The Search For Immortality

In this post, I will continue to examine Genesis chapter 3. This time we will focus on humanity's quest for eternal life and how the Ancient Near Eastern texts give an explanation for humanity's mortality in parallel to the Genesis account. In the Genesis account we all know what happens. Eve eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge and gives some to Adam who also eats. They then realize they're naked. God then becomes upset and banishes them from the garden.

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

As a quick aside, please note that God said "man has become like one of Us", clearly denoting that he is among others. Maybe this refers to the trinity, or maybe it is another sign of monolatry (I tend toward the latter).

So, clearly this story is an explanation as to why humanity was not granted eternal life. God guards the way to the tree of life which grants immortality. It seems that the reason humanity is destined to be mortal, is simply because we were deprived access to this tree of life. It also gives the impression that God never intended to allow humanity to eat from this tree. In fact, it seems as though humanity was meant to be kept in ignorance of the trees properties, but since they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, now God fears they may also eat from the tree of life and become immortal like him.

This tree of life is also paralleled in the epic of Gilgamesh which we read in the previous post. Gilgamesh, like every other human on this earth, fears death and seeks a way to prevent this inevitable doom. He seeks out the only man who has ever attained immortality, Utnapishtim. However, he finds out that Utnapishtim was granted immortality by the gods in a special circumstance and that Gilgamesh cannot attain eternal life by the same means. However, he doesn't leave him empty handed.

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: "Gilgamesh, you came here exhausted and worn out. What can I give you so you can return to your land? I will disclose to you a thing that is hidden, Gilgamesh, a... I will tell you. There is a plant... like a boxthorn, whose thorns will prick your hand like a rose. If your hands reach that plant you will become a young man again."Hearing this, Gilgamesh opened a conduit(!) (to the Apsu) and attached heavy stones to his feet.They dragged him down, to the Apsu they pulled him. He took the plant, though it pricked his hand,and cut the heavy stones from his feet,letting the waves(?) throw him onto its shores.Gilgamesh spoke to Urshanabi, the ferryman, saying: "Urshanabi, this plant is a plant against decay(!) by which a man can attain his survival(!). I will bring it to Uruk-Haven, and have an old man eat the plant to test it. The plant's name is 'The Old Man Becomes a Young Man.'" Then I will eat it and return to the condition of my youth."

Therefore, this theme of a plant which grants immortality is indeed a theme common between both the Genesis story and this theme in Gilgamesh. In both of these accounts, it is a plant that is eaten which gives eternal life.

The next text we will look at is called Adapa and the Food of Life. The phonology of Adapa could also be read Adamu, a staggering resemblance to Adam from Genesis. However, Adapa is not the first human on earth, but he is created by Ea, the god of wisdom, and is called Ea's son. Adapa is considerred one of the Annunaki, which gives him a somewhat divine status. However, Ea endowed Adapa with the gift of wisdom and knowledge, but did not grant him eternal life. The reason for not giving Adapa the gift of immortality is unknown.

The story goes on and Adapa goes out fishing, but the south wind blows and capsizes his boat. As a result, Adapa curses the wind and its "wings" are broken. As a result the south wind doesn't blow on the land for 7 days. At this point, it is brought to the attention of Anu, the head of the gods, what Adapa did. Adapa is then summoned before Anu. However, before Adapa goes, Ea gives him this advice.

When thou comest up, and when thou approachest the door of Anu,At the door of Anu, Tammuz and Gishzida are standing,"they will see thee, they will ask thee; 'Sir,'For whose sake dost thou so appear, Adapa? For whomArt thou clad in a mourning garment?' 'In our country two gods have vanished, thereforeAm I so.' 'Who are the two gods, who in the land have vanished?' 'Tammuz and Gishzida.' They will look at one another andBe astonished. Good words They will speak to Anu. A good countenance of Anu They will show thee. When thou standest before Anu Food of death they will set before thee,Eat not. Water of death they will set before thee,Drink not. Garments they will set before thee,Put them on. Oil they will set before thee, anoint thyself.The counsel that I have given thee, forget not. The words Which I have spoken, hold fast."

So, Ea advises Adapa not to eat the food and drink of death. Adapa goes before Anu and carries out Ea's advice. However, it is not the food and drink of death which is laid before Adapa.

