The Creation Of Man

[LogicalFallacy]

Ok so this topic will (probably) only apply to creationists/literalness. But since my family is creationist that I thought this would be an interesting exercise

(We are going to ignore cleaning out the creationist at Genesis 1:1 - sorry BAA I'm still working on that. )

Genesis 1:26 "And God said let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness... male and female created he them."

My question to the Christians is who is OUR? That is plural. Who is God referring to? He was alone as God, Elohim the self existing one. This bugged me as a Christian, because in the next verse it is 'corrected' to say "So God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him." And then goes on to say male and female created he THEM.

So we have the Biblical writers first of all quoting God using plural language "Let us make man in OUR image" and then explaining it in singular. "So God created man in HIS image"

Now I have my own take on this, but Christians, and of course I welcome any thoughts from any ExC member, what is your take on this?

[Margee]

We were taught in the Pentecostal church that the 'our image' was  the trinity even though that is not ever mentioned. So god must  have already known back then when he created man that someday he would send his 'son' to save us from our sins. (That was the screwed up explanation we were told) In other words, when god said, ''Let us make man is our image, he was talking about , the 'father', 'son' and 'holy spirit'.........

 

Makes my head spin in circles today. 

[LogicalFallacy]

Yes that is one Christian take on it.

 

Another Christian interpretation, and possibly ties in with yours Margee, is that in Chapter 1 the "man in our image" is like the spirit being - so the trinity, and the man from dust in chapter 2 is the physical man.

 

The problem with that it is interpretive.. and gets quite complex to explain all these weird things. (So much for simplicity *cough*)

 

 

(Now I think there is a very real simple explanation for why the writers wrote the way they did, but I'd like to get some more viewpoints first.)

[bornagainathiest]

There's no suggestion of plurality in the Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, LF.

 

Rabbi Toviah Singer makes clear here... https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

 

'Our' is a majestic plural, like the royal 'we', used by kings and queens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[rjn]

There's no suggestion of plurality in the Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, LF.

 

Rabbi Toviah Singer makes clear here... https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

 

'Our' is a majestic plural, like the royal 'we', used by kings and queens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I knew that would come up. Tbh, it feels like a bullshit excuse, like how some Christians claim that "hate" really means "love less" in certain passages.

 

There is more than one indication of a non-monotheistic origin in the OT. While I think it could be interesting to look at the traditional Jewish interpretation in some cases, as a contrast to the Christian one, their religion is just as false and deserving of scrutiny. Who cares what they think?

 

I'm not a hebrew scholar, but as far as I know, the "im"-suffix is a generic plural marker. It's rather telling that Elohim shows up frequently in the early parts of the OT, especially Genesis, getting supplanted by YHWH later on.

[bornagainathiest]

 

There's no suggestion of plurality in the Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, LF.

 

Rabbi Toviah Singer makes clear here... https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

 

'Our' is a majestic plural, like the royal 'we', used by kings and queens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I knew that would come up. Tbh, it feels like a bullshit excuse, like how some Christians claim that "hate" really means "love less" in certain passages.

 

There is more than one indication of a non-monotheistic origin in the OT. While I think it could be interesting to look at the traditional Jewish interpretation in some cases, as a contrast to the Christian one, their religion is just as false and deserving of scrutiny. Who cares what they think?

 

I'm not a hebrew scholar, but as far as I know, the "im"-suffix is a generic plural marker. It's rather telling that Elohim shows up frequently in the early parts of the OT, especially Genesis, getting supplanted by YHWH later on.

 

 

Ummm... what is it that you think the majestic plural, used by the Jews, is excusing, rjn?

 

I cited this info, not to legitimize the Judaism, but to show that Christians are wrong to use 'our' and 'us' as a justification for the Trinity appearing in Genesis.

 

As you know from other threads, I've asserted that the Bible fails at Genesis 1 : 1, because that verse cannot be reconciled with our scientific observations.

 

Therefore, if my assertion is valid, both Judaism and Christianity are falsified.

 

So if I were upholding Judaism here but tearing it down in another thread, I wouldn't be very consistent, would I?

[LogicalFallacy]

Thanks for your input all

 

Well at this point I'll mention what I thought of the use of our/us, and I think it might tie into what rjn was saying. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

And disclaimer this is just based on information I have come across regarding the earliest mention of Yahweh and then 'theorizing'.

