Problems with Genesis

Okay, so I was listening to the comedian David Cross and he brought up some good points that I thought I would post here to see how the ATS'ers defend.

1) God, the allpowerful entity that he is creates the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rests. God gets tired?! So apparently if God needs to rest then he's not all omnipotent.

2) So he creates the entire Earth, from North to South Pole, everything, this huge place, and decides to put ONE guy here. God checks in a little bit later and realizes that Adam's lonely. What did he think? Adam could talk to the sparrow forever? Apparently God's not omniscient either.

So what are your thoughts on these?

And please let's keep this tame.

Nobody? Nobody has anything?

Wow, I was expecting some people to have SOME explanation.

Well, there you go folks, Christianity and the existence of God has just been proved false because some comedian made 2 jokes.

Well the major flaw with this logic lies in the use of the word omniscient. Omniscient means all knowing. Because he rested he wasn't all knowing? Not the greatest justification in my mind.

Don't get me wrong I think christianity is a scam but I don't think either of those two points are a great starting point for a good thread.

reply to post by flyingwoody


resting might have been taking as to literal

what if at that point he just stood and look on at his work but not taking any action, just looking at all the things that were done and created

who knows maybe this is where evolution starting going and he sat back and watched, and therefore people wrote it down as resting

A great leader reflects at the end of every day so that he can do better the next day. Perhaps God was fine tuning the little things.

"Oh dear that fluorescent pink chameleon doesn't stand a chance. I KNOW! I'll let him be whatever colour he wants!"

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I guess you missed it but this thread wasn't meant to offend. I feel that he brought up good points and I would like to see the defense against these points.

reply to post by Scurvy


Actually, the omniscient argument was from him not realizing that Adam would be lonely and he should create more than one person for the entire world. I can agree with your statement about sitting back and thinking of how to fine tune things. That makes sense to me.

And as for the resting might be taken to literally thing, I can see where you're coming from MurderCityDevil.

I'm just interested in hearing some explanations for these. I've heard some but would still like to hear some more. For Curiositys sake.

reply to post by flyingwoody


well opinion or explanations are all that youll get, subjectivity

noone but god can understand god or what and how things are done

Originally posted by flyingwoody

Okay, so I was listening to the comedian David Cross and he brought up some good points that I thought I would post here to see how the ATS'ers defend.

1) God, the allpowerful entity that he is creates the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rests. God gets tired?! So apparently if God needs to rest then he's not all omnipotent.

2) So he creates the entire Earth, from North to South Pole, everything, this huge place, and decides to put ONE guy here. God checks in a little bit later and realizes that Adam's lonely. What did he think? Adam could talk to the sparrow forever? Apparently God's not omniscient either.

So what are your thoughts on these?

And please let's keep this tame.

There is nothing to defend.

David Cross's mistake is one of method.

There are competing methods that are used for interpretation of anything identified as scripture, whether it be the bible, the Koran, or the Zodiac.

The method which David Cross used to draw his interpretation, that the idea of God resting is in effect the same in manner and characteristic as that of a person resting, is one that only recognizes and allows for physical means to be employed by an individual in an effort to determine meaning.

There are other methods for interpreting scripture that recognize and allow for both physical and spiritual means to be employed by an individual seeking meaning.

But you are not interested in finding meaning in the bible, are you?

I think your thread is more about finding fault, or at least you thinking you have found a fault.

Plus I am sure you wouldn't mind a little more controversy either.

Just figured I would add my thoughts, maybe they will give you more material to find fault with.

reply to post by newday


hey newday, think of this

what was god doing preternity before making the heavens and their hosts and all the worlds?


its stuff like that this that makes my brain shrink

there is no way our puny minds can grasp such a thing

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil

hey newday, think of this

what was god doing preternity before making the heavens and their hosts and all the worlds?


its stuff like that this that makes my brain shrink

there is no way our puny minds can grasp such a thing

There are lots of things our puny dead gray matter brains will never be able to grasp.

We are looking in a mirror with some real dim lighting for sure.

