Foreword:
This post is part of an ongoing series. For more information on why I’m writing it, and for a listing of all posts in the series in chronological order, see An Atheist Reading the Bible: Prologue.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gene 1.1)
Discussing: The book of Genesis; Chapter 1, 2.
Genesis Chapter 1 is the story of the creation of the universe. Chapter 2 focuses more closely on the populating of the Earth with living things – especially human beings – and just some general fine-tuning to make sure everything was just so.1
I already knew the basic idea: God created the universe in six days, and then rested on the seventh. He made man, put him in the garden of Eden, and then gave him a woman. What had never occurred to me before was that he spent an inordinate amount of time on the details of the Earth, as compared to a few measly flicks of the finger in the huge expanse of space around it. What is that huge universe for, if all the action is on the Earth? It seems like the story of creation is told from the point of view that the Earth and outer space are the same length and width, and both are flat. Also, the story has a few logic issues, as I will point out below.
I have actually read a lot more than these two chapters (I’m reading the story of Joseph in Egypt, as a matter of fact, somewhere in the ballpark of Chapter 40), but there was enough discussion waiting to happen in the story of creation alone that I decided to focus just on that.
My personal perspective is as follows…
Who wrote the book of Genesis?
The Holy Bible begins with the words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gene 1.1) Then it clarifies, “And the earth was without form, and void…” (Gene 1.2), and there is raised my very first really big question.
If the Earth was without form and void, then there was no one there to see it. In fact, we’re not even to the part where light is created yet. So if I approach the reading of the Bible from the most pristine, unbiased standpoint possible, then I ignorantly beg the question: If there was no one there to see it, how did the author of Genesis know what happened?
This isn’t just splitting hairs, either – this is a huge question. Who wrote the book of Genesis and how did he find out what happened during the formation of the universe? I mean, I’ve read the works of some really brilliant modern day people who can’t explain what started the universe. So who is this Bible writer who had it all figured out thousands of years ago?
So first things first, I did a simple Google search for “who wrote the book of genesis”. I found a nice collection of answers on Answers.com, a general question and answer wiki for curious people like myself.2
Conventional religious wisdom appears to credit Moses with authorship, but the words were given to him directly from God on Mt. Sinai – a story I haven’t reached yet and can’t judge for accuracy. However it appears that archaeological evidence suggests the book is actually a collection of cuneiform writings from multiple authors, possibly even Adam himself, with others.
No matter what, though, the story of creation was not witnessed by the eyes of man, and could only have been relayed to him directly from God. Which is fairly shaky ground to a guy who doesn’t believe in God. I proceed reading, trying to suspend disbelief. But the only possible way we can know that this story of creation is true is if God told us himself – I am forced to accept this as the only logical answer.
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” (Gene 1.6)
A flat Earth?
On the first day, God creates light. (Gene 1.3 – 1.5) That’s pretty straightforward.
On the second day, he creates Heaven – this is a little trickier for me to wrap my mind around. Referring to Gene 1.6 – 1.8, we find that God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” With this firmament, he “divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament”. This firmament is what he called Heaven.
I’m trying to picture the geometry of this. From top to bottom we have: water, Heaven, water. I’m not sure what the water above Heaven is supposed to be. On the third day, he gathers the waters under the firmament (i.e. under Heaven) together to expose dry land. (Gene 1.9, 1.10) This is the making of the Earth and seas. By this model, I’m picturing a flat Earth, with the rest of the universe a flat expanse of water just beyond the firmament of Heaven. So did the author of Genesis believe the Earth was flat?
I have too much ground to cover to research everything right now. I’m open to suggestions, but right now I’m thinking that the book of Genesis says the Earth is flat. Am I alone in this?
The seven-day problem.
The sun, moon, and stars (I’m sure no one realized the sun was just an average little star at the time, and considered it something altogether different and special) are placed in the firmament of Heaven in order to light the Earth, and to mark the days and seasons. (Gene 1.14 – 1.18) So if I’m reading this correctly, Heaven is outer space – the home of the sun and moon and stars. I bet Moses had no idea we would one day be able to travel there – it must have seemed positively unattainable. I have never been there myself, but I’ve seen some pictures that make Heaven look a lot less interesting than the stories I’ve heard.
Next God creates living things. The most interesting among them, of course, is human beings, whom he created on the sixth day. (Gene 1.26 – 1.31) Now I have another huge question.
I read earlier that Adam (the first human being) may have authored his own story around 3500 BC.2 If the Earth were created in seven days, and Adam were created on the sixth, and Adam was alive in 3500 BC, then the age of the Earth would be approximately 5500 years old by the year 2000 AD. My understanding is that scientific consensus has calculated the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years, using a technique called radiometric dating on meteorites. Who to believe?
I Googled “age of the earth” to see what I could find. Please keep in mind that I’m perfectly well aware that internet research in five minute increments hardly makes me a scholar – but it’s a great start if you want to see what the world has to say, and I use it as a launchpad to identify subjects worthy of further study.
Wikipedia’s entry on the Age of the Earth explains a number of different techniques for dating the origin of the Earth, and explains how radiometric dating works.3 Note, however, that varying methods have yielded varying ages over the years. If one questions the effectiveness of radiometric dating (I don’t know enough about it to make any kind of claim for its accuracy – I want to put that out there right now), then one would hardly be unjustified. Numerous previous methods have apparently offered numerous previous figures. I’ll need to research this more closely.
On the other hand, I found what appears to be a compelling collection of evidence for a young Earth on a site called Creation.com.4 I haven’t put enough time into investigating this information to say how authentic I consider it, but I looked over a few articles, and I have to say this: I can’t dismiss this out of hand. The works cited here are the works of scientists. If nothing else, it warrants a look. It refutes the old Earth consensus with what appear to be an astounding number of observable, testable facts.
