NationStates Jolt Archive

Wouldn't you get bored of eternal bliss after a while?

Wouldn't you get bored of eternal bliss after a while?
would it really be bliss if it was full of evangelical Christians?

I never thought of that!

Also, if we atheists are wrong, think of all the people you'd meet in hell. You could breakfast with Bertrand Russell, have luch with Hobbes, afternoon tea with Aristotle, a cigar with Jaques Derrida...jesus, I'm there!

I never thought of that!

Also, if we atheists are wrong, think of all the people you'd meet in hell. You could breakfast with Bertrand Russell, have luch with Hobbes, afternoon tea with Aristotle, a cigar with Jaques Derrida...jesus, I'm there!
it basically comes down to this:

would you rather burn in a lake of molten sulfer with some of the greatest minds in history, or sit on a cloud playing harp music with Jerry Falwell and his band of merry followers?

i guess people just have different definitions of torture :).

Also, you'd get used to the molten lava after a few billion years, so it wouldn't be a problem anymore. So you get the best of both worlds.

Also, you'd get used to the molten lava after a few billion years, so it wouldn't be a problem anymore. So you get the best of both worlds.
if you think about it, you wouldn't have a physical body at all, and therefore you wouldn't have any pain receptors, and therefore "burning" wouldn't bother you any more than "non-burning" because you wouldn't have any receptors to perceive those conditions.

wow, the more i think about this the more i want to go to hell.

My opinion on Dying is that there is not enough of it. There are 6,000,000,000 hairless apes on this planet and more arriving every few seconds.

This planet is becoming pretty crowded and the more people willing to die to make room for me, the better.

That is why I am a supportor of http://www.vhemt.org/ , The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement! Lower the birthrate, stop extending the lifespan and increase the death rate. Make the world a better place for Life by giving up yours.

No.
1/ I believe he doesn't exist, therefore I believe this could never happen.
2/ There won't be a Star Wars XXVII, therefore this event can never take place.
It's supposed to be a hypothetical premise that you formulate a "what if..." answer from. But I sympathise with you entirely in your inability to speculate on impossible situations. I have difficulty with people asking me to imagine what if god changed man so that he made no mistakes.

The Skippers, if you want to go extinct, go right ahead. You have my support. I don't want people like you in the gene pool anyway.

But don't bring the rest of us into this.

It's supposed to be a hypothetical premise that you formulate a "what if..." answer from. But I sympathise with you entirely in your inability to speculate on impossible situations. I have difficulty with people asking me to imagine what if god changed man so that he made no mistakes.
How about we start with having God change himself so that he makes no more mistakes. I can imagine THAT, although whoever wrote the bible apparantly can't.

The Skippers, if you want to go extinct, go right ahead. You have my support. I don't want people like you in the gene pool anyway.

But don't bring the rest of us into this.

It doesn't work unless everyone joins in. This planet of yours is swarming with bipedal roaches, creating poverty and disease, overconsuming resources and making stupid posts.

Time to make room for us.

I'm willing to believe YOU're a bipedal roach, creating poverty and disease, overconsuming resources and making stupid posts. But keep your inferiority complex to yourself.

Okay, let's say God one day stands up in the middle of a crowded auditorium full of people watching Star Wars XXVII and says, "It's me."

It's really him. Everyone can tell immediately; there's no doubt. The question is, would you convert to his religion? and why?

Couldn't happen. This is one of those situations where there is not enough capacity of suspension of disbelief....

I would NEVER go to see a Star Wars movie.

But, to be a little more serious... HOW is it everyone would be able to 'tell immediately'?

I firmly believe that, if I were ever faced with the unquestionable, living incarnation of god, I would be a believer.

Of course, that still doesn't mean I would accept whatever holy book was offered by men.

Couldn't happen. This is one of those situations where there is not enough capacity of suspension of disbelief....

I would NEVER go to see a Star Wars movie.

But, to be a little more serious... HOW is it everyone would be able to 'tell immediately'?

I firmly believe that, if I were ever faced with the unquestionable, living incarnation of god, I would be a believer.

Of course, that still doesn't mean I would accept whatever holy book was offered by men.

Welllll, he looks at you, all the lights go out, a sudden spotlight hits you, and he narrows his eyes, saying "Bloody hell, of COURSE it's Me." :D

Of course, that still doesn't mean I would accept whatever holy book was offered by men.

