Genesis 2

I found last week's chapter of outright creationist myth to be pretty interesting, so I think it's awesome that the bible is offering yet another version of creation! Apparently we didn't get the idea well enough last time. Probably because it didn't go out of its way to demonize women. Okay, so here we go!

The first couple verses of this chapter just finish up the first account of creation, which makes the placement of the chapter break feel really off. So we get God resting on the 7th day and blessing it. Nothing too crazy.

Then it goes into more detail about the 4th day, saying that there was nothing alive because God hadn't made it rain nor had anyone tilled the fields. This seems really odd. It would feel more in keeping with the rest of the story to say that God hadn't created plants yet, instead of implying that the seeds are just lying dormant waiting for the first rain. More of a hands off approach. And surely even the ancient Israelites knew that things could grow without being tilled? I feel like I'm missing something with that verse. Or maybe it just doesn't make sense.

The garden Eden is created in the east and God puts man there with the two central trees. I think it's interesting that there are 3 verses that then describe the river that flows from Eden and splits into 4 rivers. The fertile crescent was possible because of these rivers, and so it's easy to see why a mythology of perfect source for the rivers works.

"For in the day that you eat of it you shall die." This is what God says to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and although I'm jumping the gun a little bit, I know that's not how the story ends. When the fateful eating goes down, God dooms Adam to death, but Adam doesn't die "in the day" that he eats it. Perhaps that's just nitpicking or semantics, but it's certainly not clear cut. We're only on the second chapter and this is already wide open to interpretation!

I always liked the bit about God bringing all the animals to Adam and letting him name them. I used to picture Adam coming up with crazy names that are long since lost to us. One thought that this raises, however, is what these names really mean. Are these the animals "true" names? It states "whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name." That sounds to me like Adam is gifting these animals with an intrinsic name. But of course we have all different sorts of names for animals, even within just one language. So have we lost some essence of the animals by losing their "true" names?

This whole paragraph here makes it sound like God is searching for a helper for man. The whole idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God goes against the idea that God would create a man, think that it was "not good that man should be alone," and then create all the animals, bring them to the man, and then realize that there was no helper to be found there. And so then he makes woman from the rib. Seems more like an omnipotent but human character.

That's it for Genesis 2. It's just the account of the creation of man. It doesn't explicitly contradict Genesis 1, but it has a very different flavor to it. I get a very different feeling for the God doing this creating. Although, in Genesis 1, God does create something, observe it, and then declare it good. Which, again, doesn't show too much omniscience. So far I do not find God to be as perfect as I hoped. Disappointed! Next time we get to some real juicy stories! (Juicy...haha...see what I did there?)

Until next time!

Genesis 1

I already know this one is going to be a doozy! Creation myths are FUN.

Day 1: So the universe started out as...water? Water and wind and darkness. Where is the wind coming from? Does this watery universe have pressure differentials? Interesting...has god created gravity yet? If not, how is the water staying in the "void"? But, suffice to say, there is water in a windy void, and now there's light. God creates light first, which is the logical move here, but how does he create light exactly? The inference is that he's creating the sun (because he separates the light into "day"), but he hasn't even created the sky yet! So is this just kind of a coming-from-everywhere kind of light that later will meld with the sun? Innnnteresting...

Day 2: The sky is a dome...fair enough. If you assume a flat world, that makes sense. Given our spherical world, however, it's a dubious description. And the sky separates the waters on earth from the waters not on earth. I assume this is basically what's holding the clouds up, which kind of makes sense. But what about beyond the dome? Funny that no mention is made of that. Last I checked, there's a whoooooole lot more universe out there!

Day 3: Okay, so god doesn't actually create land here, he just pushes some of the oceans around to make the dry land visible. Where did the dry land come from? Was it always there, like god and the mysterious water? Apparently.

Day 4: Ah, so now god gets around to creating the lights in the sky to separate day and night, even though he already created light and separated day and night on day 1! Also, the moon is considered a light in its own right, albeit the "lesser" one, but of course the moon is just reflecting sunlight. Science FTW!

Day 5: Fish and birds. Nothing too exciting here. "Be fruitful and multiply" to the birds/fishies.

Day 6: Animals on land, alright! And then us! This is odd...why does god say "Let us make humankind in our image." Is that the royal we? Is god obliquely referring to his bizarre threefold nature? Or perhaps a holdover for more polytheistic traditions? Well, at least he gives us dominion. Serves those animals right.

In this chapter we get a very straightforward and somewhat enlightened view: "in the image of god he created them; male and female he created them." None of this nonsense about women sucking. In fact it echoes of "All men are created equal," but of course that sentiment doesn't last long in the bible!

So that's pretty much it for Genesis 1. It's so mindboggling that people think this is a literal account of history. It doesn't make one damn lick of sense! When I was little I stumbled across this very problem right away. Where were the dinosaurs? What happened to all the time? And as a little girl I came up with the idea that god's days don't have to be the same as our piddly little days. Seeing as he didn't even create the sun until day 4, who's to say that each day was millions of years? Plenty of time for dinosaurs to roam about before man is created. Which just goes to show the kind of mental acrobatics you have to go through to make this make sense...and we're only on the first chapter!

I am trying to read this with an open mind, but this part is just plain silly.

Until next time!

Cheers