Just another site

Archive for the tag “creation”

Genesis 5 – Why don’t we just beat biology with a brick?

Thus we have the first of the myriad genealogical books of the bible, the existence of which are really only relevant to long-dead patriots of ancient tribes proud to see the long record of noble individuals among their heritage and young earth creationists trying to establish the age of the earth and the historical accuracy of the bible.

The only thing in this chapter more ludicrous than the ages that most of these descendants of Adam live to is the age at which most of them father children.  

Arguably, the only thing Christians are more certain of than Jesus’s infinite capacity to forgive even the most outrageous transgressions is humanity’s capacity to fall from God’s grace through the wicked opportunities of sin.  No sin preoccupies the mind of the modern American Christian more than of SEX.  It’s the most wicked and debasing thing in the world, and the veritable pink elephant in the room.

Certainly Adam and his progeny are supposed to represent the most righteous examples of nobility and virtue that humanity can muster up, but if you expect me to believe that Adam and his wife Eve were together for 130 years before they had sex enough times to have a third child, then you’re crazier than Abraham when he heard the voice of God telling him to kill his son.

After this, there are quite a few claims of nigh immortality as it lists off a dozen people who lived on the order of 900 years without being taken away by disease or wild animals.  We’ll just bypass the biological impossibility of such claims, because it seems pointless to bring them up now after already skipping by the fact that Eve was of post-menopausal age twice over when giving birth to Seth.  Perhaps most of these men’s wives were much younger than the men (not an impossibility especially considering the culture of arranged marriages of the ancient middle east), but I must admit that the ethical issues of a man 100 or more years older than his barely post-pubescent bride are far more disturbing to me to consider than anything else I’ve mentioned.

So, we get a bunch of admittedly cool-sounding names but not much else along with a woefully skeletal story about a man called Enoch.  There must undoubtedly be gobs of apocryphal stories surrounding this man because it is said that he “walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.”  Notable certainly for having walked with God, a privilege that all the fervently religious in the modern world wish that God would bestow upon anyone so that all the non-believers could see he’s real, but also because the wording of this verse could be interpreted to mean that Yahweh took Enoch straight to heaven without him suffering death.

It could also mean any number of other things, such that God entirely erased his spiritual existence in an existential fit, or that Enoch got sick of all his family’s fanatical shit and wandered off into the desert where no one discovered his body so they assumed that God had whisked him away three-hundred-sixty-five years young for scotch and good company.

We also have the famous Methuselah notable entirely for his extraordinary ability to refrain from kicking the bucket for nine-hundred-sixty-nine years.  One has to admire his restraint.

Amid all the populating of the earth (which really still has yet to explain the population distribution of races on the various continents without invoking a rate of biological mutation that certainly would have killed off the entire species by now) Noah is born.  His father Lamech prophesies that Noah will relieve his people from the toil they’ve endured due to the cursed earth, which is rather a lot of responsibility to lay on an infant’s shoulder’s for a gut instinct.

And lastly, when Noah was five-hundred years old he begat three sons, but presumably not all at once.  That would be pretty unlikely.

(Your irony meters should be going off.)

Now, we all know what’s coming so I don’t think I need a spoiler alert to make a quick commentary on the chapters to come.  It says in Gen 9:28 that Noah lived to be 950 years old, which was 350 years after the flood.  That works out to make Noah (break out the calculators) 600 years old at the time of the flood.  Still with me?

Now, Methselah, Noah’s grandfather, was 187 years old when giving he fathered Lamech.  Lamech was 182 years old when he fathered Noah.  That means that Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born.  So Methuselah was 369+600=969 years old when the flood hit the earth.

This is exactly the age that Methuselah died.  This leaves one of two possibilities.  Yahweh waited until just after this man died to wipe away the pestilence of his own creation, or he killed Methuselah in the flood along with every other human being on the planet but Noah’s family, compassionate god that he is.

Just a thought.


Genesis 4 – God hates Veggies

We begin our story with the first human birth of the universe, which somehow passes without Eve mentioning, “Holy fuck, Lord!  You weren’t kidding about that whole ‘greatly multiplied’ pain thing!”

We meet Cain the farmer and Abel the shepherd, and in time the two bring offerings of the fruits of their labor.  Cain brings veggies and such, while Abel sacrifices some young goats or something like that.  Thus we have Yahweh’s first real opportunity to showcase how much of a prick he is.