What if God accepted it, even autographed a Bible for you, would you accept

it then?

1a. Usually, there will be a followup from Terminalia calling the atheist "sad" and/or "pathetic". Of course, when someone else calls Terminalia "sad" and/or "pathetic" then this is a terrible insult which is immediately followed up by counter-insult by Terminalia asserting that the not-Terminalia-guy is a "pointless flamer".


Actually I was referring more to their view on the afterlife, than the person

themselves, just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks for the kudo anyway. :p

Actually I was referring more to their view on the afterlife, than the person

themselves, just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks for the kudo anyway. :p
Your beliefs, that everything good that happens to you is solely thanks to God and not your own work, but everything bad that happens to you is entirely your own fault and God is not to blame, and your belief that the world is going to end eight years from now, and your belief that life without God is meaningless, are far sadder.

Couldn't happen. This is one of those situations where there is not enough capacity of suspension of disbelief....
In the same way God made the universe the way it is and man the way he is, and these are the parameters we have to work with in our speculations about God. The fact that he's God and all-powerful, and the speculation that he and could'a, should'a, would'a made the "design" differently is pointless. It is what it is.

If God does exist, whether you believe in him or not has no relevance whatsoever. :)

In the same way God made the universe the way it is and man the way he is, and these are the parameters we have to work with in our speculations about God. The fact that he's God and all-powerful, and the speculation that he and could'a, should'a, would'a made the "design" differently is pointless. It is what it is.
Provided that you already assume that God made the universe. But the whole point of the could'a, should'a, would'a arguments is to show that this is NOT the case.

1. If the universe was created by intelligent design, we would expect this to be reflected in how things work. (logical premise)
2. However, there are many things in the universe that suggest, at the very least, that if there is an intelligent designer behind them, then he is utterly incompetent. However, there are many characteristics that though pointless or even stupid to use for an intelligent designer, make perfect sense if they happened by chance. (experimentally proven premise (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm))
3. A deity powerful enough to create the universe would not be utterly incompetent. (logical premise)
4. Therefore, the universe is not the product of intelligent design. (logical conclusion from 1+2+3)

If God does exist, whether you believe in him or not has no relevance whatsoever. :)

Really, and whys that?

[QUOTE=Milostein]Your beliefs, that everything good that happens to you is solely thanks to God and not your own work,

Its my work, and I believe God rewards it accordingly, also karma.

What goes around comes back.

Also, doing good things may not necessarily reward you in this life, but

certainly when you go to heaven.

but everything bad that happens to you is entirely your own fault and God is not to blame,

I didnt say entirely my fault, where did I say that, quote it.

I said I wouldnt blame God, I never said I wouldnt blame other people or not

myself.



and your belief that the world is going to end eight years from now,

I think so, I dont necessarily mean the planet Earth will blow up, but of

course you will blandly put that in as if I intended that to be what I meant.

I meant this civilisation will collapse.


and your belief that life without God is meaningless, are far sadder.

Well I can say your belief that there is no God is the saddest one I've ever

heard, so what?

Provided that you already assume that God made the universe. But the whole point of the could'a, should'a, would'a arguments is to show that this is NOT the case.
Then they automatically fail because they are attempts by oranges to argue apples with apples.

What if God accepted it, even autographed a Bible for you, would you accept

it then?

An interesting philosophical question, in all earnest. That IS what it would take for me to believe that book.... since it has so many inconsistencies, and diverts so FAR from what is observable, recordable, even logical.

Hopefully, he would hand the book over, and give me a long earnest look, and say, "You DO know that the stuff in Genesis is a metaphor, right? And you know that all that stuff about 'not suffering witches'... I never said that, yeah? But it makes a pretty good read... just don't take it too seriously..."

Or, of course, being God, and therefore having an original copy, he'd hand me the copy with the fly-leaf still intact, and the words "To my dear Candy, all people and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblence to persons living or dead, is entirely coincidental"...

But, then.... I would doubt the reality of his godhood, if he accepted the Bible as factual...

Of course, I'd accept the book, anyway.

I could get a ton for it on e-bay.

