The creation of universe according to Genesis

[JewishVolcano]

I figured this is the correct section of the forum to put this thread in cause here I will present my thoughts on the subject rather than a clear point for a debate. There are some possible and actual contradictions I point out here. Discuss as you please.

http://biblehub.com/genesis/1.htm

Several days ago I read the creation story from the first part of Book of Genesis. I immediately fell in love with it. Not because I believe it actually happened - I don't. But because the story by itself is pretty beautiful to me. It illuminates the understanding of the surrounding world and it's origins that folks had back in the days.

In those days they didn't know that the dry land is part of a giant ball of dry land filled with water below a certain level and which hangs in space. All they knew is that there's a flat dry land, seemingly infinite and bottomless sea and water which falls on the ground from above. They didn't know that this water falling on them is falling from the clouds, which are nothing but chunks of water gas which ascended there from the seas and other ground water. So they came up with the story of separation of waters and this story to me is the most fascinating part.

Creation according to Genesis.

1st day. According to Genesis 1, God's first creation was light. So it was only darkness before. Since Genesis says 'and there was evening and there was morning, one day' it means according to story these fixed fluctuations of light were created then too. That can come across as a contradiction since Sun, Moon and Stars were all created later. And yet each stage of creation is finished with these words of evening and morning while it would not seem proper to include those words before Sun and Moon were created. So apparently authors wanted to be consistent in this but never bothered to explain how day and night could be distinguishable without the Sun.

2nd day. The second creation of God was to separate waters from the waters and thus to create the expanse in the middle. Waters were separated into waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse. Now it's important to clearly understand what is meant here. Space was created. The one we exist in, the one with air.

Folks back then knew as well as we are now that there's water falling on them (rain). So they came to a pretty logical conclusion - there's a body of water above them. It was a wrong conclusion but it was sensible still (at least to me). And since they also knew that there's body of water below them (sea) they came to understanding that there was once a united body of water until God separated it and created the expanse in which man and other air breathing animals can live. It is this expanse that Genesis 1 says was named 'heaven'. So heaven here is our living space itself - not only the one above us and not a paradise for God's servants.

Now this creation of expanse can be viewed as contradiction to what Genesis 1.2 holds to be the very first action of God - he was hovering over the surface of the waters. But if there was a surface it means there was already some kind of separation between waters and the waterless space that God was hovering across. Still it can be said that there was a separate expanse, the one above ours, which was and still is a domain of God. So it actually fits right into the story.

3rd day. Third creation of God was to gather waters below the expanse into one place and to create dry land in the emptied lot. The dry land was called 'Earth' and the gathering of waters 'Seas'. Earth's vegetation was created in the same day.

4th day. Forth creation of God was creation of Sun, Moon and stars.

5th day. Fifth creation of God were birds and marine animals.

6th day. Sixth creation of God were land animals and man (male and female). Genesis says that man was created in the image of God and according to his likeness and establishes man's rule over everyone else.

Here Genesis 1 ends and Genesis 2 starts.

7th day. It is stated that by now heaven and earth were completed along with all of their hosts. So God decided to rest on this day and contemplate his work and from now on sanction 7th day as holiday.

Nominally this is the place where Genesis 2:3 ends and Genesis 2:4 starts. However Genesis 2:4 marks a beginning of a creation narrative which is not only clearly different but also contains obvious contradictions to the text before it. To me this sharp contrast means it's another story that was later superimposed. In any case what I said about the beauty of the creation story (to me) refers strictly to the one before 2:4.

Starting from 2:4 God is exclusively referred to as 'LORD God', any mention of days stops and Genesis tooks a narrative as if neither plants nor animals nor man were yet created. And it goes on to describe this creation.

First man was created from the dust of the ground and God himself breathed the breath of life into his nostrils (all other animals were too later created 'from the ground').

Then God created a garden in 'Eden' (Earth in general being still empty cause no rain was yet sent by God) and placed man to work there. Garden contained different plants but most notably two supernatural ones - Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE). Garden was watered by a flowing river. God permitted man to eat from the garden as he pleases except for the TKGE.

Then God created animals 'from the ground'. The reason for creating animals according to this narrative was to create helpers for the man. So animals were created and brought before the man so that he could name them. Among animals mentoned are 'cattle' ('livestock' in different versions) and 'beast of the field'. So knowing actual animal domestication history and practice it would seem a huge deal of help was certainly created.

Yet at the same time somehow the narrative goes on to say that for Adam (his name is just suddenly mentioned like this) 'was not found a helper suitable for him'. So God decided to create woman from Adam's rib. Thus woman was created. It is specifically mentioned that both of them were naked and not ashamed.