Here’s the thing: the young Earth hypothesis is the only one that’s compatible with the story of creation described in Genesis. If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, then it couldn’t have been created in seven days at around 3500 BC. I have heard a number of people refute this with the vague statement that the seven days of creation are measured in ‘God’s days’, but that doesn’t work. If the Earth was 4.5 billion years old in the year 2000 AD, and Adam was created on the sixth of ‘God’s days’ in 3500 BC, then what is the length of one of ‘God’s days’?
First we calculate 4,500,000,000 – 5500 = 4,499,994,500. That gets us back to the time of Adam, which is the sixth day of Creation. Now we can say 4,499,994,500 / 6 = 749,999,083. Which is to say that one of God’s days would be about 750 million years. What’s wrong with that? Well, if the seventh day (the day of rest) began in 3500 BC, and is supposed to go on for 750 million years, then God is still taking a nap for a long, long time to come. So that doesn’t work, because none of the rest of the Bible could have happened yet.
Therefore an old Earth defies the story of Creation, but I’m not yet able to say that a young Earth is impossible – I don’t know enough about it. I need to study this, and your opinions are very welcome. This has the potential to be a deal-breaker for either side, I think. It’s an important question!
“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (Gene 2.19)
Adam, his world, and his woman.
In Chapter 2 we find God resting on the seventh day from all his hard work. I don’t blame him a bit, but I do want to put this out there: the image of God that I was sold by the church was of a being far beyond the need to rest. But since the Bible has yet to say so, I can’t call that a fault in the Bible, maybe my churches have all been wrong. And I’m not even joking there: maybe we just don’t know the God of the Bible as well as we think we do. I’m open.
Adam was created and given the garden of Eden in which to live. There are some geographic references (Gene 2.10 – 2.14) to where Eden is, by the way. I don’t know most of them, but the Euphrates river runs through Syria and Iraq, so the garden of Eden is somewhere in the Middle East. If you want to find it, my advice would be to look for the cherubim with the flaming sword… but I’m getting ahead of myself.
I also learned that contemporary biologists have wasted a lot of time reinventing the wheel with their sophisticated taxonomies – all of the animals of the Earth have already been named. (Gene 2.19) Too bad the names weren’t written down somewhere; now we’re duplicating a lot of work!
I have numerous other notes in my Kindle, but this is going to be a long road if I keep going on about the little stuff, so I’ll try to stick to the more important questions.
Gene 2.21 – 2.23 describe the process whereby Adam was put to sleep, and God formed a woman from one of his ribs. I have heard throughout my upbringing that men have one less rib than women – I suppose I always took it for granted, and even when I found that I didn’t believe in God I wondered why men have fewer ribs. The answer? They don’t.5 I had never even questioned this before today. Mind you, I’d never had any reason to. It’s just one of those silly little things I was told as a child that I took for granted ever after. I wonder how many more of those I’ll find?
Parting notes
I know, I know. This is a long post and all we’ve covered is the first two chapters of Genesis. This isn’t how every post will go, I promise. I am finding my stride, and going forward I will try to raise questions in the post, then leave the detailed discussions for the comment section.
In summary: God was the only witness of the creation of the universe, so I don’t understand how we can have a book about it unless he wrote it himself. The book of Genesis suggests to me that its author believed the world was flat. The Earth cannot have been created in seven days and be 4.5 billion years old – the age of the Earth proves very important in deciding how true the Bible is. And according to Genesis, the original members of the human family were both born from men…
Okay, I’m sort of kidding about that last thing.
Sources:
- International Bible Seminary (2011). SearchByVerse™ Holy Bible (KJV) [Kindle]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
- Answers Corporation (2012). Who wrote the Book of Genesis? Answers.com. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_book_of_Genesis
- Wikipedia Contributors (2012). Age of the Earth. Wikipedia.com. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
- Creation Ministries International (2009). Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Creation.com. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
- Wikipedia Contributors (2012). Human rib cage. Wikipedia.com. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rib_cage
Amanda S. Moores
Robert D. Moores
I have found the idea of New Earth Creationism to be the product of a tortured reading of scripture, and altogether unnecessary. 2 Peter says that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years (and vice versa). The implications are that God’s time is unlike our time, and my reading (when I was a believer) was that six days for God could indeed take 4.5 billion years. It is entirely possible to believe Genesis and evolution simultaneously, if you simply explain evolution as the process by which God accomplished what he did. Then again, you could also adopt the idea that the tooth fairy did it all as God’s helper and it’s equally viable.
As to your eagerness to jump ahead to the Christ bits I can give you the Lutheran perspective on Old vs. New Testaments. They say the New Testament is a rewriting of the rules, rendering the heavy handed laws of the Old unnecessary in favor of a much simpler set of guidelines. I might go so far as to suggest you look up Luther’s Catechism, since that was Luther’s attempt to explain the Bible to people who had had little real exposure to it (since only scholars could read it prior to Luther).
Posted by Stan Adermann | 10 July 2012, 9:50 pmIt’s okay if things don’t quite make sense right now. When I set my faith aside, it doesn’t really make sense to my logical mind either. Here is the nature of faith;
——Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.-Hebrews 11:1-3
Science is the study of observable things; so it will never be able to quantify God, or the entirety of his creation. Even if some parts of the Bible can be verified by science; science will never reconcile with the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the ascension of Jesus. The fundamental tenants of Christianity are supernatural events, so those of us who have found faith have rejected scientific absolutes. I believe science is subject to God, not the opposite
It is perfectly natural to be having issues with what you’re reading. I’m anticipating a point in the future when you will begin wanting to believe what you are reading, these are the seeds of faith being planted. Perhaps you will come to the opinion that logic and science do nothing to fill the spiritual hole inside of human beings.