"Why has Ea revealed to impure mankind The heart of heaven and earth? A heart... has created within him, has made him a name?What can we do with him? Food of lifeBring him, that be man, eat."Food of lifeThey brought him, but he ate not. Water of lifeThey brought him, but he drank not. GarmentsThey brought him. He clothed himself. OilThey brought him. He anointed himself.Anu looked at him; he wondered at him." Come, Adapa, why hast thou not eaten, not drunken?Now thou shalt not live." ... men ...Ea, my lord Said: "Eat not, drink not."Take him and bring him back to his earth.... looked upon him.

It was not food and drink of death offered to Adapa, but the food and drink of life. Had he eaten it, he would have been granted immortality. However, following Ea's orders, he didn't eat and was thus doomed again to a mortal life. Why did Ea tell him not to eat the food and water? Perhaps since he created Adapa and didn't grant him immortality, he wanted to keep it that way. It is difficult to think that the god of wisdom made a mistake when he said the food and drink of death. More likely, he wanted to keep Adapa mortal, as he created him.

Again in this text, we see a food (and water), something to be consumed which grants immortality to the one who consumes it. Also in this text, we see that the human, Adapa, created by Ea, is not given immortality and is in fact kept from obtaining immortality. Ea does not intend for Adapa to become like him, and denies him eternal life. Both of these themes are echoed in the Genesis account. God denies Adam and Eve eternal life, by driving them from the garden and not allowing them to eat from the tree of life. In the same way Ea tricks Adapa into not eating the food of life.

Traditional Christian thought holds that the theme of the Genesis 3 passage is the fall of man and the first sin. If one reads the passage, there is no sin committed in a moral sense. Rather, the 'sin' committed was that they didn't obey God and ate from the tree of knowledge. It is never laid out explicitly that this was a 'sin' as we understand that term. There is no reason given by God for denying them access to these two trees, other than the fact that God wished to keep humanity ignorant of good and evil and deny them immortality. It seems to me that this idea of the first sin and the fall of man is somewhat forced onto the text for the reason of coming up with a seamless theology throughout the Bible.

I would propose that the theme in this passage is different from the one above (although I am certain that I am not the first to propose this). In light of these other texts which we have studied, it is very easy to see what the theme of the Genesis 3 account is. It is an explanation of the mortality of humanity. Now that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they know that if they eat from the tree of life they will become immortal. God then denies them access to the tree, so that they will not become immortal like him. The Ancient Near Eastern person is seeking for a reason as to why we must die. Death is something very much on everyone's mind today, and this was no different 5000 years ago. Thus, these stories/myths were created as an explanation for the mortality of humanity. The Israelites were no different from their mesopotamian neighbours. They also sought an explanation for the reason they must die. It is my belief that the themes from the texts seen above (which were the stories of the dominant culture of the time) were borrowed into the Israelite tradition (possibly to the extent of even borrowing the name Adapa/Adamu), and the story of Genesis 3 is born.

Genesis 3 is simply an explanation of why humans must die: God denied humans access to the tree of life by driving them out of the garden of Eden. Again, I do not believe that this is a literal story that actually happened, but rather a myth that revealed to the Israelites the reason for death.

Serpent: Snake or Talking Reptile

In this post, I will discuss the Fall of Man as seen in Genesis 3. I will concentrate strictly in this post on a small theme of the serpant.

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Here we have the serpent, the craftiest of the wild animals tempting Eve. Now, I was taught from a very young age (I cannot remember exactly when), that the serpent was actually Satan. If the serpent was indeed Satan, then that would show that Satan existed right from the very beginning, not to mention explain away a rather unusual talking reptile which is very difficult to believe in seeing as how no one has had a conversation with a snake lately (except maybe Harry Potter). However, I would propose, that the writer of Genesis intended exactly what he said: A talking snake. I believe this is what the writer intended, again under the presupposition that this story is not an historical event. Rather, it is a story designed to reveal something of God, ourselves, and our relationship to him.

The serpent talking and causing trouble in the Ancient Near East is not limitted to this account in Genesis chapter 3. There seems to be a general dislike for the slimy slitherer amongst the other cultures of the time as well. The first example we will look at is in the Epic of Gilgamesh. To summarize, Gilgamesh, who is seeking eternal life, goes to visit the one man who has ever attained it; Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim then tells him a long story about a torrential flood and how the gods then granted him eternal life (more about the flood to follow in a later post). Thus, Utnapishtim was a special case, and Gilgamesh can not gain eternal life the way he did. However, Utnapishtim tells him of a plant.

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: "Gilgamesh, you came here exhausted and worn out. What can I give you so you can return to your land?I will disclose to you a thing that is hidden, Gilgamesh, a... I will tell you. There is a plant... like a boxthorn, whose thorns will prick your hand like a rose. If your hands reach that plant you will become a young man again."

