presumably in some strange configuration that prevented any gravitational cohesion or tuings would have heated up pretty fast. Time (which did not exist) went by for three days and then god turned on the heater? This allowed time and energy to exist (except that almost all the energy already did exist in the form of matter).

Who said anything about 3 days passing? Time started when energy started. It says God created all matter, and then turned the heater on, (as you put it) and time started.
What is wrong with separating the formation of the universe with the manipulation of the solar system later and fixing it's location in reference to the currently known constellations? Wouldn't arguing and proving the universe is infinite be a better route to state there is no God doing the creating and manipulating? Even so called dark matter could be a dead ringer for the separation of light from darkness. You have matter that produces energy and matter that for all intense and purpose destroys energy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

My theory is that God created matter, but energy and by extension motion did not happen until light was added.

You have a hypothesis, not a theory.

I can imagine even the solar system in chaos before the planets were placed in their proper orbits. Except for the so called fixed constellations, the universe shows signs of chaotic exploding "births". We assume that even the constellations had traumatic starts, yet Genesis points out that God put the stars in a fixed position.

Do you understand what constellations are? They are patterns in the stars that were created by human imagination. Different cultures saw different patterns, and imagined different stories to explain them.

The constellations are not permanent. They may seem so, but that's only because the stars - which are constantly in motion in their orbits around the center of the galaxy - take such a long time from our perspective. Over a period of tens of thousands of years, the constellations won't look the same at all.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If I was trying to rationalise away the "light didn't exist until day 3" thing then I'd probably look at the recombination/photon decoupling epoch in the early universe. Light didn't operate as we know it, as in being able to actually "see" things far away, until after this event, which was about 300,000 years after the big bang I believe.

So there you go. There's an already accepted event which operates according to known physical laws which is almost a ready made fit for biblical interpretation. No need to postulate any nonsense about God creating matter before he created the energy to animate it or anything like that.

 

[warpus]

You have a hypothesis, not a theory.

To be fair I don't think that even qualifies as a hypothesis. It's just a "personal belief/guess". But also to be fair, in common day speech people call something like that "a theory".

 

[Berzerker]

Who said anything about 3 days passing? Time started when energy started. It says God created all matter, and then turned the heater on, (as you put it) and time started.

Genesis doesn't say God created matter or the universe

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,

5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

The "Earth" existed but was covered in darkness and water and that was followed by the interaction of this primordial world (Tehom) with God's "wind" or "spirit". Then and only then does God's "light" become part of the story.

So what does God call this "Light"? He calls it "Day" and he separates it from the darkness he calls "Night" and that was the first day. The primordial world was now spinning near a star.

The 2nd day is devoted to the formation of "Heaven(s)", the firmament, the hammered out bracelet - a barrier or demarcation line placed amidst or between the waters.

6 And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'

7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.

8 And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

As you can see Heaven is not the universe and does not appear in the story until the 2nd day. Also, notice how evening (darkness) precedes daylight? Time, as you put it, did not begin with the light.

9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.

10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.

God did not create the waters or the Earth (dry land), the latter was revealed when the former was gathered into Seas. The Earth appears on the 3rd Day and is followed on the 4th Day with the creation of its "sky". The luminaries in the Earth's sky were not created, they were given or appointed their roles - to serve for signs, seasons, to rule over night and day.

 

[bhavv]

I'm not sure where you're quoting that from, but in my new international bible, it clearly states that god made the sun and the stars AFTER already creating light, day and night.

You seem to be using a purposefully adapted version to ignore that part.

How did night and day exist without any stars?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To be fair I don't think that even qualifies as a hypothesis. It's just a "personal belief/guess". But also to be fair, in common day speech people call something like that "a theory".

I was trying to be polite. The word I should have used is "notion."

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not sure where you're quoting that from, but in my new international bible, it clearly states that god made the sun and the stars AFTER already creating light, day and night.

You seem to be using a purposefully adapted version to ignore that part.

How did night and day exist without any stars?

Young's Literal, both versions say basically the same thing

Here's the sequence of events over the first 4 days

1) a dark, water covered world is given rotation near a star (the Sun) - the Light caused both the spinning primordial world and its closer proximity to the Sun. It was a collision...

2) Heaven is placed amidst the waters - its something "firm" and is described as a hammered bracelet. The asteroid belt, the remains of the collision.

3) Earth is revealed from under the water and life begins - Earth is the dry land, not this planet

4) Lights appear in Earth's sky - both the Earth and its sky appear after the 1st Day Light, Day and Night. No Earth? No Earth's sky and no lights in Earth's sky. Thats why the lights appear on the 4th Day, the Earth didn't show up until the 3rd Day.

As you can see Genesis employs words like create and made quite loosely. The Earth was not created, it already existed before the 1st Day but was submerged by water and darkness. And when the Earth does appear in the story its merely revealed by gravity, water receded into Seas.

The word "made" appears in a certain context - lights that serve specific purposes - and means appointed, assigned, or given roles. They were made to serve for signs, seasons, to rule over Night and Day, etc. That means a relative hand full of lights are being referenced, not the universe.

And what does the science tell us? Our water likely formed at the asteroid belt and our oldest "rock" formed in water suggesting the world was covered by water before plate tectonics began building the landmasses and the appearance of life.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is Berzerker starting a new religion here?

 

[Daw]

Well, that's what the right of free speech is for, no? Now, shush, I haven't read a sci-fi in ages, and this one looks promising so far.

Albert Valentinov was writing in Berzerker's genre. I liked it. There is no chance I am able to find anything of him in English, probably, but you can try using on-line translating this short one. (God, automation is GOOD!)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well maybe it's because I haven't really been following the thread, but I genuinely can't tell what's going on.

 

[Daw]

Neither have I tbh, just some looking through. My impression is that Berzerker posts some sci-fi stuff and others shoo him all over the place for being deviant from classical scientific viewpoint, and everybody is amused this way. I honestly doubt whether or not anyone is serious about it.

 

[Daw]

Found it. "The Seventh Advent" shortfiction by Albert Valentinov. It's in Russian, but I can't help that (unless I'm asked nicely - saying "please" will be enough - to find free time to translate ). But I think any on-line translator will suffice to grasp the essence.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is Berzerker starting a new religion here?

I think he's trying to convert us to worshiping Marduk.

Well, that's what the right of free speech is for, no? Now, shush, I haven't read a sci-fi in ages, and this one looks promising so far.

Albert Valentinov was writing in Berzerker's genre. I liked it. There is no chance I am able to find anything of him in English, probably, but you can try using on-line translating this short one. (God, automation is GOOD!)

Berzerker isn't peddling science fiction. It's fantasy, with Chariots of the Gods and Velikovsky-type garbage used as "sources".

Neither have I tbh, just some looking through. My impression is that Berzerker posts some sci-fi stuff and others shoo him all over the place for being deviant from classical scientific viewpoint, and everybody is amused this way. I honestly doubt whether or not anyone is serious about it.

I'm not amused. I am honestly not amused by this stuff.

Among some parts of society, it's the "in thing" now to be anti-science, or science-ignorant. There's a guy on YouTube who insists that atheists believe that stars were created by mutations. And on CBC.ca there's an obnoxious troll who has a standard set of spammish, insulting posts that he trots out dozens of times in every new article about the space program or new discoveries made by the probes or telescopes. Now he's branched out to trolling the paleontology articles.

So no - I have NO sense of humor about this.