Then narrative proceeds to the well known story of serpent seducing Eve into eating from TKGE and sharing it with Adam. The only 'knowledge' that either of them acquired from eating the fruit was shame. They became ashamed of their nakedness. Which would suggest God was actually against humans feeling ashamed. Something in direct contradiction to the 'values' imposed by religion.

So God then punished Adam and Eve for consuming the forbidden fruit and expulsed them form the garden to provide for themselves.

On top of expulsing them from the garden the punishment included

1. The pain of childbirth is greatly multiplied
2. Man will now rule over woman
3. Ground will now grow 'thorns and thistles'
4. Death for humans is created - 'and to dust you shall return'
5. Hard work is created - 'By the sweat of your face you will eat bread'

And that's pretty much it as far as the story of creation goes.

I googled the subject and expectedly found that I'm not the first one to figure out there are two stories of creation here. Still I actually found it by myself and was quite fascinated. The first story is beautiful and peaceful. The second story does not strike me as beautiful and it's full of conflict.

In the narrative before 2:4 God first created plants, then animals, then man. Animals are to be ruled by man but it doesn't say that they were created solely for the benefit of man. Man was created as the image of God and according to God's likeness. Plants were created as a gift to both animals and man. The story is complete.

In the narrative after 2:4 God first creates man from the dirt, then a specific garden for man to work in, then animals as man's helpers. Except for those in the garden plants are still absent from the face of the Earth. Nothing is mentioned as to when God decided to create plants in general or when he decided to create rain to make them grow. The only thing mentioned in this regard is the creation of 'thorns and thistles' as punishment. The whole story seem to be centered around the conflict in the garden of Eden and it's ramnifications.

[Divine Insight]

I find the story quite interesting in the fact that whoever created this story of Genesis Chapter 1 was pretty smart. Although I seriously doubt that this story was "written" by a single author. In fact, it most likely evolved over many years as an aural tale that was eventually complied into a written story much later. So the actual scribe who wrote it down most likely wasn't the sole inventor of the story.

Two problems I have with this story are:

1. God saw that it was good. This suggests to me that there could be no such thing as animals ruthlessly preying on each other for food. Neither could disease exist or other natural disasters that could cause extreme suffering and painful deaths. Because none of that could be said to be "good". So this is problematic for me. Either this original world would have needed to be perfect with only herbivores existing, or there is an extreme question concerning what this God considers to be "good".

2. The second problem I have with this tale is that God "rested" on the 7th day. This implies that creating the world was "work" for this omnipotent God. And that God needed to take some sort of break or rest to rejuvenate from the energy he had expended during his creation process. This brings up the question of where God obtains his rejuvenated energy from? It also implies that God is very similar in physics to us. (i.e. he requires energy to run and need to have it replenished after having exerted a lot of work). So there's are problems associated with this story that even go beyond the question of precisely how things were created or what order they were created in.

On top of expulsing them from the garden the punishment included

1. The pain of childbirth is greatly multiplied
2. Man will now rule over woman
3. Ground will now grow 'thorns and thistles'
4. Death for humans is created - 'and to dust you shall return'
5. Hard work is created - 'By the sweat of your face you will eat bread'

And that's pretty much it as far as the story of creation goes.

Most of this is in Chapter 3 and I agree these are all extremely problematic.

1. The pain of childbirth is greatly multiplied

I personally have extreme problems with a Creator God who would use the act of creation as a weapon of punishment. Also, who's desire is it that Eve should have children? Why doesn't Even just say to God, "Fine, I won't have anymore children then."

Also did this God even explain to Adam and Eve precisely how children are created? The story seems to assume that Adam and Ever should probably already know.

2. Man will now rule over woman

And why should that be? Adam was just as guilty as Eve. This reeks to me like a male-chauvinistic society using a God Myth to proclaim that God condones male dominance in relationships. They also seem to continually use this idea to belittle women throughout the rest of this religion by treating them as though they are responsible for the existence of all sin. I don't buy that this came from any God.

3. Ground will now grow 'thorns and thistles'

Well, science tells us that thorns and thistles existed long before humans showed up on the planet. So this conflicts with known fact of our world.

4. Death for humans is created - 'and to dust you shall return'

Again science reveals to us that animals had been dying naturally long before humans came on the scene. Why was it that humans shouldn't have also naturally died?

And also there is the question of why other hominid species existed by became extinct. There is no mention in the Bible of these failed species having been created by this God.