——For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.-1 Corinthians 1:18-21
Good luck as you continue along
Posted by Tony Lollio | 7 July 2012, 3:57 pmTreegestalt:
There is of course tremendous wisdom in what you say (actually, there’s tremendous wisdom all over these comments), and I especially like your view of ‘stories’. Behind any story, even if, strictly speaking, it is fiction, there’s an intelligent attempt to comprehend something real by using symbols and metaphors to compare them. In this way, I find great use in the Bible. If people tended to use it that way, I would shut my mouth.
My big issue, and the whole founding theory behind Basic Humanity, is that we use our interpretations of Biblical events to attempt to control each other’s behavior based upon a non-demonstrable authority figure. I don’t mind if people want to plumb the depths of the universe and call them ‘God’. I take great objection, however, to being under ‘God’s’ thumb.
If God is an authority, let him come and tell me himself. Not with ambiguous signs and events, but plainly, and in human language as the Bible supposes he can do.
If it is, as some people say, not actually within human faculty to comprehend what God is saying to us – if he doesn’t speak, but manifests himself through signs and omens and events – then I will certainly find him by examining the universe rationally and trying to understand the relationship of one event to another. I think that’s really all any of us are trying to do. But in that case, I could as well write my own ‘Bible’, no less inspired by God than the one we have. And so could you, or anyone else. In fact, in a sense, that’s exactly what I encourage.
The Bible was written by men. They were inspired by a number of insights, but they were as human as we, and they had heard a number of ‘God’ stories themselves. They gave it a shot, and maybe it was even a really good one. But for human beings 2,000 years later to be saying, “We have no right to question this word, it’s the truth, and if we disagree with it we are wrong,” is to place a ridiculous amount of authority on the shoulders of men who had not yet learned of things which any seven-year-old knows today.
After reading the book of Genesis (I’m actually on Exodus now, and may need to post more than once a week to keep up!), I’m finding myself increasingly excited to get to the story of Christ. I don’t expect that I’ll be converting to Christianity, but I’m anxious to see how Christ took a God who cared for no one other than Abraham’s bloodline and made him available to everyone. Maybe when I have that piece of the puzzle, I will understand why people believe.
Posted by Robert Moores | 6 July 2012, 8:29 pmClare: I may have the wrong impression of Christianity altogether, but my understanding is that they sell the New Testament within the same cover as the Old Testament because they go together. So to say that refuting the story of creation in Genesis has NO IMPACT on Christianity doesn’t seem entirely correct to me. Upon what notion of God is Christianity built, if not the one who created the universe and Adam in seven days? If that God is not the real God, then why do I believe in Christ’s God? This is an honest question – what is the differentiation, and if they’re really different, then why are the two books put together?
When you speak of a ‘God’ who is observable through personal experience, you are closer, in my humble opinion, to the truth than what is written in Genesis. But it is still an incredible and (again, in my opinion) unfounded leap of logic to assign that wondrous personal feeling of ‘God’s presence’ any kind of personality or ability to notice human beings. The notion that ‘God’ is a ‘being’ who thinks, listens, answers human prayer, and created the universe out of any kind of personal desire seems to be a purely psychological construct. All attempts (like the Bible) to explain the nature of this ‘God’ are colored by the human condition to the point that they make ‘God’ seem petty and ultimately without purpose.
When Christians say, “God is love,” then I wonder what we need God for? Love is perfectly capable of being love without having a personality. It comes not from beyond us but from within us: an emergent property of material processes. Why must we insert a being possessed of intentions into a place where no such being is observable?
We all feel that the universe, being of a cause-and-effect nature, must have some kind of ‘first cause’. This may not even be true (I list infinity in my Recipe for a Living Universe because it seems like there’s a problem with believing in a ‘first cause’ that I can’t quite put my finger on), but if it is, we have no reason necessarily to believe that the ‘first cause’ is any particular ‘intention’.
Have you read my post Humanity’s Imaginary Friend?
Posted by Robert Moores | 6 July 2012, 8:08 pmThat question is worthy of a whole post. Coming up.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 7 July 2012, 3:09 amNow posted.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 16 July 2012, 1:22 amEr, um…
Who wrote Genesis? J, the Yahwist, E, from Elohim, “Gods”, and P, the Priest-writer. Three separate writers and one or more compiler.
I don’t think you are asking interesting questions. Did God create the Universe less than 10,000 years ago? I think it highly unlikely. Any more than that the world emerged from the waters in an egg, or whatever. More interesting is, does the story have any value? There is the broad humour in Adam saying “It wisnae me, it was Eve’s fault” and Eve blaming the serpent. There is “God saw what God had made, and behold, it was very good”- an attitude to the world which seems behovely to me.
I do not care whether Gilgamesh and Enkidu are historical figures. I find their story fascinating as a glimpse into ancient Mesopotamia. What value might the Genesis story have, if it is not a scientific theory of the origins of the Universe? What is beautiful in it? What is on a psychological level True?
By all means carry on reading the Bible in this way. I saw on the TV the theory that King David of the united Judea and Israel was made up, never existed. But then, Dorothea Casaubon never existed, and her story still has value.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 3 July 2012, 8:33 amI haven’t set out to determine whether there is any value in these stories – you can take away something valuable from any story. I’m trying to determine whether there is any good reason to believe the story is factual, along with the rest of the Bible’s claims.