2. However, there are many things in the universe that suggest, at the very least, that if there is an intelligent designer behind them, then he is utterly incompetent. However, there are many characteristics that though pointless or even stupid to use for an intelligent designer, make perfect sense if they happened by chance. (experimentally proven premise (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm))
I don't understand --how are these things "God's mistakes"? or mistakes at all?

I don't understand --how are these things "God's mistakes"? or mistakes at all?

Hey, He *made* the place remember?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]An interesting philosophical question, in all earnest. That IS what it would take for me to believe that book.... since it has so many inconsistencies, and diverts so FAR from what is observable, recordable, even logical.

Ahh... so you would believe it.



Hopefully, he would hand the book over, and give me a long earnest look, and say, "You DO know that the stuff in Genesis is a metaphor, right? And you know that all that stuff about 'not suffering witches'... I never said that, yeah? But it makes a pretty good read... just don't take it too seriously..."

But you would be glad the Bible bought you too God, no matter about any 'inconsistancys.'

The Narnia books by CS Lewis, Lion and the wardrobe etc bought me to Jesus

first, not the Bible.


Or, of course, being God, and therefore having an original copy, he'd hand me the copy with the fly-leaf still intact, and the words "To my dear Candy, all people and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblence to persons living or dead, is entirely coincidental"...

He would say its all true, especially the bits you want to believe.

Of course, I'd accept the book, anyway.
I could get a ton for it on e-bay.

Not if he signed all the Bibles, you couldnt.

Hey, He *made* the place remember?
But they are not mistakes.

Your beliefs, that everything good that happens to you is solely thanks to God and not your own work, but everything bad that happens to you is entirely your own fault and God is not to blame, and your belief that the world is going to end eight years from now, and your belief that life without God is meaningless, are far sadder.
Maybe I can clear this up:

· everything good that happens to you is solely thanks to God and not your own work

God is goodness and love. Goodness and love are subjective concepts that are experienced entirely internally. Being good on the inside attracts good things from the outside, to a person.

· everything bad that happens to you is entirely your own fault and God is not to blame

Bad things also happen, from the outside, to the person who to attracts them. If this is a person who maintains goodness and love, then they have strayed from that to attract these things, so they are to blame. Bad things are the actions of us and other humans, so they are the fault of those who perpetrate them.

Good is the natural order of things, it is God's mind. Mind God, now. ;-)

But they are not mistakes.

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Can you explain these then?

But they are not mistakes.
True. It is also entirely possible that God hates his creations and intentionally gave them badly designed bodies.

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Can you explain these then?
First, I would need an explantion, as I asked for earlier, of how Nature is in any way a mistake.

True. It is also entirely possible that God hates his creations and intentionally gave them badly designed bodies.
Alright, I'm going to make some basic assumptions here, as it seems no one will explain, and this seems to be the only way in which the assertation of "mistakes" makes sense. You are assuming: 1. that mankind is the height of intelligence and, in fact, the only possible measure of any kind of intelligence; and 2. that perfection of design is in its function. Am I correct in these assumptions?

1. that mankind is the height of intelligence
Of course not. There are many things that are (currently) beyond humankind's understanding, nevermind the intelligence or lack thereof of individual humans. Which makes it all the more embarassing if a Supreme Creator does something where a mere human can see how it could be done better.

and, in fact, the only possible measure of any kind of intelligence
I will not go into a philosophical discussion on this topic. Instead, I will point out that according to the bible, God created man "in his image". Thus God's intelligence, though perhaps greater than man's, is essentially of the same "kind".

2. that perfection of design is in its function.
See my previous post.

Of course not. There are many things that are (currently) beyond humankind's understanding, nevermind the intelligence or lack thereof of individual humans. Which makes it all the more embarassing if a Supreme Creator does something where a mere human can see how it could be done better.
So, they are mistakes because mankind's intelligence is actually *better* than God's (using his own intellgence as a measure, again)?

I will not go into a philosophical discussion on this topic. Instead, I will point out that according to the bible, God created man "in his image". Thus God's intelligence, though perhaps greater than man's, is essentially of the same "kind".

See my previous post.
So which image did he create us in? Was it Greta Garbo's or Quasimoto's? Is Quasimoto a mistake compared to Greta Garbo? or the other way around?

So God has an appendix?

Please explain these 'mistakes' as it makes no sense to me.

