Why did God wait till Day 4 before He made the sun, moon and stars?

[BurtWorm]

Actual answer from a creationist website, linked to by Pharyngula:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/F-HA5nF-yC4/why_did_it_take_god_so_long_to.php


Answer: Perhaps because God knew that some people would worship the sun, moon and stars, and He wanted to show us that they are not so important after all. The sun did not form the earth, and the stars do not control what happens on Earth. God wants us to worship Him, not anything that He has created. Some people use the stars to make horoscopes. These are charts that supposedly say what is going to happen to people from day to day. God forbids this. He wants us to read His Word, the Bible, and to ask Him for wisdom; not to consult horoscopes, which people make up out of their own imagination.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Answer:

Procrastination.

[Solly Mack]

2. Because he knew they'd would be after his lucky charms?

[tularetom]

3. Words fail me

Like the whole creation bullshit story isn't something people made up out of their own imagination.

[AlinPA]

4. RE:"which people make up out of their own imagination" Sort of like talking snakes, maybe?

[villager]

5. Because those opening stanzas to Genesis proceed in the same general order as Big Bang theory

...and evolution. Hence, animal life on the surface of planets (this one, at least) appearing last...

First there's darkness, a big bang, a cooling, separate planets & solar systems, etc. and thus a distinction between "night and day" eventually.

It's just a poetic version of what scientists would "prove" later on...

Don't tell the fundies. Or, perhaps, do.

[BurtWorm]

11. It's a nice thought, but the truth is, Genesis's version is nothing like science's version

They're compared here:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/WM5klA1Mi6g/day-age_creationism_is_almost.php

PS: The very question in the OP demonstrates how far off the mark Genesis is from what science has concluded about the universe's origins. According to Genesis the world preceded the sun, moon and stars. That is just not possible, however poetically "true" it might be.

[villager]

17. thoroughly misunderstood by the blogger

... who literalizes metaphor -- much like a fundamentalist -- in order to make his points. In fact, the sequencing -- from void/black to light all over the place to a planet covered by water, to land appearing later, to the eventual of land animals out of aquatic ones -- replicates scientific theory.

It's a pleasant mystery as to why, though I realize fundamentalists on both sides can't bear the idea...

[laconicsax]

19. Water came second.

Your sequence of a planet covered by water with land appearing later is backwards. We know that water came second. Genesis gets it wrong.

[villager]

21. Again, it's a poetic version that gets much -- most right.

And actually, literalist that you are, the land masses as we know them came after the planet was, essentially, "water covered."

If you mean was there mass and rock here first as the planet formed, sure. But again, you're taking the Bible literally. I welcome you to the non-Fundamentalist side of the fence, to enjoy the short, essentially correct snapshot in verse form, of the creation of the universe...

[laconicsax]

22. You're trying to have it both ways.

You can't maintain that the Earth's crust was both here first as the planet formed and came after planet was covered in water. Only one of those positions is correct and it isn't the one that your 'poetic' drivel advocates.

Asserting that the models of the universe directly contradict the order of events in Genesis isn't a "fundamentalist" position--it's a statement of fact, just as the heliocentric model of the solar system directly contradicts other statements in the Bible isn't a fundamentalist position but an equivalent statement of fact. I don't take the Bible as anything more than a mildly interesting read full of amazing events and fictional characters.

The account in Genesis 1 is only "essentially correct" if you disregard the order of creation and most of what it says. The account in Genesis 2 is only "essentially correct" if you toss it out altogether.

[villager]

25. For Christ's sake, it's a poem!

It's written in verse. Only fundamentalists take it literally...

And as poetry, the arc of creation it, well, re-creates is, in its essentials, correct.

You're free to nitpick about the crust coming first, but that's not actually the only thing meant by the translation of "Earth."

[BurtWorm]

27. You're just plain wrong.

It doesn't reflect natural history *at* *all*.

Stick with "it's a poem, it's not meant to be taken literally." That's fine as far as it goes. It's just flat wrong to go further and say it has the essentials right. It plain flat does not.

[villager]

29. It's a poem about creation. It goes from utter blackness, to light, to the formation of earth

..and later, the arrival of fish, then animals, and after that, humans as the latest arrivals.

That, I believe, reflects natural history.

Sorry this offends your particularly inflexible belief system....

[BurtWorm]

33. You seem to be very (unreasonably) flexible with the truth.

One version of Genesis has women being created out of a man's rib. Does that reflect natural history, too, in your book?

[villager]

37. Since you know the authors of Genesis, Burtworm, you should know that story is a different author

...from a different tribal history, replete with different original names for God.

As I say, we have a redacted version of much older myth-cycles that have been passed along to us. Do they all reflect musings or speculations on the very cosmos? Well, at some level, a mystical interpretation would say yes (going beyond the superficial Fundamentalist view that it is only a "rule book.")

