Genesis 1 and 2 – man before animals or after?

The claim that every letter and word in the bible has been ordained by God would seem to mean an inaccuracy would not reflect well on divine authorship. Though if being charitable, we could say God was an editor at large.

Genesis 1:25-27
New International Version (NIV)
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:18-19
New International Version (NIV)
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

The reading does not really indicate whether man was made before all other living creatures, after all living creatures, or some and not others. It is a slight stretch to say conclusively in the very first two chapters a major lack of proof reading has crept in.

So therefore argues a creation site:

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Genesis 2:19) and select a wife (Genesis 2:20). Since Adam could not find a suitable mate (God knew he wouldn’t), He made Eve (Genesis 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day six. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never had made it say the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Source Creation Today

The sun though does not just provide an alternative light source:

Our sun gives us light, heat and energy. It may seem that energy comes from other sources such as gasoline and electricity but the ultimate source of energy for the Earth is nothing else but the sun. Without the sun life on Earth would not exist. It would be so cold that no living thing would be able to survive and our planet would be completely frozen.

…

The sun also plays the role of a big anchor, which creates gravity that keeps our planet and the other planets of the solar system in a small space. If it weren’t for the sun, our planet would simply fly off loose into the universe.

Source NASA: Sun for Kids

Perhaps gravity, and the order in which chemicals were formed, was left out because God neglected to mention how stars and planets form, and how their motion works.

Or just maybe it was written by a people who did not live in a time to know about such things. That is not scoffing. It is just being honest.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Sex, Intimacy and God

The idea that sex has a spiritual aspect is not confined to a Christian perspective. In Tibetan Buddhism thinking, orgasim ranks with sneezing and being asleep as a spiritual moment. Shannon Ethridge argues that intense sex (think a married person copulating on photocopier with a work colleague) has replaced a spiritual need for real sexual intimacy with a loved one. The ultimate loved one being the Christian God. Though if there is a God, I kind of feel he screwed us all with a one night stand and, I certainly was not conscious at the time to give my consent for their act of procreation.

Does the entangling of arms and legs and the exchange of bodily fluids scratch the human itch for intimate connection? Or is sex just the closest thing we can imagine to what we’re really craving: a deeper spiritual and emotional connection, both with our Creator and with His creation?

Looking at sexuality through a spiritual lens, and vice versa, is not a new concept. In the Song of Solomon, a man’s and woman’s desires for healthy sexual intimacy are celebrated. In the book of Hosea, God uses the analogy of a husband’s relentless pursuit of a sexually unfaithful bride to illustrate the depth of His own passion and commitment to His people. God obviously knew that “sexual metaphors” would teach us about ourselves and about Him.

CNN Belief Blog

I did ask her via twitter why we would go to the bible as our guide to sexual intimacy, and the sexual metaphors regarding, when we have passages like Genesis 19:31-8. Here Lot’s two daughters, having survived the destruction of Sodom and Gormorah, over two nights take it in turns to get their father drunk so that they can have sex with him and have children. Their reasoning being that there are no god fearing men around to have children with.

Not expecting a reply soon.

Think best that the bible is left alone when it comes to sex and relationships. Given it’s content, that would be the top shelf.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Common Knowledge

Truth is a matter, not of what we believe or feel; of what can be proven without falsehood being allowed to stand on it’s slate. This applies to religion and, as will become apparent, Christmas Quizzes. For example some will claim the bible as truth for being god’s word. Without considering that there is no proof supporting that latter claim as a foundation for the former, for faith alone does not make a text divine. Nor devout assertion make a piece of text sacred. That is left to the imagination of scribblers and critics.

We may yet hope to agree on what the text says. Though there are arguments over the rendering of passages we may at least consult the text to what it says. Rather than rely on songs or common knowledge.

Which brings me to the Christmas Quiz at work, attended by Jews, Muslims, Christians and an infidel. The question was how did the animals go into Noah’s Ark?

For the song it is 2 by 2. Hurrah! Hurrah! I claimed that was half true. For Genesis 7 has god instructing Noah on entering the ark with his family:

2take with you seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each unclean animal.3Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird. Do this so that every kind of animal and bird will be kept alive to reproduce again on earth.

I was the only one to point this out. The non believer sticking to biblical text. As we had done on the question of how many ghosts visited Mr Scrooge – 4 when you count Jacob Marley warning him of the other three.

Religious friends tell me that atheists assume that they should be fundementalists with regards their faith. Perhaps one reason why people claim faith is that they do not grapple with fundementals. For if you think animals went in two by two, then examining the tennents of your faith is not the rock upon which you base it.

Rather common knowledge suggests that they so marched. Common knowledge should not be confused with a sense of things as they are. The latter allows us to find out about things by inquiry and empirical objectivity. The former allows what is held by tradition or acclaim, by appeal to populaism to be true.

Let us not limit ourselves to common knowledge when there are better fruits to pluck and feast upon. No matter who tells you not too.