Please explain these 'mistakes' as it makes no sense to me.
Did you read the link (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm) yet? Also check the guy's own rationalisation (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/design.htm). He explains it better than I can.

Did you read the link (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm) yet? Also check the guy's own rationalisation (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/design.htm). He explains it better than I can.
I skimmed the linked webpage. It seemed to be a list of things that didn't make sense to man(kind) to have designed into animals. Implying, of course, that "an intelligent designer" would never have done it this way. Meaning, of course, that man(kind) is using his own intelligence as a measure of God's design.

Now, I'm not a believer in an intelligent God, and my idea of perfection is more akin to utter chaos, but even I can see the flaws in this line of reasoning. The flaw of deducing the Creator's plan from it's results. The flaw of assuming that the Creator is subject to the same intelligence and reasoning that we are.

Not to mention the irrelevance of this whole line of reasoning. Religion isn't about what God did or does. It's about what we do in relationship to God and each other. It's about us.

This reflects my position: "If a phenomenon [e.g. the structure of living things] shows signs of being unduly restricted in its form and manner of occurrence, so that our theory of its underlying cause provides us with no principled reason why it should take just the peculiar form it does, then we should suspect that the true cause of the phenomenon lies elsewhere. That is, if the theory cannot tell us either 'why this in particular' or 'why not that in general', we should take it that there is an alternative theory to be found which -- if we were to know it -- would tell us why."

That is what the author quotes from his source. But the author perverts it by assuming that form equals function. "...in practice, though many things are indeed elegantly and intricately put together, there might be many other things that are poorly, wastefully and unnecessarily complicatedly put together, and others where the design is pointless."

He assumes that the physical form is the design. If that were so, then Greta Garbo would be a hunchback.

Did you read this paragraph?

Or put another way: suppose we find an apparently poor design. If we reject this 'poor' design as genuinely bad, because we don't know what the designer intended -- "it might be a good design really, we're merely too ignorant to realise it" -- then we have to reject, too, the apparently good designs we find as evidence for the designer. If something seems to be poor design, but may not be, then something that seems to be good design may not be either. We either cannot know the designer's intentions at all, or we can deduce some of them. Which means accepting the bad (if there are any) -- and their implications for the nature of the designer -- along with the good. Reject our ability to spot poor designs, and we cannot use an argument from design at all.
If we claim that God's intentions are unknowable, then his arguments against intelligent design collapse, BUT, then all those creationist nuts' arguments FOR intelligent design are also invalid. Which leaves us with no direct evidence for either direction. (But a lot of indirect evidence against, namely all the fossils and characteristics of living animals showing evidence that evolution happened.)

And it goes on and on and on...

And it goes on and on and on...
Hey, you started it. ;-)

Hey, you started it. ;-)
Well, most of us aren't actually talking about the original topic anymore. There's not really much left to say.

What if God accepted it, even autographed a Bible for you, would you accept it then?He probably regrets getting a Holy Ghost-writer to do it all for him, the number of misquotes and misattributitions there are.

Ok, so I can understand you were playing with two different Creation accounts, I mean they'll never be able to understand the real one until they discover Quantum, but why did you send both in for publishing? And you've missed out several hundred generations of people in that geneological line, they're going to think that the whole of human history is around 6000 years... Sheesh!

The only narrow-minded person is you, If you want to be ignorant to other ways of seeing things be my guest, But i won't follow you.

"I know you are but what am I?" The definition of narrow-minded is the inability to see anyone's point of view but your own. You fit the bill pretty well...

Ok, so I can understand you were playing with two different Creation accounts, I mean they'll never be able to understand the real one until they discover Quantum, but why did you send both in for publishing?
Let's be fair here - ever heard of something called a "summary"? The bible starts with a summary of creation, and then repeats it in more detail. Sure, the story is just plain wrong, but there aren't "two different accounts".