So obviously it's not all natural history, though some tales -- like the flood saga -- may be passed along stories about Ur-events....

You might grab a drink at take a look at R. Crumb's splendid version of "Genesis," which he just released, and calm down about the whole thing.

[BurtWorm]

42. Don't make bigger claims for it than it can handle .

It's a poem. It's a piece of so-called Holy Scripture. Fine. It is not accurate natural history by any but the laziest stretches of the imagination.

[BurtWorm]

24. The authors of Genesis literally believed water came first.

They literally believed the sun, moon and stars came after the earth was formed out of the waters. They were dead wrong.

[villager]

26. I'm glad to know you conversed with the specific "authors" of Genesis, Burtworm!

Didn't know you had that much seniority on the rest of us!

Also glad to see you stuck around for thousands of years as the tales and verse-cycles were passed along orally, before being written down -- what'd you say the name of that "author" was again? -- and then later, redacted...

[BurtWorm]

32. The telescope that enabled scientists to look back toward the origin of the universe

wasn't invented until about 2200 years after Genesis was written. Are you going to argue it wasn't? Are you trying to tell us Genesis is "oral history" passed down generation to generation from a witness to "the creation?" How could a human have witnessed "creation?" There were no humans until about 200,000 years ago, several thousands of millions of years after the universe was actually formed.

[villager]

34. It's a mystery how it was intuited. I know that bothers the hell out of you, but that's what's

..so interesting about it (the mystery that is, not your umbrage...! ;-)

You don't need to be so splenetic about it. Or so godawfully literal.

[BurtWorm]

36. They intuited wrong.

They got it no more right than the Egyptians, the Incas, the Iriquois or the Inuit. No more wrong, I'll give you that. As you say, they were on about something other than material truth. Fine. I have no problem with that. Just stop claiming that their metaphor magically coincides with actual science.

[villager]

38. Their metaphor comes interestingly close. That's what is so intriguing.

you don't need to be so defensive about it all. It doesn't "cancel out" science. It just augments speculation on the human struggle to try an understand their role, existential or otherwise, in vastness of things...

[BurtWorm]

41. Of course it doesn't cancel out science.

It doesn't do what science does. It doesn't even come anywhere close.

[darkstar3]

44. Kinda playin' it fast and loose with the word "interesting", aren't ya'? n/t

[BurtWorm]

23. The blogger is a biologist.

He's knows what he's talking about. You can't have it both ways.

Genesis is either metaphor or history. If history it's either accurate or inaccurate. In fact, it's inaccurate. It does not reflect the reality of the natural history of the universe. Not surprising that it doesn't. The authors of Genesis did not have access to the instruments modern scientists have that enable them to see how things as they are actually came to be.

Mystery solved.

[villager]

28. Sorry pal. You're being as much of an inflexible Fundamentalist as those other fundamentalists.

It's not history.

It is metaphor and myth-cycle.

Unless you're pronouncing yourself more omnipotent than we realized?

(By the way, O Wise One, if it's not metaphor *or* history -- what then, in the Universe of the Great God Burtworm, is it? Because clearly it's received as one or the other, depending on one's stance in the, well, universe...)

[BurtWorm]

35. Ok. then stop claiming it gets natural history basically right.

By the way, I didn't deny it was metaphor. But even if that's all it is, it doesn't make it true that it gets science basically right. You've been shown over and over how it diverges from science. Stop claiming it reflects the findings of modern science. It doesn't.

[villager]

39. If you believe in a literal English-only version of the words

.. and believe it was meant to be taken *absolutely literally*, then of course it doesn't match up to science.

You seem to think I'm saying it *replaces* science. I say the fact they came so close in the general scope/direction/unfolding of things in that first story (and it's interesting, in terms of redaction, to consider that one was deliberately placed first) darkness -- light everywhere -- starts/sun/chronological time later water/land/plants/animals then humans after that, remains an intriguing point indeed...

[BurtWorm]

40. Thank you!

"of course it doesn't match up to science."

I was beginning to worry about your grip on reality! ;-)

As for getting the idea that the planet and laws of nature preceded humans, that's not really such a fantastic piece of intuition is it? It's pretty self-evident, no? What has been a mystery until modern science was developed sufficiently to discern it was the age of the universe and the order of those items discussed in creation myths like Genesis, not to mention how humans actually came to be and have the smarts to figure it all out. But it wasn't religion that got us to that point.

I'll spare you the conclusion to be drawn about how helpful I think religion has actually been to human understanding. I'm sure you can figure out my opinion on that in a nutshell.

[Silent3]

45. So, just exactly how much "flexibility" is a good thing?

Unless someone agrees with you and allows just the right balance of literal and poetic interpretation so that they awe themselves with how freakin' amazingly right (for some unspecified values of "freakin'", "amazingly", and "right") the Genesis story is, they're being an "inflexible Fundamentalist"?