It is possible to maintain and have a healthy attitude about God and the things of God, we don't have to go all fundamental psycho like so many religious zealots everywhere have.

But if you think about it, there really is little difference in effect, between those who don't know anything about spiritual matters, and those who think they know it all.

Personally I am an unlearned and ignorant person, without the spirit of God I would be hapless.




[edit on 6-8-2008 by newday]

I would like to clear something up with this thread. I am in no way trying to offend. I am just interested in hearing peoples opinions on the topic. Hopefully a diverse amount of opinions but this is no attack. I myself do not believe in god, I believe that Nature is "god", I am just looking for opinions in defense of the Bible.

For those of you who have contributed thus far, thank you.

reply to post by flyingwoody


i take everything with a grain of salt, we are all entitled to our own opinions and thus should be respected as so

David Cross makes jokes yet he's not funny. He must not be a comedian.

Most people who start threads like this are not really interested in the truth. They only want answers that justify the complaints they have against religion, Christianity in particular it seems. And some of us are really starting to get tired of it. I'm not accusing you, I'm just pointing out what has long been observed in these forums.

Anyways...let us look at the questions here.

I have long held the thought that ideas like "all knowing" and "all powerful" need to be understood differently. Most people are under the impression omnicient means that God knows everything in a supernatural, mindreading, intrusive x-ray vision sort of way. However, a more logical explanation would be that since he is the creator of the universe, it would go without saying that he knows more about it and the way it functions than anyone else would. Just like any inventor would know pretty much everything there is to know about his invention, so it is with God and his creation.

Now lets look at the idea of "all powerful" We know that God is a spirit-being. With that in mind, we can probably assume that God is embodied by energy and consciousness. But perhaps even God has things that he struggles with, like his on going battle with Satan. Or maybe he becomes emotionally drained from dealing with a rebellious and sinful humankind. If that is the case then he may sometimes need to recharge his energy by resting. But that would NOT negate him as the most powerful and eternal being in the universe. What I'm trying to say is simply this, what we think of as "all powerful" could probably be better understood in today's terms as "most powerful"

I'm not saying that I'm right about any of this. But I've wondered about these same things as well and this is just what I came up with while speculating. Please do not take it as gospel.

reply to post by Lightmare


I assure you, that is not what I am trying to do.

As for your explanations, I think they make a lot of sense. Thank you for the logical response without the flammatory remarks that some give. I'm not saying everyone replying to this has done so in anger, in fact the majority haven't, but there are still a few.

So thank you all, feel free to keep posting in here but I'm not sure how often I'll check back in. I lose interest in a thread after a couple of days

reply to post by flyingwoody
Alright, I'll take the bait.

1) God, the allpowerful entity that he is creates the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rests. God gets tired?! So apparently if God needs to rest then he's not all omnipotent.

2) So he creates the entire Earth, from North to South Pole, everything, this huge place, and decides to put ONE guy here. God checks in a little bit later and realizes that Adam's lonely. What did he think? Adam could talk to the sparrow forever? Apparently God's not omniscient either.

So what are your thoughts on these?

1. The comedian assumes God rested because he was tired. Then follows his assumption to then decide that this means God isn't omnipotent. He is confining God to human reasoning. Meaning this: just because we as humans correlate "rest" with being tired doesn't by default mean that God is human, or that God gets tired in our sense of the word. It's faulty logic.

2. Just because God chose to create man and woman in the way he did doesn't mean by default that he isn't omniscient by default either. It just means he did it for a purpose he hasn't revealed. Too often humans get the idea that God's wisdom is limited to human understanding. Just because his ways are mysterious to us doesn't automatically mean that they are foolish.

Myth v. Science...

First you have to understand that there are (2) separate Creation Myths in Beresh-it (Book of Genesis)--which contradict each other on several points (e.g. content and order of creation etc.) something most people who read their Bibles in English or any other language than unpointed PaleoHebrew very rarely notice and Church and Synagogue leaders DON'T WANT TO POINT OUT TO THEIR FLOCKS of SHEEPLE !