Did you read this paragraph?Or put another way: suppose we find an apparently poor design. If we reject this 'poor' design as genuinely bad, because we don't know what the designer intended -- "it might be a good design really, we're merely too ignorant to realise it" -- then we have to reject, too, the apparently good designs we find as evidence for the designer. If something seems to be poor design, but may not be, then something that seems to be good design may not be either. We either cannot know the designer's intentions at all, or we can deduce some of them. Which means accepting the bad (if there are any) -- and their implications for the nature of the designer -- along with the good. Reject our ability to spot poor designs, and we cannot use an argument from design at all.
If we claim that God's intentions are unknowable, then his arguments against intelligent design collapse, BUT, then all those creationist nuts' arguments FOR intelligent design are also invalid. Which leaves us with no direct evidence for either direction. (But a lot of indirect evidence against, namely all the fossils and characteristics of living animals showing evidence that evolution happened.)
I agree that a marvel of physical form is no justification for God's design, too. I am entirely with you there. But only arguments against the intelligent design of physical form are refuted by the website.

God's intentions in making a "design" are not unknowable or unknown; many religions have espoused on them, most of them in perfect accord. God is love, a harmony with the universe. His "design" of us is the spirit/soul that "inhabits" us. His "Design" in the Grand Scheme of Things is the spiritual journey that moves us towards knowledge of him in our hearts.

It's not about him, it's about us. Religion is about us.

God is love, a harmony with the universe.
Love for who? Surely not for the penguins (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#penguineggs) or quolls (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#quoll) or dolphins (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#nogilldolphins) or peacocks (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#peacocktails) or humans (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#limbregeneration)? And that while the bible seems adamantly against lesbians (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#cnemidophorus) and wasting sperm (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#wasteoflife). In fact, judging by the design of the eyes alone we find that God must hate pretty much everyone except squids (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#retina) - but don't let them get too cocky (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#cephalopodgills).

His "Design" in the Grand Scheme of Things is the spiritual journey that moves us towards knowledge of him in our hearts.
Well, he didn't do a very good job on THAT, either. If he was any good at the design you claim he did, then why do atheists exist? Why are there so many religions which keep declaring holy wars on each other?

It's not about him, it's about us. Religion is about us.
Then why bring God into the picture at all? If religion is about us and not God, then wouldn't secular humanism be by far the most sensible religion?

Love for who? Surely not for the penguins (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#penguineggs) or quolls (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#quoll) or dolphins (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#nogilldolphins) or peacocks (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#peacocktails) or humans (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#limbregeneration)? And that while the bible seems adamantly against lesbians (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#cnemidophorus) and wasting sperm (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#wasteoflife). In fact, judging by the design of the eyes alone we find that God must hate pretty much everyone except squids (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#retina) - but don't let them get too cocky (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#cephalopodgills).
Not "for...", "by..."

Well, he didn't do a very good job on THAT, either. If he was any good at the design you claim he did, then why do atheists exist? Why are there so many religions which keep declaring holy wars on each other?
Atheists exist, as much as any other human, to take the spiritual journey. They're not exempted just because they haven't found a path ...yet. Some of them are already on the path and don't see it (not self-aware).

Holy wars are man's folly. I'm not a supporter of organised religion. Organised religion is another of man's follies.

Then why bring God into the picture at all? If religion is about us and not God, then wouldn't secular humanism be by far the most sensible religion?
God is in the picture to have something to relate to, be it an internalised concept, or an image abstracted onto the real world. Building a personal relationship to a concept of something that transcends our being, that created the universe, allows us to connect with the creation that is going on all around us at each moment. It encourages and enacts willful participation in the processes of the universe, as opposed to mindless existence.

I'm not too famliar with secular humanism, but doesn't it makes sense that not all humans think alike? Not all humans rationalise alike? not all humans relate alike? and not all humans experience alike? Thank Brad we're not all alike! Some people need a God-image to put themselves in relation to for scores of individual reasons: as an ideal for comparison and contrast; as an imaginary friend (to borrow bottle's phrase) so they don't have to grow alone; as a reason to hope; as a symbol of their own compassion; as a moral guide, straight from the heart; ...a different reason for every single individual who finds a sacred use for the concept.

Let's be fair here - ever heard of something called a "summary"? The bible starts with a summary of creation, and then repeats it in more detail. Sure, the story is just plain wrong, but there aren't "two different accounts".Going from memory, does it not, at one point say "And God created $foo and God created $bar" etc then "Let us make Man in our likeness to rule over them". Then does it not, at a later point say that Adam was created (from slime, if I remember correctly) and then He "formed the beasts and the birds out of earth and brought them to Adam", or somesuch.

I must pursue a reliably copy to get the details, but the above is the essence of what struck me when I first read t.