I just want to take a moment to note that shepherding, noble profession that it is, is nowhere near as difficult or labor-intensive as farming.  Keep the 6,000 year old context in mind when considering what agricultural crops, tools, and techniques Cain had at his disposal.  I even wouldn’t be surprised if he had to protect his fields from Abel’s flock upon occasion.

So, Yahweh was pleased by Abel’s gifts, but totally blew off Cain’s.  Cain gets understandably upset, considering that it should be the thought (not to mention all the back-breaking labor) that counts, so Yahweh comes over and consoles him.

Nah, just kidding.

He scolds him for the fact that he’s upset, and says that Cain wouldn’t be upset if he had actually done well.  Then he lectures Cain about sin waiting for him when he doesn’t do well.  This is an understandable warning in context, since you’re far more likely to deal out some horrible retribution when you’re upset, but I feel like it only really fans the flames when you just told someone who took the time and effort to make you an offering out of the goodness of their heart that their present is total crap.

From this we can surmise that Yahweh is a carnivorous god who desires blood, raises eyebrow and nose at leafy greens, and likes to shame people who already feel bad.

Cain gets all jealous and kills his brother in a rage.  An interesting question one might ask is if Christianity presupposes that humans have no innate moral compass and must be controlled by the edicts of a divine moral arbiter, could Cain have known that killing his brother is wrong since it mentions nowhere if Yahweh gave them commandments to follow after being banished from Eden?

In any case god asks Cain another batch of unnecessary questions (“Where’s your borther?” “What have you done?”), which leads me to believe that he’s either not omniscient or the most passive-aggressive god in all of mythology.

The phrasing of his curse upon Cain actually makes him sound more like a third party than anything else.  It seems as if Cain is cursed directly from the Earth because of the blood it has absorbed, and therefore refuses to yield it’s bounty to him further.  Terrible to be a farmer who can no longer grow food, but what Cain should have said was, “Yeah, well you never liked my veggies anyway!”

He’s understandably worried that anyone who finds him will kill him as he’s basically just been turned into a vagrant beggar.  Tribal loyalties were a bit thicker back then, as well as distrust of outsiders, especially cursed ones.  So Yahweh marks him to show that sevenfold vengeance will be taken against anyone who kills him.  Kind of a sweet caveat, really.  Sure, he’s cursed, but he’s still under divine protection.  Of course, that’s arguably just to ensure that his suffering will be prolonged as much as possible.

Except, full stop.  Who’s going to find and kill him?  According to the bible so far, there are a grand total of four three people left on the planet right now.  And then Cain has kids with his wife.  What!?  That’s really all the explanation we get?  So either he finds a wife if the land of Nod to which he journeys, or his wife is one of his sisters who doesn’t merit mention because the bible is as sexist in its genealogies as it is in its commandments.  As if incest didn’t have its own issues.

We get our first taste of polygamy with Cain’s great-great-great grandson, who claims that if anyone kills him he’ll be revenged seventy-sevenfold (what formula is he using to calculate this?) because he has killed two people.  He could be lamenting, but this really sounds more like boasting.  Since when does the divine give out protection for slaughtering people anyway?  Seems like the more people you murder under this protection racket, the less people would want to kill you for fear of incurring Yahweh’s wrath.  Not an inconceivable scheme.

We meet Seth, Abel’s replacement as the righteous child, as evidenced by the fact that his descendants “called upon the name of the Lord.”  Incidentally, it’s interesting to note that Eve’s only speaking parts here are to comment upon how grateful she is for the children god gives to her.  She gets no further commentary presumably because she’s just a wicked baby-factory.

Actually, we don’t hear from Adam at all.  Why isn’t there any sort of reaction on the parent’s part to one son being dead, one son a becoming a murderer?  No cursing, shaming, weeping, casting out?

Fratricide is a terrible crime, but don’t worry.  I’m sure god’ll sort it all out.

Genesis 3 – Be as I say, not as I am

Here is where the bible first displays its rampant anti-intellectualism.  I suppose it is an inevitable consequence of a faith-based paradigm to assert that knowledge and curiosity are evil and will only lead to your downfall, but it still saddens me that this parable informs the foundation of the vast majority of Western society.

From the get-go it says that the serpent is more crafty/cunning than any other creature (depending upon the translation), and immediately establishes intelligence as an evil trait.  Interesting to note, however, that were Eve wiser, she would not have been so easily fooled by the serpent.  Clearly the answer to free humanity from gullibility is education.