If most people approached the Bible as you suggest, I would never have had cause to do what I’m doing. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the most common approach I have seen to the Bible is to believe in God as the creator and as our judge, leaving us in thrall to a fictional set of laws, hoping for a fictional reward in a fictional afterlife.
I want to first of all determine firsthand whether the Bible is real or fictitious, and second of all lend myself to the labor of eradicating our dependence upon living in fiction. You may disagree, you may place great value in a life of fiction, but I don’t. That’s why I’m here. To free myself and anyone who wants to follow along from the unnecessary tyranny of false morals.
Posted by Robert Moores | 3 July 2012, 11:25 amMy refutation of creationism is this. Millions of people in thousands of universities world-wide seek to establish the truth about the nature of the world. They believe they seek truth, and hone techniques of finding the truth. So, are they considering false evidence planted by God six thousand years ago? That is God being monstrous. Or are they deluded by a satanic conspiracy? That is ascribing too much power to Satan.
You use rationalist arguments to refute an irrational belief, and the person has strong reasons for clinging to that belief. I use religious arguments which I hope might be heard better: but refuting creationism does not refute Christianity. I read a commentary on Genesis published by the St Andrew Press, the imprint of the Church of Scotland, which is fairly evangelical. It said that the first ten chapters of Genesis are certainly stories rather than history.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 3 July 2012, 11:50 amI’m not sure if there’s something in my words that causes you to maintain such a deathgrip on your sense of superiority, or if that’s just your natural defensive state, but if I am causing it then I apologize.
I do, in fact, use rationalist arguments to refute an irrational belief – HERE. Am I stupid? Is that the problem?
You’re not hearing what I’m saying. I said, “I want to first of all determine firsthand whether the Bible is real or fictitious, and second of all lend myself to the labor of eradicating our dependence upon living in fiction.”
Right now, I’m on the “first of all” part. I’m determining for myself. And I’m using rationalist arguments for a much more intelligent reason than you’re giving me credit for: I am a rationalist myself. I myself believe in a deterministic universe.
Where you’re going wrong is in your assumption that I’m refuting creationism to ‘them’. If I were, I’d want to find an approach that made sense to ‘them’. In that sense, your method of refuting it is brilliant. But you’re a step ahead of me: you already know why you don’t believe it. I only have fictional reasons. I don’t even rightly know what ‘it’ is. Therefore, I have realized, I don’t know why I don’t believe it.
If you are willing to take a step backward in your own development, and return to that long ago moment when you didn’t already know everything about it, you would be much better placed to understand what I’m doing here. For example, my ‘not very interesting’ question about who wrote Genesis may not have been interesting to you, but as I didn’t know the answer, it was very interesting to me. So I asked it.
I know that refuting the Old Testament doesn’t refute Christianity. I’m not at the point of refuting Christianity. Maybe when I reach the Gospels I won’t even WANT to refute Christianity. It would be utterly stupid of me to approach the New Testament already knowing I’m going to prove it wrong, when I don’t even know what it says.
Posted by Robert Moores | 4 July 2012, 9:29 amI am perfectly bewildered as to from what in my words you infer a “death grip on my sense of superiority”. The uninteresting questions were whether Genesis was literally true, and if so what “creating Heaven” might mean, or whether the author of chapter 1 believed the world was flat. I am willing to take the step back you ask, but I find it hard to believe you are seriously questioning the idea of our planet being billions, or at least millions as Lord Kelvin calculated, rather than thousands of years old.
Two theories. 1. World created <10,000 years ago. 2. World about 4.5 bn yrs old. I tend to the latter out of faith, if you like: from my understanding of the scientific method and the sources of those observations, and my reading on the evidence mostly from popular rather than undergraduate sources. I am not sure I could prove it to a rationalist sceptic's satisfaction, but I do not feel the need to.
Thank you for your observation that one of my points was brilliant.
I see that you understand the difference between the questions, "Has the Bible value?" and "Is it literally true?" Most would agree that it had more than one human author, whether or not they thought it divinely inspired or not, and so that different parts may be intended to be taken as literally true or not, as story or history or philosophy or theology or even as accounts of mystical altered mind states. If Genesis 1 is not literally true, that proves nothing about any of the rest of the Bible, even, say, the account of the Flood. But I don't believe in the Flood as a historical event as described either.
Off topic, is it not Wonderful that the Higgs Boson might have been observed?
Posted by Clare Flourish | 4 July 2012, 12:13 pmYour sense of superiority comes across in your manner of depicting my approach to the Bible as obviously inferior to the way you would do it. It doesn’t matter, we can be over it now – I’m just saying you’re assuming a lot about my approach that I never actually stated.
Am I seriously considering the possibility that the Earth is < 10,000 years old? Yes, and no. I am considering it the way I would consider my son claiming that there's a monster under his bed. I'm pretty sure there's not, but I'm going to look, because it's perfectly possible that some kind of animal snuck inside that is capable of hurting him, and he thinks it's a monster because he misunderstands his own perception. I suppose that was an overly-elaborate metaphor: I'm saying that I'm considering a claim that I don't really believe, but I'm acknowledging that some people believe it, and giving it a fair audience to see why they believe it. It may be that it's both truer than I think and less true than they do. You don't know until you've given it some thought, and I never really have.
You make another brilliant observation: ironically enough our belief that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is really just another kind of faith. You and I consider it faith in a more reliable source, but we are still taking someone else's word for it. A Christian could rightly point several of my own arguments right back at me, if he understands the nature of my sources. Then I would be at a disadvantage, because I don't understand the nature of his.