Going from memory, does it not, at one point say "And God created $foo and God created $bar" etc then "Let us make Man in our likeness to rule over them". Then does it not, at a later point say that Adam was created (from slime, if I remember correctly) and then He "formed the beasts and the birds out of earth and brought them to Adam", or somesuch.

I must pursue a reliably copy to get the details, but the above is the essence of what struck me when I first read t.
This is a good source: http://bible.gospelcom.net/

There are actually three separate creation accounts. Genesis I, where animals are created before man, who is "made in our image." Being "made in God's image" means that they partake in creation, they partake in the divinity of the creator, who has no physical form. Genesis II has animals created after man and Eve. Genesis 5:1-2 echoes Genesis I, and God names both men and women, "Adam," which mean's "man." (KJV)

Who shot em?

Who shot em?Well, I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot the chickadee

Well, I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot chickadee

Idiot. It's "I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot no deupty!"

Stupid!

Do you have a pie on you?

Idiot. It's "I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot no deupty!"

Stupid!:)

Do you have a pie on you?Here you are (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=humble%20pie) ;)

Here's my interpretation of the beginning of Genesis.

1:1-2:3. "God created the world and everything in it. This is how." Note that this is a timeline, which basically announces what happened but doesn't go into the details.

2:2. When it says that God "rested" in 2:2, it doesn't mean he was tired. It was translated from the Hebrew verb "shavat", which simply means to stop working - today the word is used for people going on strike. It's not that he was too exhausted to continue, it's just that there was nothing left to be done.

2:4. "And what you just read, such is how God created the world." This is a summary of what happened so far. It's also how the ancient people announced the conclusion of a story before the invention of paragraphs.

2:5-6. This does not mean that man wasn't created yet. Adam certainly wouldn't be able to till all the fields of the earth alone.

2:7-25. As I said, Genesis 1 skimmed over the details of creation, showing only the general timeline. Now we go into more detail.

2:19. This is a mistranslation. It should read "And God gathered the animals (which he already created) from all over the Earth, and brought them to Adam."

3:1-24. "And thanks to the snake's trickery, man gained the gift of intelligence, which God never intended him to have."

4:1-26. Yay, kids. "And when Cain saw that God prefered Abel's bloody gory animal sacrifices over his own plant sacrifices, he tried to gain favor with the bloody and gory killing of a human, but it didn't go over too well."

5:1-32. "And now we're going to look at some boring genealogies as condemned by 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9. The genealogy start with is Adam. Remember, Adam was that guy that God formed out of the earth."

Here's my interpretation of the beginning of Genesis.

1:1-2:3. "God created the world and everything in it. This is how." Note that this is a timeline, which basically announces what happened but doesn't go into the details.

2:2. When it says that God "rested" in 2:2, it doesn't mean he was tired. It was translated from the Hebrew verb "shavat", which simply means to stop working - today the word is used for people going on strike. It's not that he was too exhausted to continue, it's just that there was nothing left to be done.

2:4. "And what you just read, such is how God created the world." This is a summary of what happened so far. It's also how the ancient people announced the conclusion of a story before the invention of paragraphs.

2:5-6. This does not mean that man wasn't created yet. Adam certainly wouldn't be able to till all the fields of the earth alone.

2:7-25. As I said, Genesis 1 skimmed over the details of creation, showing only the general timeline. Now we go into more detail.

2:19. This is a mistranslation. It should read "And God gathered the animals (which he already created) from all over the Earth, and brought them to Adam."

3:1-24. And thanks to the snake's trickery, man gained the gift of intelligence, which God never intended him to have.


Look at this....



3:1-24. And thanks to the snake's trickery, man gained the gift of intelligence, which God never intended him to have.

Then, even if he does exist, god is a bastard. Then again, we allready knew that from the wanton mass-murder he commits in the other parts of the bible.

Then, even if he does exist, god is a bastard. Then again, we allready knew that from the wanton mass-murder he commits in the other parts of the bible.
Yeah, that was my point.

(Oh, and I added some stuff to my post when I noticed Willamena talk about Genesis 5.)

"Adam," which mean's "man."
The word "adama" means earth/soil/dirt/etc. Adam was called that because he was made from the earth. In Hebrew humans are called "bney Adam", literally "sons of Adam", though as time passed people started getting lazy and shortening it to just "Adam".