Except we all know that’s not the moral of the story.  One does not need knowledge to obey.  Obedience is key, regardless of one’s intellectual capabilities, to being a moral person in Yahweh’s eyes.

It is of significant note that Eve was not alive at the point that god commanded Adam to refrain from eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil.  This means one of two things: that there were extenuating circumstances outside the official narrative of the story (whereby god informed Eve of his commandment), or that Adam was the one who informed Eve of this command.  I myself am inclined toward the latter case, perhaps because it seems less likely that the literary work which purports to deliver the word of god would leave out the words of god.

In the latter case, Eve’s position as skeptic becomes even easier to identify with.  She’s dealing with some serious “he said He said” bullshit.

It’s also interesting for me to notice that there is never actually a passage talking about the conversation which Eve had with Adam about the fruit.  It merely says that she ate of the fruit and gave it to him, who ate it also.  I grew up with stories about the way that Eve persuaded Adam to disobey his creator, feminine wiles distorting the obedient and rational male mind.  I’m surprised to learn that it’s simply misogyny with no biblical basis.

Let’s consider the case of the serpent briefly.  He asserts that god lied to them because they certainly will not die if they eat of the fruit.  This is actually true in the literal sense, because Yahweh says that they will surely die “in the day that you eat from it” (Gen 2:17).  Certainly there’s an argument here that god did not lie because he condemned humans to death the day they ate the fruit, but the fact that Adam lives for another 900 years really should make one ponder who here is the trickster figure mincing words and telling half truths?

The serpent says that Yahweh doesn’t Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit because it will make them like god, knowing good and evil.  The message here is, of course, that ignorance is bliss, and learning and questions will get you into deep shit with the divine authority.  The moral of this whole damn chapter is that you shouldn’t trust your reason, curiosity, or intellect, because authority knows best.

The fact that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree is further evidence that this was not a moral test.  They could not have known the right thing to do because they had not the requisite knowledge.  This was a test of obedience.

Growing up, I’ve heard this called the “original rebellion.”  This seems totally disingenuous to me.  Rebellion is an act undertaken with at least the pretense of deliberate and violent rejection of a particular idea of system of governance.  At most, this was a toddler’s lapse of judgement due to momentary infatuation with a shiny.  To condemn them and their entire progeny to death and pain is extreme and unjust.  Do you beat a toddler to death because they steal from the cookie jar?

No.  You don’t.

You don’t because they don’t know any better.  To do so would be cruel, unjust, and totally out of proportion with the infraction.  Clearly this is an overreaction.  But why so extreme?  I’ll return to that…

Gen 3:7 begins the body and sexuality shaming inherent in Christianity.  Once they know of the difference between good and evil, they immediately clothe themselves because there is no more present evil than that of their nakedness.  If nakedness is evil, then why did Yahweh permit it while they were ignorant?  Is it because they only looked upon one another with lust (a sin) after they understood nakedness?  That’s just bizarre, because they’re for all intents and purposes married.  Clearly it must be concluded that there’s no rational basis for this belief.  Naked is just bad.  Don’t do it!

It’s also been pointed out to me that the phrase “good and evil” could be a merism, which would mean that the knowledge they gained was not of morality, but of “all the things.”  That opens up a whole can of speculative worms which I don’t really want to get into, but it still jives with the whole “knowledge is bad for you” or at least “undesired by god” theme.

Though clearly this could not have made Adam too intelligent if he thought it was a better idea to hide from god because he’s naked than to act as if nothing had changed to avoid punishment.  Perhaps this is an argument in favor of the inherent morality of humans since he was merely ashamed and did not actually lie to Yahweh and confessed when confronted (though Adam throws Eve under the heavenly bus, who in turn tosses the serpent under).

Anyway, Yahweh is wandering through the garden (which incidentally imbues him with a physical, arguably bodily presence found nowhere else in the bible), and asks Adam a bunch of questions which he should already know the answer to, being omniscient and all.  Yahweh then doles out a bunch of punishments which really sound a lot more like origin myths than a historical record.  The woman must submit to the man’s authority but simultaneously desire him (kinky!) and have really painful childbirth, the men must work the land to survive, death is introduced to the world, and the snake loses it’s legs and is set eternally at odds with humanity.  From an outside perspective, this really sounds more than anything else like “and coyote became trapped in the mortal realm.  He howls at his lover, the Moon, because he knows he can never return to the spirit realm with her.”