How amazing can it be if you have to be so loose in your interpretation of the literal words before amazement occurs?

After a certain point the most amazing thing is the mental gymnastics it takes to insist that something is amazing.

I'm sorry. Putting the Earth before light, and plants before the sun and the moon, doesn't demonstrate amazing prescience. Ignoring such details is more than just allowing for poetic license. Recognizing these problems is far from acting like a fundamentalist in any way, shape, or form.

[BurtWorm]

46. Extremely well said.

:applause:

[villager]

47. Fundamentalist? Maybe not. Literalist? Absolutely.

and thus, just as inflexible.

Never mind the putting-words-in-mouth aspect of ascribing "freakin'" to me. Keep your own freakin' words to yourself! ;-)

Earth or "firmament" is a translation of the original text, so when The Maker -- however we describe that ineffable unknowable Mystery to the cosmos -- creates "heaven and earth," the line talks about "all that is known," basically, and also notes it is still "without form."

So conceptually it's kind of there, before it's actually there.

Which I realize you literalists have a hard freakin' time grasping.

But as I say, you're allowed more expansive sense of humor, tricksterism, and a free yank of all sticks from asses! ;-)

[uberllama42]

50. You've made no case for why we should count the hits but ignore the misses

You marvel at the accuracy of those elements of the Genesis story that coincide with the actual course of events as revealed by modern science. When someone points out that other pieces of the chronology of Genesis 1, not discernibly more or less metaphorical than your favored details, contradict what we know from science, you accuse that person of stifling literalism and having a stick up his/her ass.

You advance a gleefully arbitrary interpretation of Genesis and wag your finger condescendingly at anyone who presses you for consistency. Not persuasive.

[Silent3]

58. I'd have to take the Bible as literally true to be a literalist.

To the extent that I think the Bible has much value as all, certainly some of that value comes from a more literary or poetic interpretation of the words therein.

But the literal words are still an important starting point for discussion. Before I'm "amazed" by Genesis, I have to look at how far you have to move away from the literal words before amazement occurs. If that's too great a distance, if it takes too much hand waving and too much post-facto interpretation, heavily colored by already knowing what science has learned that you'd like to believe an ancient text somehow luckily or miraculously hinted at, my amazement at the text ends and my suspicion of the wishful thinking of those who are amazed begins.

If you take your own poetic interpretation as the starting point for your argument, not counting any of the distance you had to move from the literal words to get there, then you're missing an important measure of possibly suspect biases from your own interpretation that need to be taken into account.

The important thing here as far as I'm concerned is not whether those who you call Fundamentalists or literalists will lighten up and remove any suspicious wooden blockages from their collective rectums, but whether or not there was a way for goatherds a few thousand years ago to be given some sort of sneak peak into the inner workings of the cosmos, well beyond the knowledge and science of their day. You seem to enjoy and revel in that wondrous possibility. I consider that a highly unlikely thing, the kind of thing for which far more evidence is required than a modern, loose, inexact and poetic interpretation of Genesis.

[laconicsax]

18. Except the order is wrong.

The Genesis order is:
1)Universe
2)Earth
3)Light
4)Sky
5)Dry land (water had existed from the start)
6)Plants
7)Sun, moon, and other stars
8)Non-human animals
9)Humans

The actual order that we've come to understand is:
1)Universe (probably a very bright ordeal and the light then died down)
2)Stars (and light along with them)
3)Sun (8-9 billion years later)
4)Earth
5)Moon
6)Water (dry land existed first)
7)Simple non-animal, non-plant life
8)Non-human animals and plants
9)Humans

The only thing the Genesis myth gets right is that the universe came first, the moon came after the Earth, and humans came last. It's wrong on everything else.

[villager]

30. God, you people are absolute humorless literalists, aren't you?

There are lots of meaning to "Earth" in this context. Just for starters.

You must've been hell in English class. Teacher's pet in science?

[laconicsax]

43. You're right, it must be one of those poetic meanings of "earth" that doesn't mean "earth" at all.

Actually I got consistently good grades in English as well as Science because I can appreciate literary interpretations and understand basic scientific models.

There is a simple facts that you seem determined to ignore--that the order of creation presented in Genesis 1 is completely at odds with reality whether it's meant to be taken literally or not. The only possible way to reconcile Genesis 1 with reality is to completely re-write and reinterpret it in a way that changes the original narrative.

Genesis 1 gives a historical account--saying that things happened in a certain order. That order is wrong. You keep insisting that pointing that out is a "fundamentalist" position (which, by the way only shows that you don't know what the word even means).

Here's the challenge to you: demonstrate how the order of creation in Genesis 1 is mostly correct. How is the account of the earth, sky, water, and plants existing before the creation of the sun mostly correct?