Gilgamesh, then proceeds to become the very first breath hold diver recorded in history.

Hearing this, Gilgamesh opened a conduit (to the Apsu) and attached heavy stones to his feet.They dragged him down, to the Apsu they pulled him. He took the plant, though it pricked his hand,and cut the heavy stones from his feet,letting the waves throw him onto its shores.Gilgamesh spoke to Urshanabi, the ferryman, saying: "Urshanabi, this plant is a plant against decay by which a man can attain his survival. I will bring it to Uruk-Haven, and have an old man eat the plant to test it. The plant's name is 'The Old Man Becomes a Young Man.'" Then I will eat it and return to the condition of my youth."

Gilgamesh, having obtained the plant, goes to have a bath (undoubtedly to rinse off the salt water), and lo and behold, our long, slinking friend makes his appearance.

Gilgamesh went down and was bathing in the water.A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant,silently came up and carried off the plant.While going back it sloughed off its casing.'At that point Gilgamesh sat down, weeping,his tears streaming over the side of his nose.

So here, the snake steals the plant of life, and then sheds its skin, thus depriving Gilgamesh of eternal life. This parallels the Genesis account in that it is a snake that prevents the human from obtaining eternal life. The snake isn't portrayed as a talking, crafty animal, but it does interfere with Gilgamesh obtaining eternal life.

Another snake appears in the Etana Epic. In this story, an eagle and a snake both reside in a poplar tree; the serpant at its roots, and the eagle has a nest in the crown of the tree. After some time, they come to a pact and swear an oath of friendship to take care of each other's young by taking the responsibility of feeding them. However, one day, after the eagle's young have grown up, the eagle plots to devour the snake's offspring. The eagle then dives down and destroys the serpents nest and devours his young. Naturally, the snake is upset that the eagle has done this. The snake then implores the god Shamash to help him to avenge his offspring. Shamash then kills a wild ox and tells the serpent to hide inside the organs of the carcass and wait. When the eagle comes to eat the ox, the serpent lunges out, seizes him, plucks out his feathers, clips his wings, and casts him into a deep pit to die from starvation and dehydration. The story continues on from there with other happenings, including Etana, the king of Kish, taking a ride on the eagle. But we will not get into that. What we saw here was a snake planning and talking and being quite a clever animal. It simply demonstrates again that the serpant was used in these stories as a talking, thinking creature.

In conclusion, I believe that the author intended that the snake in the Genesis story was indeed a snake. Not Satan in a snake suit. Serpants talking and interacting with humanity is a common occurance amongst the ancient near eastern texts. Thus, I believe, under the presupposition that this is not an historical document, that the snake is a snake.

In the next post, we'll move on to what I believe was the point of Genesis 3 as a whole, with reference to other Ancient Near Eastern texts.

A Quick Disclaimer

At the request of my many fans, (all 3 of them, which is more people than watch Curling) I will place a quick disclaimer on what I believe regarding the previous posts. The point of the posts has been to gain an understanding of what the Israelites believed about God in the early beginnings of Israelite religion. I am not saying that I believe what they believed. For example, the Israelites believed in the existance of many gods (according to my interpretation). That is not to say that I believe in many gods. The point is just to show that although Christians assume that the Bible is wholly congruous and agreeing with itself theologically, such is not the case.

The religion of the Israelites, throughout the Bible, is an evolving one. It changes and adapts to the culture in which it is being played out. I will continue to examine this thought in future posts.
As such, to come up with a single theology of God based on the Bible as a whole, is not possible. Thus, to claim a monopoly on the one true theology of God, in my opinion, is not possible. Ergo (a la architect), many of the thoughts that we as Christians hold very dear to our faith may not be as important as we once thought. The theological differences that divide Christians do not really matter (and yes, I include the Catholics in this. I also think there are some Christians in the evangelical church as well) ;-)

I have recently heard the term "Emerging Church". Some describe it as a great thing - all kinds of churches coming together and working together to build the church. Others describe it as the one world religion led by the antichrist during the end times. Which is a better witness to the world? Bickering amongst ourselves about the trinity and whether or not Mary intercedes for us? Or cooperating and showing unity in order to create a better society? I wonder which God would rather we do?