 

I was wondering whether the "us/our" was not royal - ie.e use of language, but a carry over from the polytheistic days of Judaism where according to some scholars Yahweh had a consort - Asherah. It was then during the big rewrites after 586BC during the Babylonian captivity that a monotheistic religion was adopted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

 

I haven't read "The Bible Unearthed" yet, but I understand archaeological evidence supports this early use of Asherah. 

 

BAA, I think if I may take a position between you and rjn, if I understand both your arguments correctly, then yes I understand there is no plurality in the WORD Elohim. However, given the information above, is it mistaken to think that the use of the terms us/our is not royal but literal? So that when the original writers wrote "And God said let us make man in our image" they were actually referring to the concept that Yahweh had a consort and so our meant like Yahweh and Asherah - i.e. male and female? To me this seems a reasonable position considering what we know of how ancient peoples tried to explain the world around them.

 

A possible issue with my 'theory' is the different usages with the words Elohim (God) and Yahweh (Personal name of God). Genesis 1 refers only to Elohim. It's only in Chapter 2 do we start to see Yahweh in use as the terms Lord God. Now we know that different people wrote Genesis. At the point "lord God" appears this is a different writer from the earlier text. P wrote Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. J primarily wrote from 2:4 to end of chapter 4, but get this, with the use of YHWH Elohim, Elohim has been put in by a redactor. (Friedman, The Bible with sources revealed, pp 33-40)

 

If I'm not correct and Genesis does have any lingering indications back to the polytheistic days it is probably because the writers took it out quite thoroughly, but without the very first writings to compare to it's impossible to prove.

 

Incidentally even this evidence goes to show that the bible wasn't written down under Gods inspiration to Moses. There are at least 4 writers, possibly 5.

 

PS This post has many holes in it an needs further work - I can see flaws in my own reasoning here, but its Christmas so I'm going to eat something. Feel free to critique my thoughts here.

[rjn]

 

 

There's no suggestion of plurality in the Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, LF.

 

Rabbi Toviah Singer makes clear here... https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

 

'Our' is a majestic plural, like the royal 'we', used by kings and queens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I knew that would come up. Tbh, it feels like a bullshit excuse, like how some Christians claim that "hate" really means "love less" in certain passages.

 

There is more than one indication of a non-monotheistic origin in the OT. While I think it could be interesting to look at the traditional Jewish interpretation in some cases, as a contrast to the Christian one, their religion is just as false and deserving of scrutiny. Who cares what they think?

 

I'm not a hebrew scholar, but as far as I know, the "im"-suffix is a generic plural marker. It's rather telling that Elohim shows up frequently in the early parts of the OT, especially Genesis, getting supplanted by YHWH later on.

 

 

Ummm... what is it that you think the majestic plural, used by the Jews, is excusing, rjn?

 

I cited this info, not to legitimize the Judaism, but to show that Christians are wrong to use 'our' and 'us' as a justification for the Trinity appearing in Genesis.

 

As you know from other threads, I've asserted that the Bible fails at Genesis 1 : 1, because that verse cannot be reconciled with our scientific observations.

 

Therefore, if my assertion is valid, both Judaism and Christianity are falsified.

 

So if I were upholding Judaism here but tearing it down in another thread, I wouldn't be very consistent, would I?

 

 

Yes, Christians are wrong about their assertions regarding Elohim and the Trinity (I still don't get where that concept hails from btw), but I still think there are indications of polytheistic roots in the OT/Tanakh, the plural form "Elohim" being one of them. And while we're at it: even though I'm genuinely interested in the natural sciences, and at least tries to be scientifically oriented in my way of thinking (even though I am very much a layman), I still think your argumentation is all too simplistic. As I see it, you reduce Christianity to nothing more than a childish alternative to the scientific method, disregarding the philosophical, cultural and emotional implications such a belief system carries with it. Most Christians do not base their beliefs on Gen 1:1.

[LogicalFallacy]

Most Christians do not base their beliefs on Gen 1:1.

 

rjn, If I may play devils advocate my friend, how much of this (not basing beliefs on Genesis 1:1) is DUE to science? The Christian interpretation has changed rather dramatically in the last 400 years due to science. The fundy's/creationists are a left over from the earlier beliefs where they do base their beliefs on Genesis 1:1. This is evidenced by a direct quote from Ken Ham who said "If Genesis chapter 1 is not correct then why should I believe the rest of the bible?" (Paraphrased somewhat) I agree with him, but in his case he does base his belief in literal 6 day creation as written. Obviously most don't, but most used to.

