Specific Critiques of Genssi Chapter 1

BIG NIGE · #1 07-10-2007, 02:15 AM

Wow I had no idea my thread would become so popular. Somebody called into question the meaning of light, with regard to my claim that Genesis says that light came before stars, saying that God is light, but not physical light, or something like that. So now I have the text of Genesis in front of me and I'm going to give specific critiques.

1. Clearly, like Sephus said, the light referred to in Genesis MUST be physical light, because 1:5 says that God called the light Day and the darkness Night. This is further supported by the mention of "evening and morning" which are distinguished exclusively by the amount of physical light present (because evening in one part of the world can be morning in another part at the same time).

2. In 1:1, God creates the heaven and the earth. In 1:7, God creates "the firmament" which he calls "Heaven" in 1:8. How is this apparent inconsistency explained? Are there two "types" of heaven?

3. In 1:14, God creates lights in the firmament of the heaven (seems circular/redundant since God called the firmament Heaven) to divide the day from the night. However, God already did this in 1:4, dividing the light from the darkness and then calling the light Day and the darkness Night. What did God do in 1:14 that He hadn't already accomplished? And how was the light he created in 1:14 different than the already-existing light?

4. In 1:16, God creates two light, a greater light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night, and God creates the stars also. One blatant inaccuracy here is that the moon, which is presumably what the "lesser light" is referring to, is not a source of light at all, it merely reflects the sun's light.

5. Also concerning 1:16, this is the third time that God created light (He also did so in 1:3 and 1:14). What exactly are all of these lights? In 1:4, God defines the first light he created as Day, thus in 1:16 God is essentially creating a greater light to rule the light. I am at a loss as to how this could possibly be explained. We already determined that the light referred to in 1:3 is physical light, so besides the question of how it could be possible, why would it be necessary for God to create a "greater light" to rule over the light he had already created and called Day? The point is that God never referred to Day as a time period or part of a cycle, but strictly as "light".

6. 1:17 says that God set the two great lights in the firmament. Again, how are these lights different from the ones He put in the firmament in 1:14?

7. Another case of redundancy and repetition, as the phrase "to divide the light from the darkness" appears again in 1:18, EXACTLY as it does in 1:4.

8. In 1:26, God says "Let us creat man in our own image." This really puzzles me. Who else is God referring to when he says "us" and "our"?

9. Not really a critique, but I noticed that there are several cases of words being placed in italics for no apparent reason, especially "it was", although there are plenty of other words put in italics. What was the purpose of doing this?

vulturesrow · #2 07-10-2007, 09:02 AM

Nige,

I am sort of curious why you are so interested in these critiques since they are based about a literalist interpretation of Scripture which I'd say not too many of the Christians here subscribe to. Here is my take on Genesis, from a Catholic Christian perspective: Genesis is basically a myth story. What are the spiritual truths of Genesis, the things that we really need to take away?

1. God is the Creator. I dont give a flip about the mechanisms, far as Im concerned evolution is on pretty solid ground and physicists are doing a pretty fine job themselves.

2. Somewhere along the way, sin entered the world due to some poor choices. Original sin is part of our spiritual makeup much as a rogue gene in your family that causes some sort of disease.

Hope this sheds some light, even if it doesnt address your specific critiques of a literalist perspective on the Creation story.

MidGe · #3 07-10-2007, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Genesis is basically a myth story.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere along the way, sin entered the world due to some poor choices. Original sin is part of our spiritual makeup much as a rogue gene in your family that causes some sort of disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice design... the children pay for the sins of the parents! Being alive is some sort of disease! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

GoodCallYouWin · #4 07-10-2007, 10:40 AM

Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

t.conley · #5 07-10-2007, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was weak and scared and wrong, and the moral lesson is don't offer daughters to homosexuals... that just doesn't make any sense and obviously won't work to save you neck

vhawk01 · #6 07-10-2007, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a more interesting criticism :

why did Lot offer his daughters up as whores to a crowd of angry homosexuals? What sort of moral lesson are we supposed to draw from this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he was weak and scared and wrong, and the moral lesson is don't offer daughters to homosexuals... that just doesn't make any sense and obviously won't work to save you neck

[/ QUOTE ]

The moral is he was correct to do this.

Hopey · #7 07-10-2007, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

Taraz · #8 07-10-2007, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so. IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

Hopey · #9 07-10-2007, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you decide, or anyone for that matter, decides what part of the bible is mythical and which isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

The average Christian makes it up as he goes along -- if he puts any thought into his beliefs at all, that is.

The average Christian on this board makes it up as he goes along, and then gets upset when people attempt to dispute the validity of his beliefs.

The funny part is that most Christians don't seem to realize that they're picking and choosing what they believe. They just go with whatever suits their personal sense of morality and common sense and take it from there. The actual tenets of their religion don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

And many don't admit it because they don't realize that they're picking and choosing. They just assume that they are living their lives as "good Christians" and following all the rules -- without really knowing what the rules are to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

We see this time and time again from certain theists on this board. No two theists on this board seem to agree on questions of theology, but this doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in their own minds as to the validity of their beliefs.

luckyme · #10 07-10-2007, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take it a step further. Many Christians pick and choose but refuse to admit that they do so. IMO, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing from religion, but you then can't claim infallible knowledge and certainty in your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when a xtrian takes on a sects tenets as presented ( and many don't) they are still picking and choosing what they want to believe and what they don't want to believe. They're just doing it wholesale. They could have chosen the xtrian sect down the street or islam or Buddhism , etc.

How many realize they do this ... 1% or so, if that.
Your beliefs merely reflect who you have become.

luckyme