The First Myth of Creation (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a) was compiled under Babylonian influence (with tonnes of Babylonian loan words like Tehom for Watery Chaos from the Babylonian goddess of Watery Chaos Tiamat etc.) by exilic priests --the same group that later compiled the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Hezekiel (c. BC 630 to c. BC 560) using the same grammar, syntax, worldview, spelling, vocabulary, repetitive cultic phraseology & sentence length etc.) which was also compiled after the Babylonian Exile (BC 587 to c. BC 531) with similar Babylonian loan words. 'Moses' had nothing to do with Genesis chapter 1 linguistically speaking--and language betrays origins !

In the first Creation Myth (nicknamed P Creation, after 'Priestly Writer') Male and Female are created together (NO Adam and Hayyah/Eve or Ribs etc.) in the image of 'Elohim' ('gods') , the name given to the Creator by the P writer until Exodus Chapter 3 where the name changes to YHWH ( 'after the likeness of Elohim, male and female created he them').

The First Myth differs in content and in language, syntax, style, vocbulary, world view, sentence length, style, grammar etc.) from the 2nd Creation Myth (Gen 2:4b to the end of Chapter 4).

The ORDER of Creation in the first Creation Myth is also VERY different from the 2nd Myth--set out in yomim or 'days'-- and not in a very scientific order with stars being created AFTER vegetation----so much for photosynthesis !!

And purely scientifically speaking, there is no Firmament above the Waters either in modern Science...the Sky around the earth is blue for other reasons than there is some mythical water above a mythical dome around a mythical flat earth placed in the center of a mythical universe.

Why necessarily a 'flat earth' is posited in the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis, you ask? because the word DOME pre-supposes a shape 'round at the top and flat at the bottom' ---that is what a Req'iak is.

Here is the order in the P Myth:

Separation of Light from primordial darkness
Separation of earth from the Dome (Heb. Re'qiak = 'bowl') out of chaos
Creation of Vegetation, Herbs, Grass and Trees etc.
Creation of Sun and the Moon
Creation of Stars
Creation of Fish and Birds
Creation of Creeping Things
Creation of Animals
Creation of Male and Female together 'in the image of Elohim' which means Elohim is also male and female (see Gen 5:1-2)

In the 2nd Myth Adam has no 6 days of creation and a day of rest et. but man is created out of mud from a mist that 'YHWH' (the later name of the clan god of post-Exilic Israel) causes to 'rise from the ground' and later 'breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and man becomes a living Nephesh ('breather') and plants a garden for 'the man to tend'.

Then the Animals are created from mud like the man was 'formed' like pottery (where the verb here is not 'bara' = lit. 'created from nothing' as we see in Myth #1), and brough to him for procreation, 'but no wife was found for him' among the animals--although Adam (lit. Mud) gives a name to each one, thereby exercising authority-power over them.

Then comes the Magical Rib Story where 'YHWH caused a deep coma to fall upon Adam and he removed one of his ribs and created Hayaa' (singular of Hayyim, =life, lit. (lives') and the prohibition against eating fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad' - not an apple but any fruit--maybe it was a Banana !! (The apple idea came from the later Latin version by Jerome in 350AD where the word Mala ('apple') also means BAD WOMAN in Latin)

Originally posted by flyingwoody
Okay, so I was listening to the comedian David Cross and he brought up some good points that I thought I would post here to see how the ATS'ers defend.

1) God, the allpowerful entity that he is creates the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rests. God gets tired?! So apparently if God needs to rest then he's not all omnipotent.

See, this is why you don't assume. Just because some DOES rest, doesn't mean that they HAVE to rest. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". God set the example for man, that he should work six days, and rest for one.

2) So he creates the entire Earth, from North to South Pole, everything, this huge place, and decides to put ONE guy here. God checks in a little bit later and realizes that Adam's lonely. What did he think? Adam could talk to the sparrow forever? Apparently God's not omniscient either.

Perhaps he wanted Adam to see that God would see to his needs. An actual demonstration of a promise that God would take care of him, and not leave him wanting for anything. In other words, it was a very literal showing that if Adam had any need, God would directly provide for it.