 

Now I'll take of my devils advocate hat, and agree entirely with point that the philosophical, cultural and emotional implications such a belief system carries should not be disregarded. The people who wrote the bible, did so in my opinion, (which is completely unqualified) to both explain their world, and provide a structure and meaning to their lives. I think we do much the same with the scientific method, it's just that the evidence has shown this method to provide more accurate truth to our beliefs and structures.

 

Carl Sagan had some interesting things to say about religion. He was not your Richard Dawkins type, rather he almost waxed philosophical in his explanations of science. 

 

Carl Sagan on religion

 

Carl Sagan on Man in his arrogance

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

There's no suggestion of plurality in the Jewish understanding of their own scriptures, LF.

 

Rabbi Toviah Singer makes clear here... https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/

 

'Our' is a majestic plural, like the royal 'we', used by kings and queens.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

https://yhwhechad.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/elohim-and-the-majestic-plural/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I knew that would come up. Tbh, it feels like a bullshit excuse, like how some Christians claim that "hate" really means "love less" in certain passages.

 

There is more than one indication of a non-monotheistic origin in the OT. While I think it could be interesting to look at the traditional Jewish interpretation in some cases, as a contrast to the Christian one, their religion is just as false and deserving of scrutiny. Who cares what they think?

 

I'm not a hebrew scholar, but as far as I know, the "im"-suffix is a generic plural marker. It's rather telling that Elohim shows up frequently in the early parts of the OT, especially Genesis, getting supplanted by YHWH later on.

 

 

Ummm... what is it that you think the majestic plural, used by the Jews, is excusing, rjn?

 

I cited this info, not to legitimize the Judaism, but to show that Christians are wrong to use 'our' and 'us' as a justification for the Trinity appearing in Genesis.

 

As you know from other threads, I've asserted that the Bible fails at Genesis 1 : 1, because that verse cannot be reconciled with our scientific observations.

 

Therefore, if my assertion is valid, both Judaism and Christianity are falsified.

 

So if I were upholding Judaism here but tearing it down in another thread, I wouldn't be very consistent, would I?

 

 

Yes, Christians are wrong about their assertions regarding Elohim and the Trinity (I still don't get where that concept hails from btw), but I still think there are indications of polytheistic roots in the OT/Tanakh, the plural form "Elohim" being one of them. And while we're at it: even though I'm genuinely interested in the natural sciences, and at least tries to be scientifically oriented in my way of thinking (even though I am very much a layman), I still think your argumentation is all too simplistic. As I see it, you reduce Christianity to nothing more than a childish alternative to the scientific method, disregarding the philosophical, cultural and emotional implications such a belief system carries with it. Most Christians do not base their beliefs on Gen 1:1.

 

 

Agree, rjn. Most Christians don't base their beliefs on Gen 1 : 1.  

 

But the argument I'm employing is really just an extension of one that's been well-used to refute Christian Young Earth Creationists.  

The YEC's assert by faith that the Biblical timeline is true history and that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old.  But there's ample evidence from geology, physics, astronomy and genetics that this is not so.  These different branches of science agree that the universe is billions of years old and there's mountains of evidence to support what they say.  Thus, this evidence falsifies the creationist's beliefs.  The fact that the YEC's won't accept the evidence doesn't invalidate it or the scientific method that was used to obtain it.  

 

So, are we agreed that evidence falsifies belief, rjn?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[rjn]

LF, good point. Yes, the willingness among many (perhaps most?) contemporary Christians to accept scientific explanations (and consequently regard the Genesis account, among others, as largely symbolic) is probably the result of, as you imply, well... science. That process was indeed a long and slow one, but in truth, that was most likely due to the Church's unwillingness to let go of their monopoly on what was regarded as truth. Remember, a couple of hundred years ago, being a Christian was the default, but it was just as much a cultural thing as it was a religious one. People didn't choose to be Christian in the 17th century, they simply were. They were probably not as thick and stubborn as we might believe today. American style evangelical fundamentalism is a fairly modern phenomenon.

 

BAA, in so far that the belief relies on something that is falsifiable; yes.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

BAA, in so far that the belief relies on something that is falsifiable; yes.