I am already actually aware of some of the more popular answers to my own questions. I didn't explicitly state this anywhere, I don't think, but I'm trying to read almost as if I don't know anything. I do understand that many contemporary believers consider some parts of the Bible to be nothing more than stories. I'm pretending I don't. Why? Because I'm building a list of rational questions along the way, to see how modern interpretations might have evolved. I'm trying to keep track of how an inconsistency now might be explained by the words of Christ later. And… I'm looking for one thing in particular that I will only find if I pay close attention: the part where a good case is made that God really exists. Because if there isn't a good case made for it somewhere in this book, then there isn't a good case made for it in any of the books that have been written about it since.
If I could lay the silliness of theology to rest with a single post, I would do it. But since I can't, I have to consider the evidence on the terms that believers consider it. You know far too little about what I've set out to do to pass judgment; I hope that you'll remain patient and see if there might be something to my approach after all.
Now, the Higgs Boson. =)
I read a bit about the big announcement (most of it way beyond my humble grasp of particle physics and the Standard Model). It sounds pretty promising. We could be on the brink of a whole new frontier, if we can finally study the physics of the Higgs Boson through actual experiments. I think this has the potential to change our understanding of the universe as greatly as relativity did. If nothing else, the LHC has some new toys to play with. =) I know if I were a physicist, that would be enough to make me very excited about my job. I'm looking forward to finding out more.
Posted by Robert Moores | 4 July 2012, 10:08 pm“A good case” for the existence of God? I think you miss the point. God is relationship and experience. You may think I miss the point.
Come to a Quaker meeting and make a similarly serious and effortful attempt to find out what we are doing, and how we understand it. Different Quakers understand it differently. Only through experience can you assess our “case” for the existence of God. The argument from authority is not overwhelming, but has some weight: why should some apparently otherwise intelligent people hold such understandings?
I know the transformative power of the Quaker meeting, basically sitting in silence. You may have read psychological accounts, atheist accounts, of the benefits of meditation, so I am not sure you will accept the weight of my arguments or even the value of personal experience beyond the observations of the scientist outside. So I feel frustrated.
But, the universe, or even the planet, was not created 10,000 years ago, or if it was, not by a God who is explained in the Bible: as I said the contradictions are too great. And assessing Genesis 1 as if it is a claim to be a scientific theory of creation- it isn’t- is making an attack on a straw crippled pygmy.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 4 July 2012, 11:13 pmYou are exactly correct. Personal experience is a much better indicator of the truth of something. That is why reading the Bible and interpreting it using your own method (in Rob’s case, reason), and your own experience, is the best way to attack the question of it’s value.
And I don’t think anyone would be assessing Genesis as a scientific theory if millions of Christians the world over had not already done so. That appears to be the point of Rob’s comments. He is pointing out the irrationality of that common practice. While this may seem uninteresting and silly to some, it is most interesting and important to those of us who are surrounded by intelligent Christians who firmly believe it is unquestionable fact.
The attempt here is to try to understand why and what they believe, and to do it with respect. Not to simply dismiss their whole system of belief as silly and unimportant.
Posted by Cari Osborne | 6 July 2012, 12:24 pmCari. Is it true? No.
Why do they believe it? The answer is not to be found in the Bible. The Bible has sufficient contradictions to work as a koan, bringing enlightenment.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 6 July 2012, 1:22 pmI guess I don’t believe I will necessarily find out WHY they believe by reading the Bible, but in order to even attempt to understand that, I need to at least know WHAT they believe. And I am told by many beloved Christian friends and family that the Bible is the Word. That God is real, and heaven and hell are real places. I can’t even begin to embrace this and try to see their point of view without trying to breakdown, in my own terms and concepts, the source that lead them to this. Perhaps there are many religious sects who take it in its entirety to be a metaphor, or an artistic story to shed light on their philosophy of how life should be. I am not aware of any. I understand this is probably just my own ignorance.
I have decided to embark on this journey because I’m looking to understand a large number of people who are either personally important to me, or who impact my life in an important way. I agree wholeheartedly with your view of the Bible. It is fascinating and worth reading for the historical content alone. But I find I can not disregard it as fiction until I have given a thorough attempt to see it as otherwise.
, is that I know enough about myself to know that I don’t know everything. I have very dear friends who I respect immensely who base their whole life around the concept of the Bible being the Truth. I respect their intelligence and their life experience enough to not just dismiss their view on this.
I can not accept that millions would choose to believe in something they know to be fiction. I guess what I’m trying to say, in all my rambling
Maybe I have misinterpreted how they view the Bible? Definitely worth researching further!
Posted by Cari Osborne | 6 July 2012, 1:49 pmThis is the superiority complex I was talking about. Shall we just stop reading it, then, because you can already tell us that it’s not true?
I don’t understand why you’re here, if I’m so painfully stupid and you already know everything there is to know. I feel absolutely no animosity toward your position, and yet you continue to snarl like a giant dog at mine.
I am well aware that I’m kicking a straw man, but you assume that you have my motives all figured out after ONE POST. This straw man is not one of my design. This is the straw man that placed Galileo under house arrest. It’s the straw man that burned witches. It’s the straw man that vehemently opposes gay marriage in the United States; the straw man that thinks the American school systems should teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution.
People hold this “straw pygmy” aloft as if it’s made of gold, and I am kicking it to prove that it is, in fact, made of nothing more than straw. If you already realize that, then we don’t disagree, so why do you keep arguing with me?
Posted by Robert Moores | 6 July 2012, 4:41 pmRobert, it is new-Earth Creationism I refer to. It is not true. You are aware of that.
Why believe NEC? Find the answer in the history of Christianity, not in the Bible itself. You will not find the answer in the Bible.
I think I am angry- though not out of a sense of superiority, believe me- at the implication that disproving NEC would have any effect whatever on whether God exists. It seems, well, arrogant, however humble or rational you might imagine you are being. I do not call you stupid, I do not imagine you are stupid, I am sorry if my words inadvertently carry that implication.