I’d like to just take a moment to point out a talking snake.  A talking snake!  Really?  Really?  There’s no explanation at all for this phenomenon, nor any reprise.  There’s no reason why animals no longer speak to people, no commandment from god.  It wasn’t part of the punishments.  One can only surmise that it is part of the cost of being expelled from Eden, but that is just baseless speculation.

And let us not forget that the modern church would have us believe that the serpent is Satan, but this is not supported anywhere in the actual text.  This could certainly be explained away by some supplementary material later in the bible, as I’m beginning to suspect that the holy book makes a habit of retcon.

Yahweh then makes them some leather clothes as a way to say, “Baby I only hit you because I love you.  Here’s some flowers,” and drives them from the garden for their disobedience.

Except not.  God takes a healthy dose of paranoia pills and says he better banish them since they’ve “become like one of Us, knowing good and evil”  This plural is damn confusing.  Is Yahweh actually saying that there are more like him, and that he fears the humans becoming like them?  Regardless, it is clear that he does not banish them for disobedience, but out of fear that they could eat of the tree of life and live forever.

God is afraid of them becoming his equals.

Think about that for a second.

Let’s skip past the whole “why did he put the tree of life in the garden in the first place?” business.  The fact is that there exists a tree which could have given Adam and Eve immortality which Yahweh would have implicitly been powerless to remove.  This is an argument supported by the fact that he explicitly says this is the reason they shall be banished.

He’s afraid.

Knowledge is dangerous because it makes you like god and threatens his power.

And to protect against his power being usurped, he places a cherubim with a flaming sword which “turns every way” to guard not the garden but the tree of life.

And I can’t help it, but the cherubim makes me think of this.

Genesis 2 – 2nd Draft

The first and easiest shot which one can take at this chapter is of course to ask the question of why an omnipotent deity would need a day of rest.  To admit that such an awesome act of creation could possibly drain away even the tiniest amount of power or energy from god would be admitting that he is in some way limited, which would be a perfectly acceptable assertion were the bible talking about any other god but this one.  Yahweh is by definition infinite, and any evidence to the contrary would unravel his entire character.

One could argue that this day of rest was intended for the humans he had just created, except that he makes no commandment as such, contrary to his personal style of authoritarian dictates.  Verse 3 notes that the sabbath is sanctified because Yahweh rested on that day, and not that people should rest because he sanctified it.

Verse 1 states “Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.”  Perhaps this answers the question of when the host of heaven (i.e. angels) were created.  It’s possible that this confirms that the were no further acts of creation past this point, and the process of bringing the universe into being was finished which would seem to support the idea that the supernatural entities exist at this point.  Curious that they warrant no mention, though.

Verse 4, with its repetitious, almost incantatory style, reminds me of the fact that this and other portions of the bible were in fact chanted.  Perhaps the fact that this aspect of religious worship is missing from modern Christianity could go some way in explaining the need for the ecstatic, speaking-in-tongues experience that has become so popular.  Just a thought.

I hope I’m not the only one who senses a thematic shift at verse 5.  Perhaps it’s because we just went back in fucking time.  As far as I know, with the exception of the gospels, the rest of the bible goes chronologically, so it just strikes me as odd that within the first two chapters of this book it is deemed necessary that we must go back, strike the record, and revise previous statements.  Sloppy storytelling to say the least.

Suddenly there is no plant life and no human beings again, and Adam is created before the plants.  How did the 6th day happen before the 3rd day, I wonder?  Regardless, there is something more poetic about Yahweh creating humans by breathing life into the earth than apparating from thin air due to some incantation.

Adam is actually an interesting name because Yahweh never actually names him that.  The bible just starts referring to him as that in Gen 2:20.  It’s actually something of a pun, because the Hebrew word for earth is adamah (אֲדָמָה).  Also, tangentially related, autocthon is an awesome word.

So Adam is created, then the garden, and then, only then, are all the plants allowed to sprout and grow (and how this jives with the original timeline is left unexplained), including a couple of incredibly interesting trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  But those come later.

The fact that we essentially get a physical location, at the mouth of four specific rivers, for Eden is far more interesting than if it was just said to be in some far off mythic land that nobody’s been to since.  It means that we can go there, take a look around, and note that, in all likelihood, “Yup. This place is crap.”

Now, the first commandment in first creation story is “be fruitful and multiply,” but obviously there is not yet anyone for Adam to be fruity or multiplicative with as of yet, so god commands him to eat anything but the fruit of the tree of good and evil, “for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”  An important phrasing that I’ll return to in later chapters.