[villager]

48. I'm glad you were good in English. Too bad you think Genesis was "written" in that language

The scientist in you might appreciate this:

"The whole translation of Genesis 1:1 is difficult, as recent versions of the Bible make clear (15). This matter cannot be taken up here, except to say that verse 1 likely is a general introduction to the whole account of creation (Genesis 1:1; 2:4) (16) and should be translated "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Heaven and earth, then, is everything that follows in the account, beginning with God's first act of creating the light (verse 3). Subsequently, the second day witnesses the formation of heaven (verse 8) and the third day tells of the making of earth (verse 10), followed by the creating of their respective contents (vss. 11 - 2:1).
The emerging earth (verse 9) yabašsa (dry land) is named Éeres (land) as opposed to the waters that are called sea. This might lead us simply to identify Éeres as the physical hard ground (earth, rocks etc.) were it not for the fact that the word Éeres (earth) is also used already in verse 2 to describe that which had not yet been separated into dry land and sea. Consequently, some may conclude that Éeres (earth) in the opening chapter of the Bible has at least two meanings. It obviously refers to the dry land (verse 10) but also to the formless and void something that preceded it (verse 2)..."

http://www.grisda.org/origins/08013.htm

[BurtWorm]

51. That's a not very carefully disguised creationist website.

The whole purpose of that organization apparently is to make it look like the Bible got it exactly right.

As someone else said of your arguments, not very convincing.

[villager]

52. So... according to your careful translation, the original language is different?

You're completely hung up on the ideology, and imagine me to be a creationist. And, like all Fundamentalists, are wedded to your preconceived notions about the thing.

The point is, there's more than way to translate a lot of the original language (and lots of lively dialectics to be had about those translations, the "sense" of a word, etc.) Then again, you claim to know the authors of Genesis, so maybe have a better handle on the specifics.

I don't know why you're injecting creationism into this -- unless you badly need a straw man at this juncture -- since my original point is to celebrate the fact that these opening stanzas came so close to encapsulating what science later confirmed years later.

You're on your own as to any beliefs you wanna have about where it came from, where it's headed, why it's here, etc...

(PS: I could take some exception to that site, too, since "Old Testament" is a fairly inflexible Christian term for Jewish scripture, but the point here was the translation discussion...)

[darkstar3]

53. Your original point is bunk,

and that's why people are arguing with you.

my original point is to celebrate the fact that these opening stanzas came so close to encapsulating what science later confirmed years later.

Bullshit! Prove it. Show us a single verifiable translation that even gets 50% of the story right. "So close"? Please...

[villager]

54. The sequence -- darkness, light everywhere, earth, fish, mammals --is very close

I don't understand stick-up-the-ass assertions like you that are so terrified of that modest point...

What's the threat?

[BurtWorm]

56. The threat is to the ability of our common language to mean something.

You are asserting something that is clearly false, and you insist on asserting and reasserting it after you've been shown again and again how wrong you are. You've been challenged to match the arguments against you, and all you can do is restate your original clearly false statement.

[darkstar3]

57. Prove it.

Otherwise check the stick in your own ass before you start speculating about what's up other people's asses.

[uberllama42]

67. People are upset not by your point, which is too obviously wrong to be threatening

We are upset by your arrogance, condescension, and sophistry. You are the one who has nothing but derision and finger-wagging for those who disagree with you.

There's nothing modest about how your present your point, either. You are haughty and stubborn, and you refuse to bridge any kind of objection to your position.

[BurtWorm]

55. You've clearly proven yourself to be delusional.

That's all I can say. You've been shown over and over how Genesis and science diverge **radically.** You insist on saying Genesis matches science-though now you've begun to hedge saying their views are "so close."

The Genesis authors had god making grass before there was a sun. What a stupid mistake! There were people around back then who knew, even with the state of science in 650 BC, that the sun feeds plants in some way, that you can't have plants without sun. We would call those people farmers.

What you may be misled by, it seems clear to me, is the relative lack of imagination of Genesis's creation myth--compared to the hallucinogenic ones that have gods shitting the universe out of their navels or nostrils or what have you while riding on the bellies of holy tree sloths or some such--mistaking its prosaicness for a similitude with science's naturalism. But the authors of Genesis were just as clueless about the real story as any narcotics inspired shaman. There's no getting around it.

[villager]

68. So you say it's metaphor, then criticize it for not being literal?

that's what's going on, right?

I came in -- before all the defensive bluster here -- to simply note these verses do something interesting, as poetry, as stanzas (and thus, by definition with metaphoric language, which in one of your less overly-defensive, less nasty posts, you actually acknowledged the language might be), in that they get the overall sequence of creation generally right.

But then you pounce on it, forgetting what you've already said about metaphor, because it's not *precisely* right as literal science.

