Does Genesis 1 describe the Universe?

[Tcg]

Some claim that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe and yet an examination of the text reveals that the author doesn't have any concept of planets other than the earth. Beyond that, the author doesn't even understand that the earth is a planet. This is an example of Ancient Hebrew concept of cosmology:




Why do some claim that Genesis 1 describes the universe when the author shows no knowledge of our solar system much less the universe?


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #130]

1. The uncreated deep / waters in Gen 1:2.

This may be referring to what is mentioned in scientific circles as "The Quantum Field". The QF may have once been inert, in that it was one thing before it was many things.

This doesn't add up unless one suggests that "The Quantum Field" poured out onto the earth flooding it.

Good point. One would have to be waxing poetically for that to be the case...

The solids are produced from liquid-like malleable properties of the QF. If the passage had said the uncreated deep poured out of itself, the Earth - then it might add up.



.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #130]

1. The uncreated deep / waters in Gen 1:2.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This may be referring to what is mentioned in scientific circles as "The Quantum Field". The QF may have once been inert, in that it was one thing before it was many things.

This doesn't add up unless one suggests that "The Quantum Field" poured out onto the earth flooding it.

Upon review it appears that what was called 'the earth' was in this stage, formless. Not like we would see it as a globe...that came about because of the movement of the spirit of god, and this movement must have something to do with the idea of vibration caused by sound which caused the QF to solidify into forms...

So the passage must be referring to the state of 'the earth' prior to it becoming a form.



.

[theophile]

[Replying to Tcg in post #130]

1. The uncreated deep / waters in Gen 1:2.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This may be referring to what is mentioned in scientific circles as "The Quantum Field". The QF may have once been inert, in that it was one thing before it was many things.

This doesn't add up unless one suggests that "The Quantum Field" poured out onto the earth flooding it.

Upon review it appears that what was called 'the earth' was in this stage, formless. Not like we would see it as a globe...that came about because of the movement of the spirit of god, and this movement must have something to do with the idea of vibration caused by sound which caused the QF to solidify into forms...

So the passage must be referring to the state of 'the earth' prior to it becoming a form.

I do think you're applying too much modern science to the text, but the concept is sound enough in relation. Quantum is all about probability. Which is to say chance, uncontrollability, and resistance to fixed order...

That is what I think the deep essentially is. It is an unknown domain. A field filled with God knows what. Just as quantum mechanics allows for just about anything to my knowledge (i.e., all events have a probability, such as throwing a baseball through a pinhole...).

Beautiful stuff.

[Tcg]

That is what I think the deep essentially is. It is an unknown domain. A field filled with God knows what.

According to the text God knows what it was and it was water. No need to complicate it. The water described in Genesis 1 is water. The same water that reportedly rained down and flowed upward to flood the earth in Noah's time. The deep is the water below the earth. There's no mystery here.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #143]

I do think you're applying too much modern science to the text, but the concept is sound enough in relation.

True enough. The context is to be understood in light of how ancient folk literally conceptualized the world in their time.

It is feasible that they understood how sound causes vibration which in turn causes things to organize into patterns, and from that understanding, believed that everything was created/organized through sound.
The also probably would have recognized patterns involved within life and couple these two understandings to come up with the concept that a creator 'spoke' things into existence.

[theophile]

That is what I think the deep essentially is. It is an unknown domain. A field filled with God knows what.

According to the text God knows what it was and it was water. No need to complicate it. The water described in Genesis 1 is water. The same water that reportedly rained down and flowed upward to flood the earth in Noah's time. The deep is the water below the earth. There's no mystery here.


Tcg

You're right. Maybe it's just straight-up H2O. I certainly don't want to close down that path.

I hesitate because I think there is some symbolism and external reference going on.

In terms of symbolism, I don't think it's a stretch to think the writer purposefully chose 'water' for other attributes it demonstrates, so that the original audience would have had these in mind. Things like murkiness. Fluidity and change. Resistance to fixed order. Chaos. Largely an unknown domain for humankind...

These are in line with the things I've been saying. I've been trying to build on implicit attributes of water to better understand the character of 'the deep.' (That's why I keep saying 'who knows' what's lurking within it... Maybe nothing, to your point. But maybe not...)

In terms of the external reference, this has been raised a few times now. i.e., Tehom / the deep (a feminine Hebrew noun) has a strong link to Tiamat in the Enuma Elish. They even share etymological roots.

So we need to at least recognize that the writer / original audience would have had that in mind. i.e., Tehom would have been compared to Tiamat by the writer / reader to understand what makes this new God / religion different...

Perhaps the point was to eradicate all agency and character from Tiamat in the conversion to Tehom (i.e., strip her of her godhood and reduce her to pure H2O). Perhaps the point was to carry some of that agency and character forward... To symbolize there is more than just 'water' here.

Anyways, a really interesting question. At least to me

[theophile]

[Replying to Tcg in post #144]

As a further note, I highly recommend Catherine Keller's 'Face of the Deep' where she conducts a more learned analysis along these lines and sees a massive cover-up going on. Not in Gen 1, but in later Christian theology where the feminine deep was silenced and pushed aside in favor of a vision of male power. i.e., an omnipotent God who creates ex nihilo versus a disruptive God who calls pre-existing elements such as the waters to life.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #147]

As a further note, I highly recommend Catherine Keller's 'Face of the Deep' where she conducts a more learned analysis along these lines and sees a massive cover-up going on.

