Comments on: Genesis 1

By: Seb

Seb — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:22:01 +0000

I found this an interesting read, in my case I try to treat religion with patience. I do find those like Richard Dawkins push their points too far and end up “becoming the monsters they fight” so to speak. However I find your style refreshing, to those who say he is obnoxious (Luke, I’m looking at you): it is a stifling society that requires us to dilute our words till they are meaningless to avoid “offending” people. I believe in this case the fault lies in those who are offended, outrage kills a good debate.

Keep it up db

By: Bible Project: Genesis 1 « Beyond Assumptions

Bible Project: Genesis 1 « Beyond Assumptions — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:21:46 +0000

[...] “the evening and the morning” on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?” Skeptic Dmitry Brant writes: “For light to exist, there needs to be a light source. The light source in our solar [...]

By: Barrett

Barrett — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:12:35 +0000

Well that fun to read. There is a serious aspect to this kind of work though. As long as Earth is populated by large tracts of Abrahamic believers (or others even) it is important to impress upon ourselves and others (believers) what exactly it is that is being believed. Only by much review and critiquing through generations are we likely to shake off this primitive coil (why oh why does it appeal to so many still?? Even if they are generally less intellectually adroit or honest?). The Copernican ‘revolution’ took its own time but is now pretty much accepted by all. By comparison it was a wavelap compared to the tidal wave that is the physics/chemistry/biology description of our universe (and let’s not forget; these are mutually incompatible models of the universe) and so we can expect a long haul. Paine et al. are all part of the change that will one day look instantaneous (as the Copernican revolution does now) and hopefully we are able to preclude Armageddon in the interim. Keep up the good fight.

By: Cassius

Cassius — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:46:57 +0000

“…heaven with the earth”. To ALL the ancients, “heaven” (Grk. Ouranos, Heb. Heshmim, Lat. Celo) meant the same thing, and that one thing (unlike “atmosphere” or “space”) was one that all prescientific knew and were well aware of: all those words mean “the sky”, and – this is important – the sky as presented to the natural human eye. Zeus or Jupiter was “God in Heaven” because – and this is important – his domain was, specifically, the sky and ruled everything in its domain (Posoiden ruled the waters, and Hephaistos the the earth, and between them the three ruled the whole world.)

The use of the word “Heaven” for a state after death is a late corruption, based on a misunderstanding of the Gospel logos (Grk., as used by Aristotle: “story”, “fable” or “plotline” of a drama); that is, the story that the Gospel was trying to tell.

Jesus “ascended into heaven” after his death: this means that HE FLEW OFF INTO THE SKY, LIKE NEO OR SUPERMAN. (!!!!!!! Did you even get that? I had to figure it out myself: no Christian has ever pointed it out to me, but that’s what “to ascend into heaven” LITERALLY, do you hear me? LITERALLY MEANS.)

This is the imagery that the author of the Gospel was aiming at, in context of the story which is being told: Jesus, who is supposed to have been the most remarkable man ever to live, appears to his disciples, alive and in his own body, after his death. He’s SURVIVED DEATH, and he invites Thomas to poke his finger into his holes, to make sure he knows for sure that it is he, Jesus, in the flesh. And HERE IS THE CLIMAX OF THE STORY: after Jesus appears to his disciples and proves that it’s he, himself, he FLIES OF INTO THE SKY!!!!!!

How cool is that??? Woah, Keanu Reeves-style! If Gibson hadn’t been a complete idiot, he would have put that into his movie.

By the way, this is entirely consistent with Jesus’ character.

Later, however, because Jesus was a good man and he ascended into heaven after he died, the idea was corrupted, and “heaven” BECAME, not the sky, but “a place where good people go when they die.” This understanding of the word “heaven” is one that the ancients – neither Jew not Gentile – could never possibly have had, and it is never, ever used in that sense in any pre-Christian literature, in any culture, including the Hebrew bible.

So Genesis 1:1 would have been read as the simple statement, “To start things off, God created everything all at once,” which is the evident sense of the passage anyway. It DOES NOT MEAN that God “created Earth, and the afterlife for good people all at once”, because that’s not what “heshmim” meant to the Jews; it meant, “the sky”.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:25:31 +0000

Er, *draw are. I’m sleepy don’t mind my poor literary skills at this hour >.>

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:24:16 +0000

Ah. I’ve been reading such things, by both sides for years.

The only conclusions that I can draw is, sometimes scientists can lack the open mindedness to consider new ideas. And ALL of the time, the Christians lack open mindedness. Fundamentalists will chase their tails in circles. In a few hundred years they will accept what we now know as science – but it will take time – just as it took time for them to accept that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe, and that the Sun does not revolve around us.

They are taught to question things in a certain way – MOST of them lack the ability to comprehend such things. It is like asking a child to do Calculus. They do not have the basic understanding to work from.

This is not true of ALL Christians, but of a vast majority.

You are reasoning with the child who fights in the school yard… “Broccoli is the healthiest vegatable!!!”
“Why?” Asks his class mate.
“BECAUSE MY MUMMY SAID SO”

Only, we can physically see their Mummy.

FYI, I don’t NOT believe in the concept of God, I am just positive that even if their God exists, no chance I would want to spend eternity with his Murderous, Sneaky, Suicidal ( or Child abusing, depending on how you view Christ) ass.

He is no better than a terrible parent.

RESPECT ME OR I WILL PUNISH YOU.

Go right on ahead. Havn’t seen this all bring peace to earth yet, and it’s been 2,000 years. He created the world as we ‘know it’ in 7 days…. Maybe hes constipated… stuck on the loo…

By: Gordon

Gordon — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:24:13 +0000

guys…
check out National Geographic Channel, Naked Science, Birth of the Universe next time they run it, then compare it with the first few verses of genesis, considering that the scriptures says that god (is love, and) abundant in dynamic energy (Isiah 40:26), and that we now know E=mc2, not being too pedantic about how a BC human may interpret god’s spirit telling him what to write.
Here’s another one for you, check June? (or July) New Scientist about the moon being 400 times smaller and 400 times the distance from the sun –> perfect eclipse, and that it is the moon that allows life on this, maybe unique speck in the universe, where sentient beings may actually appreciate it and ponder over it and seek reason for it, not unlike the creator of such wonders, coincidence? maybe, yet the scriptures, written over 2,000 years ago, says that the moon stands as a faithful witness (Psalm 89:37).
It’s only now we can understand such wonders because science removes superstition, but the science ain’t the half of it…

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:10:46 +0000

This entire exercise seems a bit futile. The bible is a (collection of) documents assembled by a relatively primitive people at a time when science, as we understand it, didn’t exist. We could digress into the motivations of the people who assembled it, but that’s not the point, the point is that it WAS such people, and so any scientific analysis seems completely pointless.
Thomas Paine did a very similar thing in his book “The Age of Reason” in 1896. He didn’t get anywhere either!

By: Bored with the nitpickeryness

Bored with the nitpickeryness — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:38:56 +0000

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was to be taken so literally that you could pick at each and every one of them. Or not.

In the end was the Message, and the message was something to have been interpreted. It came from the Word but it was a function of the reader.

Not that I believe the Bible just that I don’t believe there’s much use in being so literal about prescientific literature.

By: Willie

Willie — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:27:45 +0000

In the beginning was man and he invented god and thought it was good. The bible has some useful parts. The basic common lw (10 Commandments) tried to keep small groups to work together. I reject that humas have souls. We are the more inteligent ape. If I need a fairy tale I prefer Grimm’s.