Which no one is saying it is.

You are howling about an attack on your senses that isn't really there.

Strange days, indeed.

Enjoy the shadowboxing.

[darkstar3]

69. Your level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.

It's obvious by all of your language hedging that even you don't believe your original claim of the metaphor matching the science, and yet you continue to defend it without a shred of proof because you want so badly to be right.

It amazes me that someone who's been here so long has no idea when to STFU.

[villager]

70. I don't believe I was talking to you.

Ah, now I've stooped to your general level of umbrage. I'm gonna edit that first reply before I even read your next splenetic rejoinder.

[darkstar3]

71. Yeah, well,

your ignorant claptrap is out there for all the world to trip over, so I thought I'd chime in on this completely public forum.

Not to mention the fact that I was in on this conversation well before now, and you simply ignored my request for proof because you didn't have any.

And I find your name calling hilarious. You have looked down your nose at and insulted everyone who has challenged you here, and yet you call me "hostile" and "asshole". That's rich.

[villager]

72. Yeah, well enjoy the hilarity. What "proof" is there for metaphor?

God, what a pain you'd be at a poetry reading.

Anyway, goodnight, angry Darkstar...

[darkstar3]

78. Ad hom.

And your claim is still crap. You are claiming that the metaphor approximates actual science, but you can't show me how.

[villager]

84. It's all over this thread -- in my replies to the person who's not you

--since you barged into this part of the discussion -- I state my case.

But I'm not worried about winning you over.

Enjoy the day, the routine use of words like "crap," etc...

[darkstar3]

86. Your replies to others have stated your case

no better than your original assertion. You are unable to state your case and are clinging to an assertion that has been easily shown as false. This would actually be entertaining, if not for your obvious condescension and arrogance.

But I'm not worried about winning you over.
The argument of "I don't care what YOU think" is not only a last resort, it makes no sense on a discussion board.

[villager]

89. No, I mean "you" in particular

not the general "you."

Since you're not interested in "discussion," only barbed insults...

[darkstar3]

90. .

:nopity:

[BurtWorm]

74. You've been claiming it's metaphor AND that it's amazingly accurate as a reflection of reality.

I am saying that whether taken as metaphor or as literal god's honest truth, it does not come close to matching the events science describes. You keep insisting it does. It doesn't. It simply doesn't. How can I be clearer in what I mean? How can anyone else be clearer? If all you're saying is it amazingly talks about there being an earth, sun, stars, animals etc--wow! Just like there's an earth, sun, stars, animals, etc. in the real world!! I'm sorry but you may as well be claiming The Cat in the Hat reflects science. Why are you having such difficulty understanding why no one else is accepting what you seem to be trying to claim?

[villager]

92. As a poem, its structure follows the general trajectory of creation

as confirmed by science.

It's okay for poems to have structure. Really it is.

You can relax a little about this. You are free to think I'm wrong, just as I'm free to think you're wrong.

But you don't have to be so overwrought about it, you know?

At least you're not quite slinging the personal insults to the degree some of your confreres are here! ;-)

[BurtWorm]

93. Imagine dialoguing (or trying to) with someone who keeps saying 1 + 1 = 1

And no matter how many times you show that person that 1 added to 1 makes, not 1 but 2, they not only insisted on repeating 1 + 1 = 1 but called you a stick-up-the-ass for challenging them on that.

Now you might have an idea of what this dialogue has been like from my perspective.

[darkstar3]

94. So you can dish it out,

as evidenced by posts:
21
25
29
37
26
34
28
47
30
48
52
54
68
70
72
84
and now 92.

Oh yes, you LOVE to dish it out. In fact it's almost like you can't resist putting some kind of personal barb in each of your posts to try and tear down the people who argue with you, and then when people take offense, you claim injury.

Your like my aunt's cat Jezebel, who likes to swat Riley the dog on his nose and then yowl like mad as soon as Riley bares his teeth. Well we're on to her, and I'm on to you, too.

[golddigger]

59. Actually, it wasn't God who created...

It was "elohim," God is translated from the Hebrew word "elohim." The problem is that "elohim" is not only mistranslated, it is used throughout the OT in such a way as to constitute a fraud, since it is plural word meaning "gods." So, Genesis 1:1 should read. "In the beginning the the gods created the heavens and the earth."

Edited to add: el = God, elohim = gods
In the Hebrew text it says, "In the beginning (elohim)'the gods' created the heavens and the earth.

[laconicsax]

61. It was the Babylonian gods.

These little problems creep in when the myths of a polytheistic culture are copied wholesale into a monotheistic text.

It's the original cdesign proponentist mistake.

[Meshuga]

62. I know the bible has evidence of early Hebrew hedonism

and God speaks to others (as if he is talking to a heavenly court) during creation but I don't think the use of "elohim" is a good example of polytheism or hedonism because of grammatical rules in Hebrew.

