Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The Hebrew for "In the beginning" should actually be translated "In beginning" because there isn't a definite article in the Hebrew. Because of the ancient literature, Enuma Elish, which means "When on high", and because of how the second chapter of Genesis is presented, "When God began", the translation for this verse has also been considered, "When God began". This would make v. 1 a run-on sentence, extending all the way to v. 3.

This verse also has been treated as an introduction, since after this verse, God goes through the process of creation. The Hebrew word for "created" has been treated as a word to support the idea that God created the Universe out of nothing. Even if this notion is accepted for that word, the idea of something coming from nothing is absurd, since nothing in the literal sense is no thing. Rather, something would have come from something.

It may be said that this "something" is God, but God is not "something", unless we use "God" to mean something besides a literal, personal, conscious being, as it is used in science. That is to say, "God" becomes whatever it was behind the gases that prevent scientists from learning about the origin of the Universe, so to speak. Furthermore, if God is this something, then the Universe is not created from nothing, but from the being of God.

This is not to be confused as the power of God, which would be comfortable to most in the Abrahamic faith, but God himself. Truly then, "God is Nature" would be proper. Some ascribe to Aristotelian concepts of causality. The reason for this is because ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. This is not permitted for most in the Abrahamic faith, else God is not the creator, but simply a builder.

Oddly enough, those who defend this way of thinking use examples from every day experiences, such as, "We do not see things come into existence out of nowhere or from nothing", and "A house needs a builder." Yet, they have a difficult time accepting that the Universe may have always just been, just as their eternal god. And it is these two, conflicting views, at least in their minds, that the Universe could not have always been. It seems intuitive that the Universe came from somewhere, but intuition has a poor track record.

If things do not come into existence out of nowhere, then how did the Universe come to be, even if God was there? All that we are told is God was there and that he created the Universe. How, if one should abide by the Aristotelian view of causality? Two types of Aristotelian causes are efficient cause and material cause. Efficient cause would put into motion and/or change whatever is being affected. Material cause would be the raw material. To give an idea, a sculptor sculpts (efficient cause) a large chunk of marble (material cause).

Let us consider God. If God is the efficient cause, then from whence did the material cause come? One from the Abrahamic faith might say it came from God, but would this mean that God is both the efficient and material cause? To accept this would be to accept that God is Nature, creatio ex deo, rather than the accepted creatio ex nihilo. It would seem the proper belief for anyone of the Abrahamic faith is creatio ex materia.

The Hebrew for "heavens" is morphologically plural. Words in English that are morphologically plural are "sheep", "deer", "moose", "fish". Depending on the context, it may be understood either singular or plural. While the idea in this verse may give off the idea that it's referring to God's abode, I think it is best translated "sky". The opposite of it is "earth", which I think makes sense as "land". This verse seems to be understood as a merism for "universe", but the way the Hebrews understood the world around them is vastly different from our own.

1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
I cannot help but understand that "earth" is being used in a different manner than it will be later used, or it could simply be an anachronism, which is to say that "earth" is what we will come to understand as we proceed. Its current state, I'd imagine, is uninhabitable and amorphous. I do not know what kind of darkness this is supposed to be, as darkness doesn't truly exist. If darkness occurs when an object absorbs photons, then this formless, void material is absorbing the photons. This would mean light already exists. It would also mean the water is quite hot.

The face of the deep, as I understand it, is the surface of the depths of the sea. Translations often go for "Spirit of God", though I think this is just a theological translation, especially with the capital "S" for "Spirit". It seems to me—though this makes the idea of creation seem lifeless—that a better translation would be "the wind of God" or perhaps "a mighty wind". Of course, the Hebrew for "spirit" could just be translated "breath of God", as the creation is understood in this manner. (Psa. 33:6) I know some might think it's best to go with "spirit of God" because he is hovering over the surface of the waters "Like an eagle [. . .] flutters over its young." (Deut. 32:11)

1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
I would suppose there already was light, as it is my understanding that nothing is truly dark, it just has fewer photons. This verse seems to contradict v. 14, especially with the concept of day and night following after. How one speaks light into existence makes no sense, especially for those who accept the notion of every day experiences as their benchmark.

1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
By "good", I understand that God saw this according to his plan concerning creation. It doesn't mean that God saw this was morally good, since it's inanimate. For God to separate light from the dark implies that light and darkness were unified.