Though “Shall we just stop reading because you can tell us it’s not true” spectacularly misses the point, misses the value. Captain Ahab and Ishmael did not exist. It is still worth reading of them. King David possibly did not exist, King Omri is verified by non-Hebrew sources. The Bible is a patchwork. Isaiah may be divided into three parts, one of these apparently by a school of prophets rather than one prophet. Genesis was written by three authors or groups, referred to as J, E and P, and put together by a compiler or compilers.
You do not disprove God by disproving Creationism. I do not know why millions of Americans believe in NEC, or that homosexuality is sinful for that matter. I am shocked at it. It seems to involve a seriously distorted view of reality. But I can forgive a 17th century vicar for believing in it, why should he have known better? Or a Jew at the time Genesis was written down.
Posted by Clare Flourish | 6 July 2012, 5:11 pmBasically, you’ve got state-of-the-art speculations re life, the universe, and everything — from about 600 BC to maybe 200 AD. Hard to say how far back some of the legendary material they worked-in came from. That’s at least an 800 years stretch, not to mention differences in the writers’ social position, loyalties, & how they’d interpreted the earlier parts.
It’s not an astronomy text. The Pope tried to read it that way, and lost. It’s not an objective history. Or a biology text.
Where the concept of “stories” is useful here — is not in taking any of this as sheer fiction, any more than we want to take it as journalistic fact. Any story implies a setting: a view of how things work, who’s involved, what their intentions, strengths & weaknesses, conflicts might be. Where there are different viewpoints, some of these may be plain mistaken. A reader might have to guess at “what’s really going on” from a character who isn’t being entirely honest or perceptive.
The situation within the lives we are living is entirely like that. We navigate our way through a maze of different events, based on beliefs & hypotheses about the meaning and causal relations between everyone and everything we encounter in those events, about what goals are possible and/or desirable, how to achieve them.
In the Book, there’s all sorts of speculation about the nature and motives of this one character, ‘God’. Everybody talking about ‘Him’, not so many listening. Some apparent distortion on that channel. Characters come into the story who think He shares their goals and their tastes — but what they’d wanted doesn’t happen, or turns out not to work as planned. This sort of behavior continues to this day. Other characters seem to have an inside line — and most people find this unsettling, like frogs could rain or reign around these people and they don’t know which, when, or on whom.
But it’s supposed to be about this People called Israel, who have been chosen ['There they were, not doing anything else, and they would do'] as examples, go-betweens, agents between God and everybody else. Like everyone else, they’ve tended to be generally clueless about this, just trying to live their lives while something else happens. But doing the best they know.
Jesus gets born [in a couple of ways] and many people see him as carrying forward that same task, in a way that doesn’t readily compute to the modern mind. There are (within the Bible and outside it) a great many interpretations of how that works and what the outcome is going to look like… Some people set their lives within that story (in one way or another) and find that it fits.
Posted by treegestalt | 6 July 2012, 6:04 pmSince we’ve replied our way through all ten levels of comment nesting, let’s take this back to the top.
See my new comment above if you’d like to continue the conversation.
Posted by Robert Moores | 6 July 2012, 7:43 pmHello, Clare!
While I very much appreciate your perspective in that the stories in the Bible are fascinating regardless of their factual, historical merit, I think you have missed Rob’s goal entirely.
The fact of the matter is that many Christians consider the Bible to be not only infallible (as it is supposedly the divine word of God) but they use it almost as a set of instructions on how we are to live our lives and what they are supposed to mean. When you are basing your entire life and entire belief system on something, it is nothing less than insane to not use our human gift of rationality to weigh the merits of the source of that belief. I think the approach Rob is taking is the only one that can possibly work. To ignore the rational “nuts and bolts” of the Bible is to fall prey to what millions of people have done for over 2000 years. When we have an emotional or psychological connection to something, that is when we are most vulnerable to be duped, manipulated and controlled. What you seem to be saying is that If something doesn’t make logical sense, it’s ok to ignore that and just appreciate it for what it is. This may be true of art, or music, etc. But how can this be true of something that is considered by millions to be not only non-fiction, but THE most important work in the history of man? A work that tells us who we are, why we are here, and what awaits us if we do not follow it’s directions. It is, literally, considered a life and death issue. Ignoring the fact that it does not always make logical sense is, in my opinion, the very thing that allows for the continuation of Christianity or any other Bible-based religion.
I think this project is an attempt to look beyond that emotional need for an answer to those questions that most haunt us as human beings. To me, religion or belief or whatever you want to call it, is an emotional band-aid. We don’t want to accept that we will never know for sure, or that maybe this really is all there is. I know what I believe and what I don’t believe, and why. However, the fact remains that many very intelligent, sane, rational people fully believe in the divine aspect of the Bible. If folks much more educated and intelligent than myself can believe it, than I owe it to them, and to myself, to try and comprehend why. It would be incredibly arrogant to think I had it all figured out before I even bothered to check out the other side. However, I can not go into it with a psychological or emotional need for answers or with a mission to simply understand it’s beauty. There are many more entertaining and less horrible stories to read if I am simply looking for art or a moral statement. When people turn to the Bible for a psychological or emotional fix, they are only perpetuating the cycle of believing what they don’t really understand.
Wars have been fought, and horrendous treatment of “non-believers” has been committed based on this book. It can not be, in my opinion, considered the same as any other anthropological study. While it can be viewed this way, the fact of the matter is that for most, it is not. I think the goal Rob has set for himself, and I know I have set for myself, is to understand why it has been interpreted as such and do the people who came before me have a valid argument for doing so.