I have seen some religious fundamentalists trying to use the fact that God is called "elohim" to prove that God is three (as in the trinity) but that only proves their ignorance of these grammatical rules.

Yes, elohim is a plural form of the word but it is not used as plural in the bible when used in context with God. When the word "Elohim" refers to God (as opposed to gods) in the bible it has a singular adjective or verb that follows. In English the plural suffix is sufficient but in the bible (in its original Hebrew) you can tell the difference when one says:

Elohim tzdik (righteous God) or elohim tzdikim (righteous gods).

Hebrew has what is known as "majestic plurals" and majestic plurals always get a singular verb because it depicts something "great" as opposed to multiplicity. So when "elohim" is used with a singular verb or singular adjective it means something like "great God". In other words, a majestic plural is merely a grammatical form that denotes greatness as opposed to saying something is multiple. Even single specific pagan deities are referred to as elohim in the bible. Moses is referred to as elohim in the bible and I don't think Moses is multiple.

Another example is the noun "adon" which is singular form for "master" but when "adonim" is used instead, and it is followed by a singular verb or a singular adjective, it means "great master" (whether human or God). However, if you use adonim with a plural verb, for example, then you are saying "masters" as opposed to "great master".

[golddigger]

63. I know that's the standard rabbinical and Christian excuse for the mistranslation...

but a dedicated researcher will soon discover that this is not the case. Because it is shot down by the Torah itself, an example being Genesis 1:26: "And (elohim) God said, Let "US" make man in our image, after "OUR" likeness." There is no mistaking that the "elohim" are talking among themselves making plans to make "ha-adam" (The man) in their image.

[Meshuga]

65. I don't think there is excuse at least in the rabbinical point of view

Grab a Biblical translation from the JTS, for example, and the very passage that you are referring to with the "let us" and "our likeness" is commented with explanation about possible ancient Hebrew hedonism or polytheism. I'm not arguing against that at all neither would the commentary in the JTS translation of the Hebrew Bible.

What I am trying to explain here (and you are free not to take my word for it but you can ask any Hebrew scholar about this) that the sentences that include "elohim" have different structure when referring to god or to gods.

This "majestic plural" is not limited to explaining elohim but to other titles as well that describes humans.

Trinitarians love to dispute this in order to prove that the Hebrew Bible supports the trinity in the Christian Scriptures. But there is evidence in the Hebrew to say otherwise.

[dmallind]

75. I know you are pretty good at this stuff so a sincere question

...since I have a reasonable interest in this topic myself (my Hebrew is very shaky though). I am unfamiliar with the sense in which you are using "hedonism". Have you simply brainfarted (or been spellchecked into) henotheism or is there some term of art where hedonism applies?

[Meshuga]

79. Major brainfart

I wish I could use the spellcheck excuse but it was a very wet brainfart, I confess. I need to change my hat now.

I meant Henotheism and the I Kings quote I cited is a good example of that.

[dmallind]

82. Darnit - thought I was going to learn something new about hedonism! NT

[Meshuga]

83. LOL

Thanks for the calling that out, btw! :blush:

[golddigger]

64. Also what is most revealing...

is that one can find that the plural "elohim" ( aside from the deceptive mistranslation already mentioned) is elsewhere translated as "gods" when "elohim" is referring to pagan gods. The most revealing instance of this is found in Genesis 3:5: "For God (elohim) doth know that in the day ye eat therefor, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (elohim), knowing good and evil.
Here the deception is laid bare!

[Meshuga]

66. And if you look in I Kings 11:33...

...You will see, "And they bowed down to Ashtoret the Elohim of the Sidonians, to Kemosh the Elohim of Moab, and to Milkom the Elohim of the children of Amon."

Ashoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are singular pagan gods and each is referred to as Elohim. Does that prove that these specific deities were multiple as well?

I think you are mixing things here. You are right about the "We" and "in our likeness" but as far as "elohim" is concerned there is a logical grammatical difference in the Hebrew text. That's all I am saying here. You can take my word for it. Or not. But I don't see why taking my word for it would prove that there aren't evidences of polytheism/hedonism in the Hebrew bible. In other words, what I am saying is not an excuse for anything.

[laconicsax]

60. I'm glad you're around to tell me what I think.

I also like how your creationist website uses other Semitic languages to 'interpret' what the original Hebrew says but completely ignores that Genesis 1 is essentially a retelling of a Babylonian creation myth, which itself is likely derived from an even older Sumerian myth.

Maybe the Sumerians got it right and it just took thousands of years for the writers of the Bible to figure it out. Perhaps you should be worshiping Anu, Enlil, Ninhursag, and the rest.