Am I still a Christian? I think so. This is me being completely honest about what I believe. It is not intended as a judgement on others, but merely as a clarification of where I am at. Ultimately, I am looking to be a Christian that can respect others opinions and interpretations of the Bible (as it is open to interpretation) and to have my opinion respected by others. I want to be able to be honest about what I really do think regarding the flood and how I interpret that passage, without being branded a heretic and have others worried about me and praying for my deliverance from this heresy. My concern right now, is that I don't know if I could find a church that would accept me for me, where I'm at.

Teaser for the next post. "Serpant: Satan or Talking Reptile?"

The Creation of Humanity

This post is going to be a comparative study of the creation of man and the fall of man to other ancient near eastern sources on the subject. This again broaches the subject of 'fact or fiction'. I tend to look at these early chapters in Genesis more as myth (for lack of a better term) designed to tell us about God's nature, and to show humanity what their role is in the world. Most of us know the Biblical story of the creation of man fairly well, so I will not be putting too many quotes in here.

In Genesis 2:7, we see God forming man from the dust of the ground, and breathing life into him. There are two prominent creation stories from the Ancient Near East which also tell of the creation of humanity. The oldest of these, the Sumerian version, is somewhat similar to the Genesis version, in that man is created from the clay of the earth, and is fashioned in the image of the gods.

Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss, The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay, You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence; Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you, The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning; O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate, Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods, It is man . . . . (Kramer, History Begins 109)

In this poem, often referred to as the Poem of the Super Sage (or Atrahasis), humanity is created so as to become the servants of the gods. The gods were tired of toiling themselves, so humanity was created to take that job.

"In the days of yore, did the gods for whom they baked their food portions and set their tables, did the major gods oversee work, while the minor gods were shouldering the menial labor.The gods were dredging the rivers,were piling up their silt on projecting bends-and the gods lugging the clay began complaining about the corvee."

"My son, rise from your bed,and when you with your ingenuity have searched out the required skill, and you have fashioned a fill-in worker for the gods, may they get loose of their digging!"

So, mankind became the slaves of the gods, to do their toiling for them. To the Sumerians, this was an explanation as to why they had to work so hard, and toil. In Genesis chapter 1, we see the role of mankind as given by God.

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

In this instance, man is given rule over the dominion of the earth. Quite a bit different than being the slaves of the gods. However, in the end, the creation story does give the same explanation as to why we must toil and work so hard.

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

The purpose of the two stories is the same, the Genesis version simply takes a different route to get there.

The second Creation Myth that we will look at is a very famous Babylonian work called Enuma Elish. You can find the full poem here. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/enuma.html

This one goes into great detail about a great battle between Tiamat and Marduk. After Marduk defeats Tiamat, he then uses her body to create the world. And then Mankind is created, once again, for the purpose of serving the gods.

When Marduk hears the words of the gods, His heart prompts (him) to fashion artful works. Opening his mouth he addresses EA To impart the plan he addresses EA To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart: "Blood I will mass and cause boned to be. I will establish a savage, 'man' shall be his name. Verily, savage man I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods That they might be at ease! The ways of the gods I will artfully alter. Though alike revered, into two (groups) they shall be divided."

Mankind is then formed from the blood of one of the gods who started the war.

So, at the risk of beating a dead rhino here, I want to say again that I do not believe that this story in Genesis is meant to be a literal portrayal of how and when God created Adam and Eve. If we read the other accounts of the creation posted here, one would not for one second entertain the idea that these things ever happened. Rather, we would say that these stories/myths reveal to us the ancient person's searching and longing for an explanation as to why they toil the way they do. Why is life so bad for us?

It also gives the Ancient person their role to play in this world. Why then, do we attribute the Genesis story with fact, but not the other Ancient Near Eastern accounts? Generally, the answer stems from the fact that for a long time, the Bible was the most ancient text we had in our posession which told us of the creation of the world. We had nothing else to compare it to. It stood alone in its scope and message. But now, in the last 100 years or so, other texts have been unearthed (a picture of the tablet of the sumerian poem of atrahasis is pictured at the top of this post) and we can now see that the same themes presented in the Genesis Creation story, were prevalant throughout the Ancient Near Eastern Culture.

Now, one could say that the Sumerians and Babylonians borrowed their creation stories from the Israelites. However, if one looks objectively, the Babylonians and Sumerians were the dominant cultures of their respective time periods. Is it really likely that these peoples were going to little Israel to find inspiration for their writings? I would think not. Any syncretism is likely to go the other way; Israel borrowing from the Babylonians/Sumerians. Another thing to consider is that the tablet pictured above is dated around 1700B.C., predating the Genesis account by at least 1000 years.