And, by the way, I happen to think the question of who wrote the Bible is probably THE most interesting question to ask. The answer to this question pretty much sets the tone for any further study into the question of the Bible’s legitimacy as a divine work.
Thanks for reading!
Posted by Cari Osborne | 6 July 2012, 11:33 amYou pretty much said everything I would have said, lol. I guess I can go home – nothing to see here.
Posted by Robert Moores | 6 July 2012, 4:43 pm
Posted by Cari Osborne | 9 July 2012, 10:20 amThe mental universe this story is set in looks like a bubble. Behind the sky, there is, literally, water. Which extends around & underneath. Horizontally across the center of the bubble there is a mix of land and ocean. Standard-issue ancient cosmology.
Any writer could construct such a world in far less than a day — and make it as old as he pleased. Getting people to actually experience living within that world, that’s beyond the talents of most of us. Making things consistent, deciding questions like: “Should water expand when it freezes? That would make lakes & rivers work much better! But how will I explain this to the chemists, later?”
Rabbinical commentators (They’ve been reading this in synagogue every year for awhile, now, you know!) have it that there was a mystical light that simply permeated all space. A person in the right condition could perceive it.
“God,” by the way, is “Eloheim” == “gods”. Which name of God gets used, different places, was one of the things considered significant. “Adam” == “earth critter” is not, in his first few appearances, gramatically male or female. Could conceivably be like Plato’s first human, separated into two halves who have been trying to get themselves together ever since. My personal solution to the ‘rib’ problem: “God put Eve into a deep sleep. And made a man from… ”
The following may help: http://lightthruthepages.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/the-story-of-the-bible/
Posted by treegestalt | 2 July 2012, 11:27 pmI didn’t notice anything in the wording of Genesis that suggested a bubble with a horizontal Earth across the middle. There was no suggestion of curvature to me whatsoever, which is probably why my mind pictured it flat.
There are words that talk about heaven dividing the waters from the waters; the waters ‘above’ being separated from the waters ‘below’. From that point of view, the author doesn’t seem to understand that ‘the heaven’ goes all the way around. But I could be entirely wrong about that – it’s just something I noticed.
Posted by Robert Moores | 4 July 2012, 9:36 amGenesis was most likely written in Babylon, using written & oral Hebrew legend & litany — but definitely responding to the Babylonian creation myths with a Hebrew version. “The Heaven” probably does go all the way around. This would be the structure in which God’s “Throne” is (maybe later, not a feature of this account) thought to be set. That _Secret History of the Bible_ I might have mentioned before here — is a good source on the apparent interfaith shop-talk between Near East peoples.
Sea-faring peoples pretty soon caught on to “There’s a curve to this surface. Things disappear behind it as they go farther away.” The Babylonians and the Hebrews were pretty landbound. If you put Diskworld in a glass sphere, surrounded by endless water (== ‘chaos’) you’ll get the idea
Posted by treegestalt | 4 July 2012, 2:33 pmHey Rob. I was given a head’s up by a Christian friend with lots of Bible study under his belt that Isaiah 40:22 touches on this subject. Thought you might wanna check it out.
Posted by Cari Osborne | 9 July 2012, 10:25 amWhen I read Genesis, the first question I had was if God created light on the first day but didn’t create the sun until the third day, where did the light come from on that first day? I’ve never found an answer to that question. I believe the creation story in the Bible is simply a myth that evolved among early man to explain what at the time was unexplainable. As our scientific knowledge has expanded, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to believe that our planet and the universe it resides in, one of many universes scientists tell us, was created in seven 24 hour days.
Posted by sandylikeabeach | 2 July 2012, 12:16 amI completely agree with everything you’ve said. The matter of light had occurred to me, as well – I had a note about it in my Kindle but decided not to push it because it doesn’t stop a crafty believer from saying that he created the ‘essence’ of light first, and then a ‘source’ of light later. I know that sounds ridiculous, but… well…
Another thing that occurred to me is that God created a ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ light, one to rule the day and one to rule the night. However, the moon is not a light. It’s a big chunk of rock reflecting the light of the sun. Early humanity didn’t understand that, and Genesis proves it.
Posted by Robert Moores | 2 July 2012, 4:26 pmIt’s strange that I have believed in something for most of my life without really researching anything. I’ve read the Genesis many times before, but never with the attention to detail that you just did. Maybe my lack of knowledge allows me to live on Faith. I just told my husband that I had no idea what he was talking about when he was telling me about fixing the hole he cut in our attic floor in order to drop wires for the network server. I could easily walk up to the attic with him and allow him to show me what he is talking about…but I won’t. I’m trusting in his ability to do the work and I can just enjoy the benefit of his work without ever having to know what went on to achieve it. Well, except for the fact that I just had to spend a few minutes in our closet looking for where the wires would fall and whether or not they lined up with the hole cut for the box. Good Lord, he’s turning me into a computer geek. I feel bad that I’m a Christian and haven’t bothered exploring the Bible any more than I have. I feel bad that in a debate on religion…I’d lose against you and you don’t even believe in God! That’s pretty sad. I’ve said before on my blog that I feel like I’m losing my faith and my ability to just trust in God. There are so many things in the Bible that can be debated. Why then, would God not use more of his power to make sure man didn’t leave things out or misinterpret them. Who wrote Genesis? Your guess is as good as mine. I feel like in the beginning, God did communicate directly with man. I think that man made some interesting choices that led God to pull away and stop speaking with us directly. Why? I’m not sure. God may not have worried with the details of whether man thought the Earth was flat or round. He probably wanted man to discover that on his own. Would that lead to questions for future men? Yes. Again, we should trust that God holds our tomorrow. We are not supposed to know everything. Lucifer wanted to know what God knew. He wanted the same power and respect. He fell from Heaven for desiring that knowledge. So of course, if you allow yourself to believe for a minute in God and Satan, then wouldn’t Satan put all those doubts in your head to lead you astray? As for the rib issue….it goes right along with the evolutionary theory. If we came from monkeys…how come we still have evolved monkeys? He never said in the Bible that from here on out man should have one less rib than a woman. Did he?