[Deep13]

101. Ad hominem and, therefore, irrelevant.

I was the teacher's pet in creative writing. Didn't do well in science because of math anxiety. Humorless? Did someone tell a joke? Anyway, you obviously don't know any skeptics socially, do you?

Don't change the subject. The fact that these words can mean anything is precisely the problem. Now you are saying "Earth" doesn't mean "Earth." Well that word has two meanings: dirt and the planet. Saying it means something else just because you don't want to admit that Genesis was all made up is intellectually dishonest.

[Deep13]

100. Those theories were unknown in the early iron age...

...and the stars etc. had to run through an initial generation before the Earth or anything terrestrial could happen. Ergo, the writers could not have been writing about the BB.

Frankly you can say that any mythical creation story is an analogue to the BB. They are all so vague that they can mean anything, except that they apparently cannot mean exactly what they say.

[Meshuga]

6. I thought that according to the story...

...God created man on the 6th day. What I mean is who was going to be around to worship the sun and stars?

[BurtWorm]

12. Jesus?

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

95. Actually, I think it was Larry.

[villager]

31. Hence the proverbial "day of rest" at the end...

n/t

[dmallind]

7. The obvious answer....

God is fricking impressive. And he wanted to strut his creation stuff. I mean come on how many of you could fill out a damned postcard in the pitch dark? He made the entire heavens and the earth without turning the light on. How much more awesome is the guy when you think of that?

[tomg]

8. Maybe he liked stumbling

around in the dark. Sort of like that creationist website.

[rfranklin]

10. God knows His way around creation like the back of his hand...

c'mon, be realistic!

[chelsea0011]

9. He noticed everything starting to die and realized he effed up bigtime

[izquierdista]

13. Shipping delays

There's hell to pay when parts don't show up on time.

[PVnRT]

14. He had to wait for his check to clear to pay the deposit

[uberllama42]

15. God works in mysterious ways. eom

[MNDemNY]

16. He was stoned, and getting some really good head.

[laconicsax]

20. That's more in line with one of the Egyptian myths.

Atum was lonely, so he wanked. His ejaculate became air and water, which did the horizontal mambo to make the earth and sky, which had to be separated because they wouldn't stop screwing.

[onager]

73. And the earthly symbol of his Holy Money Shot was the obelisk.

Makes me look at the Washington Monument in a whole new light...

:rofl:

Pointless Trivia from when I lived in Alexandria, Egypt: probably the two most famous obelisks in the world are "Cleopatra's Needles," which currently decorate Central Park and London's Embankment.

For many years they were just streetside junk in Alexandria. Old photos show one of them fallen into the sand and the other still...um...erect.

For lit fans, the obelisks were just a stone's-throw-at-an-infidel from the Hotel Cecil, built in 1928 and made famous in Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.

Since all this real estate is located on the site of Cleopatra's famous temple/love shack, the Caesarium, the Hotel Cecil - without stretching the truth too much - advertises that Cleopatra "died on its doorstep."

[DeSwiss]

49. It. Is. All. Bullshit.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. BULLSHIT!!! :rant:

This is what happens when 21st century minds try to make sense of http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">stolen and slapped together myths and stories hailing from the late-Neolithic and mid-to-late Bronze Age. And whose stories most of which came from a still earlier time. And which were passed down verbally from generations of storytellers around countless camp fires and caves, grass huts and mud houses, as humanity tried to raise itself from the muck. So maybe understanding this, you will be able to appreciate the difficulty of trying to make it coherent in some way, for whatever reason. WHY? I'll never know.

Because there's nothing but blood, war, guts, enslavement, gore, discrimination, war, debauchery, misogyny, hate, pedophilia, murder, war, theft, war, adultery, fornication, war, and inequity within it. Which if need be, can be readily and more easily observed in real life instead of reading the entrails of these twisted lies from this fantasy world that Christianity and Judaism so poorly attempts to describe, justify and/or prove exists. Even in so doing, these religions place themselves in total defiance and opposition to logic, and to what we now know to be the truth. But these facts are conveniently "overlooked and forgotten about" because it ruins a good story (LIE) to be forced to acknowledge these truths. I know, but someone has to be the adult here.

I repeat: this book is filled to overflowing with the tales, stories and gods of other peoples and of other civilizations. As well as their religion's myths and fables. All of the Abrahamic religions are ripoffs of these pagan religions and are telling essentially the same stories. But when the story is not yours, then you lose all sense of continuity, of context and all the back-stories that make other things that are told later, make sense. But thieves don't consider this when they're stealing someone else's shit. And that's why it never makes any sense. It can't. Because the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims = PLAGIARISTS. Okay? And extremely poor plagiarists at that! Their own tales pale by comparison, and would be totally meaningless without the subtext which came before from the pagan religions they stole from. The tales of Genesis for example, aren't coming from a singular story being told by a single storyteller, but it is at least two "authors" talking here, and possibly a third. This is why parts of it seems repetitive and out-of-sync, because it is. And with so many versions to choose from rather than pick one, they stuck them all in there. Thus making a bad situation even worse.