1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
This is where the contradiction comes in. The light is simply the day and darkness is simply the night. Without the Sun and without the Earth to revolve and rotate around the Sun, there cannot be a day or night. "Day" and "night" are subjective because whereas it can be daytime in North America, it would be nighttime in Japan. On other planets, day and night pass by faster or slower, depending on the rotation.

1:6 - 8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
What this verse means is that the water in v. 2 is being separated by what the Hebrews refer to as raqiya'. The idea is that there is this solid object dividing the water in two parts so that there is water above and below the raqiya'. This is consistent with beliefs around the world that the sky is a solid object. This one, especially, is transparent. Of course, 3 Baruch 3:6 - 8, a story concerning the tower of Babel, questions whether it is made of clay, or brass, or iron.

And the Lord appeared to them and confused their speech, when they had built the tower to the height of four hundred and sixty-three cubits. And they took a gimlet, and sought to pierce the heaven, saying, Let us see (whether) the heaven is made of clay, or of brass, or of iron. When God saw this He did not permit them, but smote them with blindness and confusion of speech, and rendered them as thou seest.

1:9, 10 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
This contradicts scientific knowledge about how the Earth formed, since water did not exist on Earth early in its formation. Land came first, then water. The is a striking resemblance to the Egyptian myth of Nu, the primordial waters, and Benben, the land that rises up from the waters. It should come to no surprise, of course, if Moses was raised by the Egyptians.

1:11 - 13 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Since there is no Sun for the Earth, this should mean that it's very cold on Earth, which should mean that all plant life God created was for naught. And before anyone says anything about sunlight already being on Earth, it doesn't come off that way in vv. 15, 16.

1:14, 15 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
The problem here is that day and night were already separated in v. 4. Apologists might try addressing this by pointing out that "lights" here are luminaries, objects that bear or produce light, such as a candlestick bears the flame upon the wick or how the Sun produces light. This is because Hebrew for "lights" is different from "light" in v. 4. And they'd be correct. Why didn't God just do this from the beginning, since day and night already existed?

Even so, God already separated day from night, so there's no reason for him to do it again, hence the contradiction. Another problem is that the light from v. 4 was already giving the land its light, or so one would have assumed, till vv. 15, 16. It's also scientifically inaccurate, since the Sun is older than the Earth, so for God to create the Sun as a luminary for the Earth is a contradiction.

1:16 - 19 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
This seems to imply that the lesser light, which we refer to as the Moon, produces a light of its own. Of course, one might say that the Moon is just a luminary because it reflects the light from the Sun. This presupposes that the Hebrews had the same kind of understanding of astronomy as we do today. Nevertheless, the scientific problem is that the Moon is 4.527 billion years old, whereas the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. Yet, here, the Sun, Moon, and stars were all created on the same day. Oddly enough, the Sun is treated differently from the stars, demonstrating the lack of knowledge of astronomy on Moses' part.

1:20 - 25 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Birds, great sea creatures, livestock, creeping things, and beasts did not exist early on. In fact, it is strange that these creatures would be the first of living organisms, according to the Genesis, since life began 3.5 billion years ago and they were not birds, nor great sea creatures, nor livestock, nor creeping things, nor beasts. Genesis is once again demonstrably incorrect when compared to modern science.

1:26, 27 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

While there are various opinions of "image" and "likeness", I think Mormons have it best, as there are many times people in the Tanakh see God and he appears to them as if he were a man. (Gen. 18:2; Exod. 24:9 - 11) Some might say this is the "angel of the Lord", or more accurately, the messenger of Yahweh. The translation, "angel of the Lord" gives the false idea that angels were believed to exist in the past, but I contest this and say they were sons of God, which means they were minor gods, as angels are never referred to as "sons of God". This is a later interpretation.

Furthermore, God is never said to be invisible or incorporeal in the Tanakh. This is a later interpretation. The word "image" in the Hebrew has been said to be figurative and mean something other than a literal image, but this word is connected with Adam's son. (Gen. 5:3) Since this is in the same book, I would think Moses would need to be consistent. "Image" is also used with reference to idols, and those are actual, physical objects.

Some Christians think "us" refers to the Trinity, but this is a later interpretation. It is more likely that God is speaking to other gods among him. (See Gen. 3:15; 11:7) Again, Moses would need to be consistent.

1:28 - 31 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The man and the woman are to be stewards of God and take care of all that has been given to them. It should be understood that because the author would have been ignorant of the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, "earth" is simply an inhabited land, an ecumene. To put it another way, what is the observable universe to us was the inhabited world to them.