 

Agree, rjn.  Where a claim can be falsified by evidence, all well and good.  Also, evidence isn't confined to science or scientific matters, either.  Historical evidence will do quite nicely, thank you very much.

.

.

.

A good example of an easily falsifiable religious claim is the literal acceptance by some Seventh Day Adventists of the visions of their prophet, Ellen G. White.

 

https://www.adventist.org/en/beliefs/church/the-gift-of-prophecy/

 

One of her prophetic claims was that the planet Jupiter was inhabited by... "tall, magnificent people who were untainted by sin".  (No, seriously.  This truth came to her via the Holy Spirit.)  So, the evidence that Jupiter has no solid surface on which they can dwell must be denied.  The toxic atmosphere they would have to breathe, must be denied.  The lethal levels of radiation they that would kill them in minutes, must be denied.  Or there's the reasonable and sensible approach. Accept the evidence and reject the faith.

 

Firm Facts Falsify False Faith!

[rjn]

Holy shit, 7th Day Adventists are that nutty? I honestly thought they were among the slightly saner fundies.

[bornagainathiest]

Holy shit, 7th Day Adventists are that nutty? I honestly thought they were among the slightly saner fundies.

 

Fraid so, rjn.  

 

This site makes the same argument I did.  http://www.nonegw.org/criticb.shtml

 

But this official SDA site tries to get Ellen White off the hook by pointing out that she never formally identified the planets she saw in her 1847 vision as being Jupiter and Saturn.  http://ellenwhite.org/content/file/are-there-people-jupiter#document

 

Catch is, the official story falls flat, when you consider the dates involved.

She had the vision in 1847 and lived until 1915.  So, why was she content to let Bates' identification be written down by her husband James as true, if she didn't actually know the identity of the planets she was seeing in her vision?  She had six decades in which to put that matter right and never did so.  This only became a contentious matter after our space probes and telescopes told us that people couldn't possibly live on either planet, in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

Hmm... something smells rotten in the state of SDAland!

[LogicalFallacy]

BAA, what gets me, in relation  to your comments about YEC, is that any, and I mean any little something not quite explained by science is brought up as either proof that science is wrong, or proof of God.

 

Get this, I was listening to a creationists arguments against evolution. Most were standard thoughtless drivel that I can debunk in my sleep - and I haven't studies evolution. His last point however I had never heard, but the reasoning behind it was so asinine that I'm surprised he didn't embarrass himself into silence. The marvelous proof against evolution was Mercury. Why? Because Mercury has a weak magnetic field therefore likely a molten core, but according to scientists (some time ago) it should have had a solid core due to its small size and eons of time passing. But it doesn't. Evidence shows it has a small molten core, or at least partially molten. So here's the YEC reasoning: 1) Mercury has molten core, 2) scientists are surprised because the age should mean solid core. 3) Therefore evolution is false because an old solar system has been disproved. That is their thinking! I'm not a scientist (far from it) but I managed to ask myself some questions as to why this might be, what reason is there for a supposedly old small planet still having a molten core? Turns out I was pretty close to the questions, and possible answers scientists have come up with. The favorite seems to be a planetary collision later on.

 

At no point was there an acknowledgement from the YEC that this was science working at its best. Evidence popped up that did not fit current understanding. But instead of throwing out the evidence and keeping a false understanding, scientist are trying to understand what the evidence means.  

 

Firm Facts Falsify False Faith!

That is awesome. the 5 F's of science

 

 

Holy shit, 7th Day Adventists are that nutty? I honestly thought they were among the slightly saner fundies.

Oh boy, and that's just scratching the surface with Ellen White mate. You want to read her commentary on the mixing of man and beasts. (A la Genesis 6:4)

[sdelsolray]

The brain is wired (i.e., makes billions of neural connections) during childhood.  That wiring, in large part, depends on the environment to which the individual is exposed.  Childhood religious indoctrination can part of that environment, or not. The young brains of individuals raised with significant exposure to religious indoctrination are wired differently than the young brains of individuals significantly exposed to critical thinking.

[LogicalFallacy]

So what of those of us who were heavily indoctrinated, but managed to critically think our way out of religion?

 

Are there overrides to early brain development? E.g. naturally curious, etc. What causes one person to break free after studying the evidence (me), and another person (my father) to reinforce deeper when exposed to evidence? There must be some function. Or is it simply two brains looking at the same info and coming to different conclusions?