5. Hard work is created - 'By the sweat of your face you will eat bread'

Sounds like nothing more than a mean God to me.

Especially in light of the fact that this story has Eve confessing to everything and even testifying against the evil serpent who had beguiled her. Why should she be punished for having confessed to the truth.

And there there is the extreme self-contradiction in this whole story that Adam and Eve were supposedly be totally innocence and ignorant of the very knowledge of good and evil. How in the world could Eve have ever suspected that the serpent was lying to her if she had no knowledge of lying? How could she have knowledge of lying if she didn't yet have any knowledge of good and evil? There is no reason for Eve not to TRUST the serpent entirely. Eve would have no reason to not trust anyone. She had no knowledge of good and evil.

The story makes no sense. It shoots itself it its own foot repeatedly. It has a totally innocent Adam and Eve being innocently beguiled by an evil serpent and then confessing to everything immediately thereafter. Cooperating fully with God. There is no indication that Adam or Eve or giving God a hard time or refusing to obey him.

The story fails miserably, IMHO. It's simply not compelling.

A story that had Adam and Eve deviously plot to disobey God on their own without even being beguiled by an already evil serpent would have been far more compelling. And especially if when confronted by God they lied to God and tried to deny the act, and then finally started yelling at God proclaiming that they are sick of his rules and no longer care to obey him.

That story would have at least made more sense. The story as written makes no sense at all. Adam and Eve should have been exonerated from any wrongdoing right on the spot. The Evil serpent should have been dealt with, and Adam and Eve should have been awarded their gift of eternal life for having been totally open and honest with God and confessing everything including even testifying against the evil demon.

The idea that this God would have condemned Adam and Eve for this episode makes no sense.

That's my thoughts. I reject this entire religion as being utterly absurd. I don't buy into the "Fall from Grace" story at all. And it conflict with the scientific knowledge we have of the world anyway. Death, disease, animals eating animals, and thorns and thistles growing on plants existed long before homo sapiens showed up on the planet. And there were also other hominid species as well, failed attempts at "creating humans" that aren't even mentioned in the Bible but make perfect sense in a world that naturally evolves by natural selection.

Clearly the biblical story of creation does not match up with reality.

Neither is it self-consistent even as a stand alone story.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

1. God saw that it was good. This suggests to me that there could be no such thing as animals ruthlessly preying on each other for food. Neither could disease exist or other natural disasters that could cause extreme suffering and painful deaths. Because none of that could be said to be "good". So this is problematic for me. Either this original world would have needed to be perfect with only herbivores existing, or there is an extreme question concerning what this God considers to be "good".

Well you see back then they were much more connected to nature. They themselves hunted all the time and perhaps never see a problem. It was good for them. All this eternal blood and pain that shocks modern society after many centuries of 'meek will inherit the earth' perhaps never presented such a problem for them. In the same way for somebody who is gentle and against fighting seeing UFC will be shocking and repulsive. Yet these fighters live for it. So what was good for them was good for their God.

In fact since the story after 2:4 focuses strictly on garden affairs I believe it was invented after agricultural revolution while the one before was compiled by obligatory hunters of the old days. But that's just a guess.

And there there is the extreme self-contradiction in this whole story that Adam and Eve were supposedly be totally innocence and ignorant of the very knowledge of good and evil. How in the world could Eve have ever suspected that the serpent was lying to her if she had no knowledge of lying? How could she have knowledge of lying if she didn't yet have any knowledge of good and evil? There is no reason for Eve not to TRUST the serpent entirely. Eve would have no reason to not trust anyone. She had no knowledge of good and evil.

She could have full knowledge of lying. She just never knew it's wrong. In the same way as she knew that she was naked but never knew it's wrong.

Besides God himself told Adam not to eat from the tree. So Adam for one clearly violated God's order.

That's my thoughts. I reject this entire religion as being utterly absurd. I don't buy into the "Fall from Grace" story at all. And it conflict with the scientific knowledge we have of the world anyway. Death, disease, animals eating animals, and thorns and thistles growing on plants existed long before homo sapiens showed up on the planet. And there were also other hominid species as well, failed attempts at "creating humans" that aren't even mentioned in the Bible but make perfect sense in a world that naturally evolves by natural selection.

I agree that the story is full of holes and is inconsistent with modern knowledge. It was only meant to serve as a punishment story. Existing death and pain were used as examples of punishment inflicted by God on mankind for being wrong. I don't know how they could possibly missed disease here though.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The story makes no sense. It shoots itself it its own foot repeatedly. It has a totally innocent Adam and Eve being innocently beguiled by an evil serpent and then confessing to everything immediately thereafter. Cooperating fully with God. There is no indication that Adam or Eve or giving God a hard time or refusing to obey him.