The word "adama" means earth/soil/dirt/etc. Adam was called that because he was made from the earth. In Hebrew humans are called "bney Adam", literally "sons of Adam", though as time passed people started getting lazy and shortening it to just "Adam".
Right, and man=earth/soil/dirt/etc. is a common theme in the surrounding mythologies, too; a hold-over from the Mother Goddess religions that dominated before the rise of monotheism. These early Neolithic era religions placed man in a parent/child relationship with the world around them, only instead of an authority figure-Father god ruling over warring Bronze Age tribes, god was a nurturing Mother who provided for man's needs from the things that grew on and from her body. As we grew from her. We are all the children of the Earth.

Right, and man=earth/soil/dirt/etc. is a common theme in the surrounding mythologies, too; a hold-over from the Mother Goddess religions that dominated before the rise of monotheism. These early Neothilic era religions placed man in a parent/child relationship with the world around them, only instead of an authority figure-Father god ruling over warring Bronze Age tribes, god was a nurturing Mother who provided for man's needs from the things that grew on and from her body. As we grew from her. We are all the children of the Earth.
Interesting point. I always thought that Hebrews call humans "sons of Adam" because of the biblical creation account. I never really considered that maybe the account was actually an attempt to explain, in deity-who-wants-you-to-kill-everyone-around-you terms, the reason for a phrase that had actually been in the language for a long time.

Drattit, I lost all I'd edited in a time-out...

Checking out the suggested site to find a good source of Genesis I'd come across the following:

Gen1:1->Gen2:3-or-4 (depending on whether you take Gen2:4 to be end-of-first-account or start-of-second-account kind of statement) goes through a nice little sequence which has Land-from-Water and Plants, Animals, then Adam and Eve more or less together, and God is "God" ("So God", "Then God", etc).

Gen2:3-or-4 (reasoned as above) to end of Gen2 had Water-From-Land, then Adam, then Plants, then Animals, then Eve, and God is basically "The Lord God", throughout.

Puts me in mind of two different authors and two different sources, very badly stitched together, though maybe the "Lord" bit could be explained by different translators not being coordinated when similtaneously working on the text.

Just a datum.

Water-From-Land
Only what was used to water the plants. The oceans were already there, they were just too far away for the plants to drink from.

then Adam, then Plants
Again, only the plants of the garden of Eden. Plants already existed. God merely picked the ones that he wanted to put in his little paradise, and grew new specimens of the species that already existed.

then Animals
Remember what I said about a mistranslation?

then Eve
Genesis 1 doesn't claim that he made the male and female at exactly the same time. Just on the same day. If I tell you "today I did this and that", would you assume that I did this with my right hand while simultaneously doing that with my left?

though maybe the "Lord" bit could be explained by different translators not being coordinated when similtaneously working on the text.
I checked my Hebrew bible. All references to God in Genesis 1:1-2:3 are "elohim", which means "gods". Jewish theology maintains that this is the "royal we" (important people like kings traditionally refer to themselves as though they were plural: a king might say "We would like a cup of tea." even if no one else in the room wants any). Genesis 2:4-22 says "YHWH elohim". YHWH is the Tetragrammaton. Unfortunately, the correct pronunciation has been lost (though we can guess) due to many generations of Jews misinterpreting the third commandment as saing that you're not allowed to say God's name at all. The KJV translated it as "the LORD" for this reason (you can easily see where this is - if the word LORD is in all caps then it's a translation of YHWH, if it's merely Lord or lord then it's a normal word).

Genesis 3:1 still says "YHWH elohim", but Genesis 3:3-5, clearly still the same story, just says "elohim". Then 3:8-23 sat "YHWH elohim" again.

Genesis 4:1 says "YHWH" without elohim for the first time. Incidentally, I find that YHWH/LORD and elohim/God is a translation the KJV seems to make consistently, so you can check this stuff yourself in any chapter you want.

EDIT: I ran into a website that claimed that the two names were for different aspects of God. According to him, the first chapter shows God partaking in the grand task of creating the entire world, so the name "elohim" was used because it literally refers to godly power and uses the royal we. The second chapter shows a different angle on the same story describing God's personal relationship with man, and so calls him by his personal name.