[rjn]

So what of those of us who were heavily indoctrinated, but managed to critically think our way out of religion?

 

Are there overrides to early brain development? E.g. naturally curious, etc. What causes one person to break free after studying the evidence (me), and another person (my father) to reinforce deeper when exposed to evidence? There must be some function. Or is it simply two brains looking at the same info and coming to different conclusions?

 

AFAIK, the brain is subject to a certain degree of plasticity, but it "solidifies" more and more as we grow older. That's the neurological way of looking at it anyway, but there are other explanations as well: social, cultural, psychological. Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks, but it sure ain't easy.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, what gets me, in relation  to your comments about YEC, is that any, and I mean any little something not quite explained by science is brought up as either proof that science is wrong, or proof of God.

 

Get this, I was listening to a creationists arguments against evolution. Most were standard thoughtless drivel that I can debunk in my sleep - and I haven't studies evolution. His last point however I had never heard, but the reasoning behind it was so asinine that I'm surprised he didn't embarrass himself into silence. The marvelous proof against evolution was Mercury. Why? Because Mercury has a weak magnetic field therefore likely a molten core, but according to scientists (some time ago) it should have had a solid core due to its small size and eons of time passing. But it doesn't. Evidence shows it has a small molten core, or at least partially molten. So here's the YEC reasoning: 1) Mercury has molten core, 2) scientists are surprised because the age should mean solid core. 3) Therefore evolution is false because an old solar system has been disproved. That is their thinking! I'm not a scientist (far from it) but I managed to ask myself some questions as to why this might be, what reason is there for a supposedly old small planet still having a molten core? Turns out I was pretty close to the questions, and possible answers scientists have come up with. The favorite seems to be a planetary collision later on.

 

At no point was there an acknowledgement from the YEC that this was science working at its best. Evidence popped up that did not fit current understanding. But instead of throwing out the evidence and keeping a false understanding, scientist are trying to understand what the evidence means.  

 

 

 

Well LF,

 

I'm afraid this brand of nonsense is what you get when you...

 

A.  Don't understand how science works. (Observational science never proves anything.  The only proofs in science are in math.)

 

and...

 

B.  Begin with the result you want (the YEC Biblical timescale) and use the incompleteness of science to "prove" the Bible true.

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Well LF,

 

I'm afraid this brand of nonsense is what you get when you...

 

A.  Don't understand how science works. (Observational science never proves anything.  The only proofs in science are in math.)

 

and...

 

B.  Begin with the result you want (the YEC Biblical timescale) and use the incompleteness of science to "prove" the Bible true.

 

 

Yep. Actually I was reading that the only reason evolution was not a scientific law (Law is pretty much proved correct?)is because biology is not able to be proved mathematically. If you could write an equation for evolution it would probably be a law. That's why we have the law of gravity, and law of thermodynamics to my understanding.

 

Answers in Genesis mission statement:

 

Goal

To support the church in fulfilling its commission

 

Vision

Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.

 

Mission

We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.

We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.

We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

Core Values

We resourcefully equip believers to defend their faith with excellence.

We willingly engage society's challenges with uncompromising integrity.

We sacrificially serve the AiG family and others.

We generously give Christian love.

 

They criticize scientists for having a worldview yet have this as their mission statement. Their truth is already decided. Why do they even both saying that they are searching for the truth?

[sdelsolray]

So what of those of us who were heavily indoctrinated, but managed to critically think our way out of religion?

 

Are there overrides to early brain development? E.g. naturally curious, etc. What causes one person to break free after studying the evidence (me), and another person (my father) to reinforce deeper when exposed to evidence? There must be some function. Or is it simply two brains looking at the same info and coming to different conclusions?

 

 

Take a look at many deconverted folks around here.  They often speak of the significant time it took them to make noticeable change, the conscious effort and hard work they had to put in to confront and battle the indoctrination and the reoccurrence of many aspects of religious indoctrination as they live forward.  This is evidence of the childhood neural wiring of their brains in a certain way and their efforts to change that.

 

As to why some people overcome the indoctrination (like you) and others do not (like your father), I suspect it is at least a matter of choice/will/direction.  Wiring the rational thinking parts of the brain to work well can certainly be done as an adult.  Religious indoctrination really doesn't do much to that part of the brain.  It lies dormant and it can atrophy.  Allowing the limbic system of the brain (i.e., emotions) to control more than it should is likely your father's chosen path.