Adam’s first role is tender of the garden, but god also decided that this is a lonely planet with just just one naked guy staring dumbstruck around at a bunch of plants, most of which he can’t eat, and so brings all the beasts and birds into existence specifically because he’s looking for a helper for Adam. In the process, Yehweh decides he might as well parade all the creatures in front of Adam to have him bark nonsense sounds at them and use those as their names.  Personally I would have had some fun with it, given how vocal I was as a baby, and given them all ridiculous-sounding names filled with too many vowels and raspberry sounds.  After all, it seems Adam is only a few hours old, and I’m not sure what we can really assume about his cognitive abilities at this point.

Not to mention the mind-numbingly vast period of time it would take to actually name all the “beasts of the field and birds in the sky” on Earth, most of which don’t even reside anywhere near the Middle East, the glaring omission of the creation of the goddamn fish, which Yahweh spent the whole fourth day on, should be staring us in the face.  It’s almost as if this version of the story was created by a completely different culture, one which has never seen an ocean.  Oh, yeah, and this version puts the creation of the birds and beasts after the humans.

We can’t even go two chapters in without having internal contradictions, can we?

So there’s no suitable helper for Adam found among the animals, a result which is hardly surprising considering that this helper is supposed to be “corresponding to” Adam.  This sounds a lot like more shoddy guess-and-check work to me.

So Yahweh gets all MacGyver and says, “Aha, I can fix this!” and makes a woman from a rib that Adam probably didn’t need anyway.  Adam speaks his first words in the book and says that “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.”

Hold. the fuck. on.

I never really considered it this way before, but it really strikes me as no wonder that the bible is so misogynistic.  The origin myth comes right out and says that women were birthed from men.  How backwards is that?  Makes me think of Athena being birthed from Zeus’s head, but even then she had a mortal mother first.

In fact it reminds me more of a book that I admittedly haven’t read called When God was a Woman, which essentially argues that the shift from matriarchal to patriarchal cultures had a corresponding shift in their religious doctrines in which male deities claimed the roles of supreme creator and giver of life.  In most other creation myths, there is some original goddess from which the male god who eventually overthrows or kills her is birthed.  I suppose that for a self-begotten male god, it is internally consistent to maintain the male power of life within the origin of humanity.

So Eve is lesser because she is Adam’s helper and came from him, though I have also heard that Eve is merely human 2.0, the improved version.  It’s kind of humorous, if only for the anachronism, but ultimately flawed for the same reasons.  There was no male or female first; it’s like a more inane “chicken and egg” riddle.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s really more of an expression of cultural supremacy and values than anything else.

The chapter closes with an almost external-narrative-storytelling-parenthetical remark, in that all this is why men leave their mothers and fathers to take wives and be one flesh.  Adam and Eve would have no experience with this concept, having no mortal parents to leave, so it seems to be some sort of explanatory statement tagged on as the end point of this etiological myth.

And also they’re naked.  Just thought you should know.

Genesis 1 – Abracadabra

I once took a course in college titled “Approaches to Myth”, and one day a guest lecturer visited to speak about the genesis story.  Almost the entire lecture was spent discussing a few very specific intricacies related to the particular wordings and word choices in the original Hebrew of the script, such as the fact that the first name assigned to God is elohim (אֱלהִים), and can be an ambiguously plural word that incorporates both male and female aspects.

Such intricate analysis is fascinating to me, but ultimately a bit too in-depth for my purposes.  Since it seems most modern American Christians are unaware of the difficulties and losses of meaning involved in translating a book from another language, culture, and era, I think such an involved level of analysis is not very useful here.  I might as well be talking about how clever James Joyce is when writing puns in old Norse.  As such, I’ll try to stick mostly to the text as it has been translated, but there may be occasions when I pipe up like a rusty train whistle when I have something significant to add.  As I mentioned previously but not explicitly, one of the primary things I’m interested in is how the bible is, in many ways, self-refuting.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  What is most notable about the Hebrew God in comparison to other ancient Middle Eastern mythical figures is that he has no origin story.  The story begins with the creation of our world, whereas other cultures had Gaia or Tiamat being birthed from the void or something.  Tiamat, for example, was slain by Marduk and her body itself was used to create the heavens and the earth.  The Hebrew God seems more like a parlor magician:  *Poof* “Ta-daa!”