The face of the deep does imply 'only what can be seen on the surface of the water"

Not in Gen 1, but in later Christian theology where the feminine deep was silenced and pushed aside in favor of a vision of male power. i.e., an omnipotent God who creates ex nihilo versus a disruptive God who calls pre-existing elements such as the waters to life.

This type of Christian theology only became popular in relation to materialism. Before this, at least according to Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Christianity embraced the dualistic naturalism world view.

There appear to be 2 widely popular Christian views about the nature of a human being.
1: Humans are spirit/minds having an experience of being in human form.
2: Humans are material flesh.

Re [1] therefore when the human form dies, the immaterial spirit/mind which used the material form, continues to exist.

Re [2] therefore when the human form dies, the human dies, and cannot be alive again unless resurrected.

It may not be simply coincidence that the relatively new kid on the Christian block - The JWOrg - believe in [2] because the popularity of materialist world view replaced the former world view as materialists proclaimed that the universe [everything therein] was machine-like - and that consciousness [spirit/mind] was an emergent property of the material brain.

So Christian orgs, like The JWOrg - fell into step with the popularity of this claim of materialism in order to keep Christianity's foot in/knock on the door, as it were.

As we know, materialism has not been able to explain the hard problem of consciousness, so theism remains a relevant opponent, even if some theists embrace most of the arguments of materialism, as being true.

Even that materialism has never been shown to be a matter of fact, because "the hard problem of consciousness", is the fly in the ointment that spoils its ability to be a successful explanation covering all bases.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #143]

I do think you're applying too much modern science to the text, but the concept is sound enough in relation.

True enough. The context is to be understood in light of how ancient folk literally conceptualized the world in their time.

It is feasible that they understood how sound causes vibration which in turn causes things to organize into patterns, and from that understanding, believed that everything was created/organized through sound.
The also probably would have recognized patterns involved within life and couple these two understandings to come up with the concept that a creator 'spoke' things into existence.

That's an excellent example of trying to make the Bible fit science. Like not denying the universe is 14 billion years old not 7 days, but just make each day 2 billion years and the less said about morning and evening, the better.

But the thing is that any religion can do that sort of thing (Hinduism and Taoism do it all the time) and so it is the science that should be the lodestar and not the various religious texts, even if one maintains that somehow these ancient people had some sort of inspiration or revelation that somehow gave them an inkling of some greater reality that looked like myth or superstition until science found something that the scripture could be made (with the eye of Faith) to sound a bit like.

Well, have your fun. but trying to snag Genesis onto the lab-coat tails of science isn't going to persuade me, at least, to trust Genesis rather than science.

[Replying to Tcg in post #144]

As a further note, I highly recommend Catherine Keller's 'Face of the Deep' where she conducts a more learned analysis along these lines and sees a massive cover-up going on. Not in Gen 1, but in later Christian theology where the feminine deep was silenced and pushed aside in favor of a vision of male power. i.e., an omnipotent God who creates ex nihilo versus a disruptive God who calls pre-existing elements such as the waters to life.

I think we can do without a cult of Scientific Wokeism. We goddless bastards don't need to be preached at about how the Bible is mysogynist and how historically women have had a pretty raw deal and by God (who is a woman), now they are going to make us toxic males pay for it

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #149]

I do think you're applying too much modern science to the text, but the concept is sound enough in relation.

True enough. The context is to be understood in light of how ancient folk literally conceptualized the world in their time.

It is feasible that they understood how sound causes vibration which in turn causes things to organize into patterns, and from that understanding, believed that everything was created/organized through sound.
The also probably would have recognized patterns involved within life and couple these two understandings to come up with the concept that a creator 'spoke' things into existence.

That's an excellent example of trying to make the Bible fit science.

Rather, it is more an example of explaining how theism came to be, and so is not restricted in any way, by any religions holy book.

But the thing is that any religion can do that sort of thing (Hinduism and Taoism do it all the time) and so it is the science that should be the lodestar and not the various religious texts, even if one maintains that somehow these ancient people had some sort of inspiration or revelation that somehow gave them an inkling of some greater reality that looked like myth or superstition until science found something that the scripture could be made (with the eye of Faith) to sound a bit like.

The problem with the idea of having things 'fit the science' is that this occurs not only with religions [theism-based] but also with materialism [atheism-based] in that the 'fitting' happens through filtering the evidence scientific research uncovers, through either one or the other - the one being Emergent Theory [consciousness/mind emerges from brains] and the other being Simulation Theory. [consciousness/mind exists within a Creation].

Neither theory has actually been proven by science, to be true [thus making the other one false.]

Well, have your fun. but trying to snag Genesis onto the lab-coat tails of science isn't going to persuade me, at least, to trust Genesis rather than science.

I feel the same, which is why I tend toward thinking of Genesis as metaphor rather than scientific script.
I also feel the same about trusting the theory of materialism, rather than science.

I think it possible that science will eventually show that the universe is formed through waves which have been created by sound which cannot [at least easily] be heard but of which the effects can be detected in what is observed.