Archive for the days of Creation Category

Questioning Bible Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, scriptures, theology on October 16, 2016 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” this or that and then this and that appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever he commanded magically appeared.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Although Earth seems to be God’s center of focus, not only was Earth thus conjured up but all of infinity was set in place in only seven “days.”  However, the authors of “revealed wisdom” never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two  differing Creation specifics  (Genesis l and/or 2) are to be considered most proper.  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  This is what some Bible fanatics (in the USA) insist must be taught in our schools!

In order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which were thus allegedly brought forth by God talking to himself, some form of regeneration also had to be put in place for the continuation of manifesting such diverse and varied handiwork.  That renewal system of each and everything created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follows specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Social cultures that preceded the “revealed  word” of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the revealed facts of Creation.  In that later timeframe the entire population of the world, which has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, the Creator was apparently interested only in enlightening a tiny percent of those humans in regard to his acts of Creation; and those “chosen” ones just happened to live around Jerusalem.  Oddly, God chose not to bother himself with any specifics, such as what went into his creative process—things like the chemical compounds and such which he utilized for manifesting everything and which continues the re-creation process. Again the authors and devotees of those revealed words counsel us not to question God ways.

Still, we can’t help but wonder.  Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet, as “revealed word” implies.  But that fact of our planet’s  chemical makeup, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation.  However, scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within only a few hundred million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earths‘s formation and simple life forms were already appearing ? It seems a case of too much too soon.  Ahh, but all that was just one “Day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were indeed present well over three billion years ago, and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin, some dimension of Creation seems to be overlooked.  Life on this planet seems to have arisen and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet. Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements (like nickel and chromium) would figure in the composition of any life forms that developed in that primeval stew (the “dust” in biblical vernacular)–if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course, they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the Chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have resulted.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code–and all life forms on Earth share this single genetic composition.  To those who idolize the biblical tales this genetic singularity can be easily brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commands as related in Genesis.

Long before the authors of sacred writ were around, some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts provided more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on primal Earth.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through our developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and that roving planet was defined with the name Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked by the succeeding Babylonians, and was the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk. This god is known in the Bible as Merodach (Jeremiah 50:1-2), who was credited by the Babylonians with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the inspiration for the god that the post-Sumerian story tellers in 8th century BCE Jerusalem referred to in Genesis as commanding the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from minuscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation?  Or was God simply playing a solo game of billiards those “days”?

 

 

 

 

s

Leave a comment »

Creation Truths vs. Religious Myths

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, logic, prehistory, religion, scriptures, theology on August 13, 2016 by chouck017894

The principal theme of literature that is distributed as sacred writ throughout the world is commonly in regard to the origin and interactions of energies which we perceive as the universe.  In the study of “holy” myths there is commonly a distinction made between Creation myths (elemental cosmology) and myths of origins, which focus more on the later evolved features within Creation such as animals, humans, social orders, etc.

Study of the origin of anything is properly only a continuation of Creation’s activity which marks the progress of the original creative energy outpouring.  And this continuation of Creation activity accounts for the progressive arrangement of scriptural myth presentations.  The mythic style is useful for instructing minds which are not fully capable of grasping the theoretical complexity and multidimensional characteristics which we speak of as Creation.  The technique of myth-telling and the use of sacred language was originally the attempt to bridge the abyss of comprehension by personifying creative energy dimensions and their involvement as being characteristics of god, demigods, heroes, and/or divinely favored mortal beings.

The tragedy of this means of instruction is that the original scientific understanding behind the stories easily became sidetracked and the accounts then became accepted as authentic reporting.  Even more dangerous for those whom the myths were invented to aid them comprehend primal energy actions, the stories were restructured as having been actual historic ancestors.  Once the bogus “history” technique for teaching became the standard our role within Creation became trapped in the dark theological maze that has no off-ramp by which one could return to rationality.

Creationists, those Bible-thumping fanatics incapable of abstract thought who insist that Creation took place literally in six 24 hour Earth-time days, remain oblivious to  pertinent clues provided within the tale itself.  The clues reveal that the Genesis version of Creation was based upon an older and broader understanding of the true involution/evolutionary development of primal energies-into-matter.  There is a telling peculiarity in the writing style of the Genesis account of Creation which is consistently disregarded by Creationist fanatics concerning the measurement method of those “days” of Creation.  It is perhaps too subtle for those incapable of abstract thought.  By verse 5 of the first chapter of Genesis, immediately after God created light, the account declares: “And God called the (initial) radiance Day, and the darkness (primal energy conditions) Night.  And the evening and the  morning were the first Day.”  Interestingly Day is emphasized by a capital D, and Night is similarly stressed with a capital N, and the emphasis is for a reason.

In man’s standard time measurement practice, a solar-centered day is not reasonably calculated or defined as being “the evening and the morning.”  Nonetheless, the “holy word” extremists happily ignore the fact that in the priest written sacred account Earth was not even conjured up until verse 10; so the first “Day” obviously is not supposed to be calculated from how our puny little planet would measure time.  This is the complex reckoning by which each “Day” of Creation is erroneously interpreted in scriptural terms, however.  Creation of the “firmament” is the subject in verse 6 (the second Day) and is accentuated by the division of “waters” within which. scientifically speaking, creative energies involve with specific frequencies.  Then in verse 8 the “firmament” itself was allegedly labeled “Heaven” by God.  With the establishment of the “firmament,” verse 8 sums it up, and again “…the evening and the morning were the second Day.”  The account is worded in this manner in an anxious attempt to convey to non-technical minds the understanding that everything that was/is made manifest out of a void (primordial or virginal) condition.

Creation’s primal energy dimensions of what we may here term quantum activity are not involvements of Creations’s energies that can be assessed in terms of solar-reckoned days. This period of Creation activity, defined in scriptures as “Days,” is often circumvented by literal minded faith merchants by referring to the immeasurable time of Creation activity as “days of the Lord.”  That elusive attempt to sidestep explanation of the immense progressive phases of Creation’s energy involvements and expansion into defined forms necessitated the familiar day/night sequence they personally experience.  Thus the Days of Creation–or each primordial energy dimension of involvement (or involution)–which progresses out of a virginal void–was  conveyed in allegorical style and presented as “holy word.”

But what did the priest-authors mean in verse 8 by a “firmament” being established?  The Hebrew word which is translated as “firmament” is rakia, which actually means a vast expanse–or what we think of as space.  The word “firmament” is traceable back to the Latin word firmare, which happened to mean something that supported or strengthened something (from Latin firmus, “firm”).  And thus was holy word rendered into a stew pot of mismatched ingredients.

The priest authors of “holy word” were intent upon obtaining and maintaining their control over the tribal setup (Hebrew) and in order to this they had to mask what they did not know. Thus did they assert that a strangely human-like God labored six days over Creation.  This has served western cultures as “holy revelation” for around three thousand years, during which many bright youngsters have innocently asked, “But where did God come from?” The common response to that childish rationality has been, “We must never question God.”  Unfortunately, by adulthood too many formerly bright kids have been thoroughly brainwashed and their inclinations to question such things are directed to the No-No list.  And the trusting believers now committed to the literal presentation of “holy word” are understandably traumatized when their taught assumptions are challenged by archaeological research that uncovers evidence of a totally different picture of true history.

 

 

Leave a comment »