Adam and Eve disobeyed a direct order from God and thus inflicted punishment on themselves. Serpent is no excuse cause whatever he says it doesn't mean they can disobey God.

The gravity of the story is different. What is it exactly that they did? They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis repeatedly states that thus they became like God - acquired the knowledge of good and evil, in particular shame of nakedness.

And here there are two questions.

1. Why God if he knows good and evil enjoyed the company of two naked adults?

2. Why God got upset when he learned that they now know good and evil, isn't it a supposedly proper thing to happen?

Mind you as a side note that Eve received her name only after God's epic meltdown. No sooner for whatever reason. Both Adam and Eve receive their names under strange circumstances.

Earlier I made a list of God's punishments but I missed the most interesting one. God cursed humans with poisonous snakes. He clearly lays it out. So serpents were not making troubles until God thought otherwise. That's why it was possible for Eve to talk with one. Not anymore though.

[Divine Insight]

So what was good for them was good for their God.

Exactly. But isn't that a major problem? Why should an omnipotent supreme being see the same things as being "good" as primitive carnivorous humans? Especially considering that a Creator God would not have needed to create humans to be this way in the first place. In other words, this only further suggests that these tales of a God were indeed entirely the result of the imagination of early humans.

In fact since the story after 2:4 focuses strictly on garden affairs I believe it was invented after agricultural revolution while the one before was compiled by obligatory hunters of the old days. But that's just a guess.

The only problem here is that the Bible never really states that it was Adam and Eve's job to "tend" the Garden. I thought the garden of Eden was supposed to be a paradise on its own merit. Not because Adam and Eve were maintaining it to "paradise level".

This also brings up the question of what Adam needed help with? What was his mission or job? Clearly it couldn't have been to procreate or multiply since Adam was a man and would not have been able to procreate on his own.

I have always suggested that this story would have made more sense the other way around. Imagine that Eve was "tending the garden" (assuming the garden needed tending). We might also imagine that she could give birth too, even without having any need to be impregnated by a man first. That's certainly something we could at least "imagine".

This then would make more sense in terms of Eve needing "help". After all, trying to tend a garden and raise kids too could be overwhelming. So for God to have created her a helpmate might have made more sense. But clearly this religion is strictly patriarchal. Adam was created first, yet he's the one who needed help though it was unclear what his purpose was or what he needed help with. It seems also unrealistic that his Helpmate just happens to also be able to procreate and bear children.

The problem here is that Eve seems to have been an "afterthought". Adam was created first, and Eve was only created as a helpmate. One could argue that bearing children could produce even more "helpers". But even so, the whole procreation thing now becomes an "afterthought" instead of the primary goal of creation.

So it seems to be highly problematic as written.

And there there is the extreme self-contradiction in this whole story that Adam and Eve were supposedly be totally innocence and ignorant of the very knowledge of good and evil. How in the world could Eve have ever suspected that the serpent was lying to her if she had no knowledge of lying? How could she have knowledge of lying if she didn't yet have any knowledge of good and evil? There is no reason for Eve not to TRUST the serpent entirely. Eve would have no reason to not trust anyone. She had no knowledge of good and evil.

She could have full knowledge of lying. She just never knew it's wrong. In the same way as she knew that she was naked but never knew it's wrong.

Even if Eve had knowledge of lying why should she suspect that the Serpent was lying? What reason would Eve have had to think that the Serpent would lie to her?

And to the point about being naked being "wrong". Why should that be the case? If being naked is objectively wrong then why didn't this God provide Adam and Eve with clothes to begin with and teach them to always stay dressed when in each others company? This would have also been problematic in terms of procreation too. God would have had to really sit down with Adam and Eve and explain about the "birds and bees". And that brings up a whole other question yet. Why was it that God had already created pairs of animals that could procreate sexually but when he created Adam he didn't simultaneously create Eve as his sexual mate right then and there?

This story just has so many problems.

Besides God himself told Adam not to eat from the tree. So Adam for one clearly violated God's order.

Exactly, so what is gained by having Adam rule over Eve? He obviously isn't any better than Eve. So this patriarchal male-chauvinism commanded by this God isn't adding up. Sounds more like what patriarchal male-chauvinistic men would make up as a fairytale pretending that some imagined God supports their male-chauvinism.

I seriously believe that this is a far more realistic explanation.