And in addition, the Christians had a slick weaselly-assed politician (Constantine) calling the shots about what these "holy men" could keep in "their" bible and what they couldn't. So it's not now, nor has it ever been "the word of god" folks. It's just more bullshit from a politician's pie-hole. And that's because it's not a religion, its a DIY Manual on how to try and hold together a disintegrating and totally corrupted empire with bullshit, baling wire and a large helping of Woo-Woo on the side.

So I repeat: BULLSHIT!!!

- You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming and religious snarking.....


Never Forget What Religion Is Capable Of When It Feels Threatened

[golddigger]

76. No! The answer is: Jehovah was an idiot.

Jehovah had no intention to create a woman for Adam, because after making his man, he brought all sorts of animals to him to see if any could be a help-mate for him. This tale doesn't bode well for Jehovah's intelligence.

In the Talmudic book (Yebamoth 63a) Rabbi Eleazar teaches that "Adam copulated with various animal before it was determined that none was suitable as a mate. And so, when the animal thing turned out to be a bad idea, Jehovah, purely as a afterthought, created a woman). LOL

So, tell me again, how this idiot could create the heavens and the earth?

[darkstar3]

77. ^^^Um, EW!^^^

[Meshuga]

85. Gee...

...thanks for posting one of Stormfront's favorite misinterpretations of the Talmud used so they can attack Jews!

I know you mean no harm here but please note that this piece of aggadic literature is one of the favorite mistranslations used by anti-semites to attack us "perverted Joos." Regardless how stupid someone finds aggadic literature to be you have to at the very least look at it in its original language to see its true context.

Sure, the word that is used as "coming on and understanding" (btw, no pun intended as far as the "coming on" here) can also be used to mean "intercourse." But in the passage, Adam's mind (not his dick) was satisfied when he finds eve (after dealing with all other animals). Translating this passage in the context of sex has been very convenient for those with intentions to show how fucked up we "the Joos" really are. This complaint about us is usually packaged with charges that our laws allow sex with children, our literature attacks Jesus, saying that Jews see themselves as a "master race," and all the canard about Jews that have been repeated throughout history.

[golddigger]

87. Sorry, I meant no offense.

I have a problem with the bible as a whole, New Testament and Old Testament.

Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus.

False in one thing, false in all things.

[Meshuga]

88. Not a problem

Like I mentioned in my response, I didn't think you meant any harm with your post.

However, I don't think the Talmudic commentary you posted is by any means a support to the creation story being true. That piece is an example of aggadah. Creationists like to attack this kind of literature unless they can mold it somehow to fit their theories of creation.

[DeSwiss]

91. Excellent point!!!

- Idiot indeed!

[moobu2]

80. Christians have no idea they practice a religion

entirely based on worshiping the sun and stars. The sun (jesus) reborn at the winter solstice, the 3 kings in Orion’s belt, the star Serius (The Eastern Star), the southern cross, virgo (virgin), easter (the spring equinox) etc etc etc...

[darkstar3]

81. I never thought of it THAT way before.

How interestingly similar...

[moobu2]

98. Yeah, it is interesting.

I don’t know that much about it, but the theory is that the Bible was written as an elaborate astrological allegory. The verse being discussed here concerns god creating the sun, the moon and the stars on the fourth day. Here's the King James version.

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

It say's "and let them be for signs" which allegedly eludes to the "signs" of the zodiac. Astrology predates the written word, so whoever wrote this, would have been very familiar with it. Another interesting item is that the birth, life and death of Jesus is said to mark the end of the age of Aries and the beginning of the age of Pisces. The age of Pisces began in AD1 and it is represented by the fish symbol, which is the symbol most closely associated with Christianity. The things I've read about the possibility that the Bible might be an astrological allegory are very convincing. I don't believe in astrology at all, but I do know it was very important to Mediterranean cultures and others..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. Because it was never meant to be taken literally?

:shrug:

[moobu2]

97. It was meant to be taken litteraly

until science developed enough to prove it was not possible.

[Deep13]

102. Then how was it meant to be taken?

Doesn't one have to know the objective truth before one is able to make metaphors or allegories about it? Iron age writers could not have possibly known the objective truth. That's no slam on them of course, but it is still true.

[Deep13]

99. The writers Genesis assumed a geocentric model of the universe.

The most reasonable and likely possible explanation is that it is fiction.

[moobu2]

103. "And God made the firmament"

They thought the sun would set in the west, exit a hole in the firmament, which was made up of some sort of solid material, came around, entered another hole on the east side of the firmament and rise to go through another day cycle. It was the best science they had at the time.