Thus, it is my belief that the creation of humanity in Genesis is not meant to tell us a literal history of humanity. Rather, just like fables, it is designed to show humanity its role in this world, and give an explanation as to why suffering and toil happen.

Monotheism and Monolatry

This post will follow from a topic mentioned briefly in the previous post: Monotheism in Israel. There is a difference between the term Monotheism, and Monolatry. Monotheism being the belief that there is only one God, and denying the very existance of any other god. Monolatry being the worship of one god, but not denying the existance of other gods. This seems to be the case in early Israelite religion. I will be discussing a variety of texts and why I think they demonstrate a Monolatry within the Israelite religion, as opposed to Monotheism.

The first passage we will look at is Deuteronomy 32:8-9

When the Most High ('elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings (sons of god). For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

The masoretic texts read bene yisra'el, which would translate as the "sons of Israel". The Qumran texts read bene 'lhym, which would translate as "sons of god" or divine beings. As the Qumran texts are the oldest, we will be using them for this translation.

Each nation in Israel, and really in the Ancient Near East as a whole, had its own deity. Here we see that the nations are divided up by 'elyon, the highest god, and Yahweh is given Israel. 'elyon is very likely the cannanite god El.

Next is Joshua 22:22.


22"The Mighty One, God, the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows, and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion, or if in an unfaithful act against the LORD do not save us this day!

What we are mainly interested in is the first line. The Hebrew text reads:
'el 'elohim yhwh 'el 'elohim yhwh
This would literally translate "God of gods, Yahweh. God of gods, Yahweh." This gives a definite feeling that Yahweh is the main god of many other gods. It does not deny the existance of other gods, but merely places Yahweh on a higher level to other gods. The translation above, seems to push this aspect under the carpet.

Now, in the ten commandments we see again an example of Monolatry in Exodus 20:1-3.

And God spoke all these words: I am the Lord (Yahweh) your God ('el), who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.

This verse again denotes that Yahweh is Israel's God, and that there are indeed other gods out there to be worshipped, but that they should worship him alone.

Here are a couple more that speak for themselves.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like You among the gods, O LORD (Yahweh)? Who is like You, majestic in holiness

Exodus 18:11
"Now I know that the LORD (Yahweh) is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the people."

Something that one notices too, is that in our english translations of the Hebrew text, Yahweh is translated as "the Lord," when really it is more of a name for the God the Hebrews worshipped. So, if one reads "the Lord" as Yahweh, it greatly changes the meaning, or the overtones of the text.

We have then seen that monotheism was not really a practice among the Hebrews, rather Monolatry. This has great implications for Christianity, as most Christians believe that the Bible teaches monotheism throughout. However, the belief structure that is taught in the beginning of the Bible, is not the same as what is taught later on. The religion of the Hebrews during their wanderings in the wilderness, was not the same as their religion in the Exile. Their theology and thought changed. This idea of Monotheism vs. Monolatry is one example of the changing religion of the Hebrews.

On another little side note, in the same way, the Christianity that we have today, that we believe to be the one true Christianity, is not the same as the Christianity that existed 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or even at the time of Christ. The Bible itself displays an evolving, changing religion. One that reflects the culture that it was in at the current time. Christianity is an evolving religion, one that changes to meet the needs of the current culture. This is why, I believe, that it has survived for so long.

Fact, Fiction, or Somewhere in Between?

Today I will be discussing my views on the creation story found in Genesis. The first thing I should mention is that I will not be approaching this text as most fundamentalist Christians would. I do not not believe that the Bible was meant to be a scientific manual or historically accurate document to explain to us the exact origins of the world. When the author wrote this text, I'm sure he had no idea what science was, or what the scientific method was, yet Christians feel this desperate need to push this type of analysis on a document that was never meant to be analyzed in this way (IMHO). Thus, I do not take a literal interpretation of the creation story. Trying to fuse Science and Creation is like trying to mix water and oil (I'm an oil worker so that's what came to my head). You just end up with a messy situation that doesn't really work out.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

So the first thing that the Bible says is that God created the heavens and the earth. No problem. Of course he did! How could something come from nothing? We see design everywhere. But, does the Bible mention how he created it? Hmmmmm. I don't see anything about how he did it. Soooooo, could the Big Bang be how he did it? Why not? When the Big Bang theory first appeared, Christians were very excited about it as it denoted an origin point when the universe began which pointed to a creator. However, these days, the Big Bang theory seems to be a taboo in churchs. Why is that? I would say the Bible wouldn't contradict that at all. But, all science and religion aside, I believe this verse is meant to tell us one thing. God is the creator. That's it. Pure and simple.