That's my thoughts. I reject this entire religion as being utterly absurd. I don't buy into the "Fall from Grace" story at all. And it conflict with the scientific knowledge we have of the world anyway. Death, disease, animals eating animals, and thorns and thistles growing on plants existed long before homo sapiens showed up on the planet. And there were also other hominid species as well, failed attempts at "creating humans" that aren't even mentioned in the Bible but make perfect sense in a world that naturally evolves by natural selection.

I agree that the story is full of holes and is inconsistent with modern knowledge. It was only meant to serve as a punishment story. Existing death and pain were used as examples of punishment inflicted by God on mankind for being wrong. I don't know how they could possibly missed disease here though.

The other problem here is that the reason that giving birth is so difficult for human women has now been recognized to have been due to the simple fact that we evolved from quadrupedal primates. And it was this transition to walking upright that causes the problem with giving birth in females. Yet the Bible has this as being a "curse" from God to punish Eve.

So, yes, not only does the original Biblical story have some serious problems, but modern scientific explanations seem to fair much better.

[Divine Insight]

And here there are two questions.

1. Why God if he knows good and evil enjoyed the company of two naked adults?

If being naked is "objectively evil" then why didn't he create clothes for them from the start?

And besides, I thought in this religion "Evil" was basically disobedience to God. Did God ever instruct Adam and Eve not to be naked? If not then how could it have been evil or a "sin" to be naked?

2. Why God got upset when he learned that they now know good and evil, isn't it a supposedly proper thing to happen?

Not only that, but isn't this God supposed to be trustworthy? What's trustworthy about a God who keeps important information from innocent people?

On a similar note, I always have to ask why God didn't create for Adam a nice girl like Mother Mary? Instead God creates for Adam a girl like Eve who supposedly does things she's not supposed to do and encourages Adam to do the same.

This would be a God that Adam could not trust to even provide him with a dependable upstanding mate.

Why would anyone seek this God out to help them find a spouse after what this God did to Adam? This would be a God that cannot be trusted to fix us up with a dependable mate.

It makes no sense at all. This whole Biblical paradigm is just riddled with extreme self-contradictions. This would be a God that Adam could not even trust to provide him with a decent wife.

At least the story would have made a tad bit more sense if Adam was the one who encouraged Eve to sin. Then at least Adam couldn't blame God for having given him an undependable wife.

And if we look at the bigger picture, supposedly none of us can trust this God since this God created a situation where we are now all in the dog house with God. Why should we have to suffer for what two people might have done thousands of years ago in a garden?

Even if the story of the fall from grace could be made to make sense why should it apply to us today? That's hardly fair, or just.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Exactly. But isn't that a major problem? Why should an omnipotent supreme being see the same things as being "good" as primitive carnivorous humans? Especially considering that a Creator God would not have needed to create humans to be this way in the first place. In other words, this only further suggests that these tales of a God were indeed entirely the result of the imagination of early humans.

Well you see I for one don't consider them 'primitive'. And also there is no doubt in my mind that every religion is fantasy so to me it simply reflects the thinking of it's authors. Authors of the story of Genesis 1 were fascinated with their world - hence their story about the wonderful world that God offered to them cause he loved them. Authors of story about garden of Eden (and pretty much the rest of the Bible) were resentful of their world - hence the story about God cursing the mankind.

But even if there was an actual God - what makes you think he would have had the same perspective on what constitutes 'primitive' as you?

The only problem here is that the Bible never really states that it was Adam and Eve's job to "tend" the Garden. I thought the garden of Eden was supposed to be a paradise on its own merit. Not because Adam and Eve were maintaining it to "paradise level".

You're mistaken on this particular count. Genesis 2:15 explicitly states that Adam's job was to tend the garden.

Even if Eve had knowledge of lying why should she suspect that the Serpent was lying? What reason would Eve have had to think that the Serpent would lie to her?

The serpent wasn't even lying. He was actually telling the truth - if you eat from the tree you will not die but you will learn good from evil and thus become like God. Which is exactly what happened and even God himself later affirms that 'the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil'. So it was God who was lying about the tree. The only 'deception' that serpent did was that he seduced Eve into violating God's explicit order. Which she was not supposed to do regardless.

And to the point about being naked being "wrong". Why should that be the case?

Because that's what the story shows. They ate the fruit, thus learned good from evil and proceeded to hide their nakedness. So their newfound knowledge pointed to the perception that nakedness was evil.

Still absolutely no reason is given as to why God was so against Adam and Eve learning good from evil. Was God himself on the side of evil?

Unlike the story of Genesis 1 this story about Adam and Eve is so poorly written and contain such a gaping holes that I think the guy writing it had a very loose grasp on reality.