It’s also the only aspect of the creation story that was brought into being without speaking words.  All the other refinements that God makes are commands spoken aloud.

The fact that day and night precede the creation of the Sun, is kind of funny, but it also reminds me that this is an etiological myth.  It was a tale handed down from mouth to mouth for generations within a particular tribe to explain why the world is the way it is.  It actually makes me think of a lot of Native American and Greek myths which sought to explain particular phenomena such as the Echo.

The fact that the earth was “without form, and void,” a phrase which I originally took to be rather poetic, gains a rather surprising and concrete meaning when we come to verse 6.  God creates a firmament called Heaven to divide the waters above and below.  That’s when it hits me.  These people actually thought that Heaven was some sort of dome holding back the waters in the sky!  I’ve seen drawings of the concept of the “celestial sphere” before, but never not one that put actual water on the outside.  It is a rather easy answer to “why is the sky blue?” I suppose, but it also gives additional significance to the story of the great flood.  This sky god has power over the waters both above and below.

Then come plants which, it is also strange to note, come before the Sun.  No photosynthesis for you!  You’ll just have to go to bed without dinner!  To be fair, though, I’m getting a picture of a sort of dull diffusion of light permeating the day which the mythmakers saw as being gathered and shaped into the greater and lesser lights on the fourth day.  The fact that the rest of the cosmos gets such a passing mention as “He made the stars also” seems so disingenuous.  Of course, desert tribes 6.000 years ago could not know that all those tiny dots in the firmament, billions of them, were great lights just like our own.  It just seems so cheap and dismissive of how unfathomably large and vast the cosmos really is.

And what’s all this business with “and God saw that it was good”?  Was this a guess-and-check project?  Was god just splashing together another piece of artwork to hang in his living room? “Yeah, that’ll go real nice with my lampshades.”

When it mentions that God created the “great sea creatures,” I wonder if this is referring to creatures like whales and sharks, which actually exist, or to mythical creatures and sailor’s tales?  I’m inclined towards the latter, since I’ve heard that the bible affirms the existence of unicorns.  I’m sure I’ll get to that if it’s there, though.

Then on the sixth day, humans!  Male and female in Our image!  Wait, what?  There’s that confusing plural usage again.  Perhaps this could be chalked up to that Trinity nonsense, although it’s starting to seem like a god with multiple personality disorder that talks to itself using the plural is less and less desirable an object of worship.

And also, what exactly does “image” mean?  I’m sure theologians the world and time over have argued this point.  Could it mean the actual physical characteristics of God?  In which case is God male, female, a hermaphrodite, asexual?  In fact, why create male and female versions of anything at all?  If humans truly were made in the image of God, why the sexual dimorphism?  It’s not the only option; we can see that in nature.

Or does that phrase merely extend to the rough shape, i.e. the arms, legs, head, and torso?  This just seems more like the kind of God that primitive people would be able to conceptualize.  A more powerful version of themselves.  And it’s a tautological explanation of humanity’s dominance over earth’s creatures anyway.  “We rule over all the lands because this god that looks just like us told us we could rule over all the lands.”

I’ve also heard in my childhood that this reference “in Our image” is referring to the fact that humans have a spiritual aspect just as god does, which always begged the question, “then what’s all this fleshy business about?!”  Besides, the word image is inescapably bound up in the actual realm of the visible, and the spiritual realm is distinctly invisible.

There’s also a conspicuous absence of any other voices in this story.  Those first humans can’t even get a single word in edgewise to thank the guy for giving them so much dominion.

It must also be pointed out that the grammar of verse 27 does not limit those first humans to two single entities, a male and female.  It could be denoting an entire population of people, not unlike the way in which god is said to have created all the other animals on the earth.  In fact, their lack of voices makes them seem like just another pack of animals in the world, albeit ones with the divine blessing to be the dominant species on that spit of land between the waters above and below.

And then God rests, and he would be sleepy.

But, wait!  That’s it!?  What about all the choirs of the angels, and the heavenly host, and Lucifer, and the rebellion, and the fall from grace!  What about all that awesome metaphysical war?  When did all that happen?  Before the beginning of creation?  But there would have been no heaven to fall from or hell to fall to.  During the first day when the heaven and the earth were created?  Then Lucifer was either a really impatient and psychotic guy or it begins to smell like a set-up.  I thought Lucifer was supposed to be Satan who was supposed to be the snake!  When does he come into the picture?

I thought etiological myths were supposed to answer questions…

Post Navigation