I do not think that I am a strong enough Christian to go out winning souls for God. I don’t know any who are. I just know that we aren’t meant to unravel all the mysteries. That’s part of the beauty of the world. There is so much that is hard to understand. Sorry, I couldn’t even scratch the surface with the whole time and age of the world issue. I’m still lost myself with all the dinosaurs, cavemen, and so forth.
Posted by Delilah | 1 July 2012, 3:48 pmIt’s way too early for me to bring the hammer down on whether God is real or not. I have reasons why I don’t believe he is, but they are MY reasons, and they come from MY experience. By reading the Bible, I am adding to MY experience the other side of the story. I am not trying to prove it to anyone else.
But I AM encouraging you to follow along with me. I’m not looking for a debate – I have always said that debating with words to prove you’re right is like arm-wrestling to prove you’re strong: it doesn’t actually prove anything. What I’m looking for is for everyone to evaluate what they believe the way that I’m doing, and just make sure you know the reason you believe it.
On the issue of evolution, by the way: we didn’t evolve ‘from monkeys’. Humans and apes are believed to be two separate branches who evolved from a common ancestor – something different from and more primitive than either humans or apes. We both exist today because we are different branches. We thrive in different ways.
As for the rib issue – you have a point. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that men have fewer ribs. I assumed, based on things that I was told by my family, that it did. Now I know better. I’m glad I actually know the truth – that’s what I came here for, right? =)
I know from the bottom of my heart that reading the Bible is going to transform me. It may not transform me from an atheist to a Christian, but it will transform me into a wiser and more compassionate human being. I hope that I can share that with everyone who wishes to come along.
Posted by Robert Moores | 1 July 2012, 8:54 pmI sense a great moral integrity in how you are approaching your search for answers. I’ve been down this road, and didn’t end up where I expected. It’s an exciting undertaking to say the least. If I might offer a shortcut…if you want to study math and science, you can talk to people about how they feel about those subjects, but ultimately you’ll save a lot of time by studying what mathmaticians and scientists can teach you. Dr. Hugh Ross is an acclaimed astrophysicist, and he can really shed some intelligent perspective on the wonderful dialog you have initiated here. The universe is, as science can confirm with radiometric dating and a host of other methods, 13.7 billion years old. You don’t have to park your brains at the door. What Dr. Ross contributes is a scholarly, credible, testable creation model that is remarkably consistent with the Bible. But don’t take my word for it, just invest a few minutes watching this video: https://vimeo.com/31221039
Posted by John Paine | 3 July 2012, 11:19 pmThank you for your advice – I will definitely examine what Dr. Ross has to say. I am, however, being a little careful in the beginning not to let modern interpretation affect what I see in the source material, however. We have had thousands of years to rationalize the inconsistencies in the Bible, and of course we’d have gotten pretty good at it. There’s nothing wrong that, but I’m not ready for it. I want to know my questions about the Bible before I try too hard to answer them, if that makes sense. Still, thanks very much for the link, I look forward to a lot of this kind of guidance along the way.
Posted by Robert Moores | 4 July 2012, 9:44 amAre you planning to read the bible in order from Gen. to Revelation or in the order the events took place? My personal opinion is to read it in the order the events took place, simply because it will be easier to study. Just a thought though.
Posted by Amy | 1 July 2012, 12:44 pmAlthough that makes perfect sense, I’ll probably read it in the order it’s presented, for no real reason except that that’s the way I think books should be read. I have to assume there’s some reason the books aren’t placed in chronological order. But also, there’s a certain amount of added benefit to reading something and having to analyze the sequence of events – it makes you think more actively about what you’re reading, and it makes you think more about the relationship of the events.
On the other hand, there’s nothing saying this is the only time I’ll read it – maybe I’ll try the chronological approach if I read it again. =)
Posted by Robert Moores | 1 July 2012, 1:03 pmIf you are really interested in this material, there are some remarkably smart and kind people with impressive scientific credentials who can resolve science and faith well beyond the references you have cited. Check out http://www.reasons.org/
Posted by John Paine | 1 July 2012, 9:42 amThanks – I will check it out. =)
I do want everyone to understand that reading the source material (i.e. the Bible) is my main objective here – I don’t have the time in a day to read the Bible and research every point of view at the same time. That’s why your comments are so important. Point the way to the truth, and we can return to important discussions. Links to other sources are tremendously helpful, as are the unique opinions of everyone who has one.
Posted by Robert Moores | 1 July 2012, 9:50 amI appreciate the way you have read the first two chapters of Genesis. I think you have started to read the book at the right note. But get to the right sources to decode the Genesis story. I say this because I was taught to read Bible by those who believe in Bible as well as Atheist. May be it is the atheist professor who taught me how to understand and read Bible better than others. Keep up the quest to know the truth.
Posted by Jefferson Bennit | 1 July 2012, 9:28 amThanks. =)
My goal here is to read the Bible and leave a trail of research material that I can go back to as we discuss crucial matters. I also encourage everyone to post links and offer their own insights along the way. I can’t help being a nonbeliever now, but I am definitely not trying to push an atheist ‘agenda’. The truth is exactly what I’m looking for.
Posted by Robert Moores | 1 July 2012, 9:46 am