The next verse is interesting because it says the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Fundy interpretation=Holy Spirit=proof for trinity. One thing that Fundamentalists love to do is have a theological idea and look for it throughout the entire Bible. In this case, the Trinity. Fundies would say that the spirit in verse 2 is the Holy Spirit. And this very well may be. However, if we are to explore the other options, that word can also be translated as wind. It may just be the wind of God hovering over the waters. To say that this is a definite proof of the existance of the Holy Spirit right from the beginning, is weak.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The only thing I would like to discuss here is the interpretation of the literal 7 days of creation. Most Fundies will tell you that the earth and the universe were created in only 7 days. Now, I wouldn't put it past God to do it in only 7 days, I mean he does have the power. But the term Yom (used for 'day'), can also be translated as "time" or "a division of time". It does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period. If you translate it as a a literal 24 hour period, and continue on with this literal chronology of the Bible, you end up with an earth that is approximately 6000 years old. Now, personally that is a little hard for me to swallow, and anybody else who has grown up learning about dinosaurs that existed millions of years ago etc etc. I would take this portion of text to say that God created the world, but not to say exactly how long it took him to do it and to prove how old the earth is.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Now this is one part that I often get into discussions with people about. The firmament. I mean what is this thing? The sky separating the waters above from the waters below. Creation scientists say that in the beginning of the world there was a layer of water around the earth and this caused people to live longer and grow bigger and basically made a paradise. And then this same layer of water caved in on the earth which caused the flood. Now the flood is another story. But let us address this firmament.

The ancient near eastern picture of the world (Sumerian, Babyloniona, etc) was that the world was a flat disc surrounded with a rim of mountains and floating on an ocean of sweet waters, called the ABZU. Resting on these mountains was the sky in which rested the stars and other astral bodies. Below the earth was the netherworld, where the spirits of the dead lived (sheol in the old testament) And the whole earth was immersed in a giant bubble of boundless primeval ocean of salt water. A picture is worth a thousand words. Below is a diagram taken from Georges Roux's "Ancient Iraq".

So now where on earth would they get an idea like this from? Well, now I'm just speculating here, but this sure makes sense to me. The ancient man is standing on the shores of the ocean looking out on the big blue sea that goes as far as the eye can see. He then looks up and sees the big blue sky as far as the eye can see. What does he think? Well I know what I would think if I didn't have the hubble telescope. Dude, the earth is surrounded by a big old ocean just as blue as the ocean down here. Thus, the model above is formed. Was the earth surrounded by a big old blue salt water sea in the beginning of the world? Not likely in my opinion. The author of Genesis was simply purporting the common belief about the earth of the time and adding his God into the mix.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

The name for God used in this text is Elohim, which in and of itself denotes plural God. We also see God using "our" refering to making man in "our image". Again, Fundies use this as a proof for the trinity. However, I would like to propose another idea. Perhaps Judaism was not a monotheistic religion right from the get go. Of course it did turn very monotheistic in the end, but this was more a progression. The other religions of the day definitely had a pantheon of gods and perhaps early Judaism was not so different. If God was truly one, but made of three, He would likely say make man in my image, not our image. The term our really denotes more than one person, in a seperate manner, not fused as in the trinity. If one reads throughout the old Testament, it never really denies that there are other gods out there. It merely says the he is the supreme God and denies the other gods' power. So perhaps early Judaism was not so unique from the religions around it as Fundamentalists suppose.

So, now we come to the title of this post. Is the creation story Fact, Fiction, or somewhere in between. Well, I go with the last option. This story is meant for one thing, I believe. To tell us that God created the world and everything in it. How he did it, we do not know. How long it took, who cares. Did Adam and Eve really exist? (We will get into this in the next post.) Does it really matter? What can we glean from this passage? God created the world. That's it. We are so far removed from the time when this was written, it is impossible to suppose that anyone can have the proper interpretation of exactly what the author was trying to portray. We can not possibly take this passage, make an interpretation, and call it fact.

Introduction

Although I do not often condone doing such things as Blogs and facebooking and all the other current fads out there, I thought I would start this more as an outlet for my own thoughts on various topics. Probably it will mostly focus on theology as I see it and how I see Christianity playing out within the framework of my own beliefs about it. I will probably begin tomorrow as it is already too late tonight to start. I will begin with the first few chapters of Genesis I think.