Of course Genesis is the story of the birth of a religious group in antiquity and has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or the "first man and woman" or anything like that.
Genesis 1 gives exactly five reports of God naming things. These five namings seem to be of: 1. the thermally regulative day/night cycle ('day' and 'night', v. 5); 2. the thermally regulative atmosphere ('shamayim', v. 8); 3. the land/sea surface thermal exchange system ('earth' and 'seas', v. 10). Humans do not live Cluelessly 'Physics'-Centric lives, in Star Trek like space ships, randomly and ignorantly wandering the mere stellar 'cosmos'. Rather, humans experience the water-rich Earth under the stellar cosmos. Consequently, humans' most normal perception of Genesis 1:1-8 is in terms of their everyday cosmological experience. Genesis 1:1-8 confirms this terrestrial bias. Thus, the term 'the heaven' in v. 1 confirms the family of stars, Sun, and Moon, 'above'. And the term 'the Earth' in v. 1 confirms the human sense of cosmic locality. Verse 2, therefore, confirms the human need for water. And, v. 3-5 confirms their need for a day-night cycle. That cycle is the Earth's own 'engine' for the water cycle, with the 'fuel' from the Sun (vs. 3-10). That 'fuel' is good (v. 3) for the Earth's physical system of life support, which is mediated by the atmosphere (vs. 6-8). And, that system is good (v. 10) for biological life (vv. 11-12, 20-30). 1. the general cosmos and its 'masculine' relation to its special, 'feminine' Earth (Genesis 1:1) 2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (v. 2) 3. that water, in general, and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (v. 3-10) 4. The water cycle, in general, and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12) 5. biology, in general, and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-25) 6. Animal biology, in general, and its special category, human (vs. 26-28) 7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:7-25).
There is no better way to diminish Genesis than by attributing physically impossible stuff to it. Of course there is no voice in the sky there is only a religious figure saying stuff that he is attributing to "God".@@markpaladiy5748
None? Consider: Genesis 1 gives exactly five reports of God naming things. These five namings seem to be of: 1. the thermally regulative day/night cycle ('day' and 'night', v. 5); 2. the thermally regulative atmosphere ('shamayim', v. 8); 3. the land/sea surface thermal exchange system ('earth' and 'seas', v. 10). Humans do not live Cluelessly 'Physics'-Centric lives, in Star Trek like space ships, randomly and ignorantly wandering the mere stellar 'cosmos'. Rather, humans experience the water-rich Earth under the stellar cosmos. Consequently, humans' most normal perception of Genesis 1:1-8 is in terms of their everyday cosmological experience. Genesis 1:1-8 confirms this terrestrial bias. Thus, the term 'the heaven' in v. 1 confirms the family of stars, Sun, and Moon, 'above'. And the term 'the Earth' in v. 1 confirms the human sense of cosmic locality. Verse 2, therefore, confirms the human need for water. And, v. 3-5 confirms their need for a day-night cycle. That cycle is the Earth's own 'engine' for the water cycle, with the 'fuel' from the Sun (vs. 3-10). That 'fuel' is good (v. 3) for the Earth's physical system of life support, which is mediated by the atmosphere (vs. 6-8). And, that system is good (v. 10) for biological life (vv. 11-12, 20-30). 1. the general cosmos and its 'masculine' relation to its special, 'feminine' Earth (Genesis 1:1) 2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (v. 2) 3. that water, in general, and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (v. 3-10) 4. The water cycle, in general, and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12) 5. biology, in general, and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-25) 6. Animal biology, in general, and its special category, human (vs. 26-28) 7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:7-25).
@@markpaladiy5748 again exactly my point, pushing it even too far!🤣.. if i search for any connection for the story i would defiantly find one. i could even say multi verse is explained in the bible b/c genesis mention two accounts of some stories.. how can we prove this.? you can't. cos your starting from a conclusion to justify your story & look for meanings on where ever link you find. the very definition of pseudoscience.
You provide your opinion and nothing else. So I should say you give an opinion with an exaggerated voice to give weight to an empty opinion. I say it sincerely.
Long time! I love your great teachings and your website has helped me learn a lot. God bless you and your ministry
Of course Genesis is the story of the birth of a religious group in antiquity and has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or the "first man and woman" or anything like that.
Genesis 1 gives exactly five reports of God naming things. These five namings seem to be of:
1. the thermally regulative day/night cycle ('day' and 'night', v. 5);
2. the thermally regulative atmosphere ('shamayim', v. 8);
3. the land/sea surface thermal exchange system ('earth' and 'seas', v. 10).
Humans do not live Cluelessly 'Physics'-Centric lives, in Star Trek like space ships, randomly and ignorantly wandering the mere stellar 'cosmos'. Rather, humans experience the water-rich Earth under the stellar cosmos. Consequently, humans' most normal perception of Genesis 1:1-8 is in terms of their everyday cosmological experience. Genesis 1:1-8 confirms this terrestrial bias.
Thus, the term 'the heaven' in v. 1 confirms the family of stars, Sun, and Moon, 'above'. And the term 'the Earth' in v. 1 confirms the human sense of cosmic locality. Verse 2, therefore, confirms the human need for water. And, v. 3-5 confirms their need for a day-night cycle. That cycle is the Earth's own 'engine' for the water cycle, with the 'fuel' from the Sun (vs. 3-10). That 'fuel' is good (v. 3) for the Earth's physical system of life support, which is mediated by the atmosphere (vs. 6-8). And, that system is good (v. 10) for biological life (vv. 11-12, 20-30).
1. the general cosmos and its 'masculine' relation to its special, 'feminine' Earth (Genesis 1:1)
2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (v. 2)
3. that water, in general, and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (v. 3-10)
4. The water cycle, in general, and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12)
5. biology, in general, and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-25)
6. Animal biology, in general, and its special category, human (vs. 26-28)
7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:7-25).
There is no better way to diminish Genesis than by attributing physically impossible stuff to it. Of course there is no voice in the sky there is only a religious figure saying stuff that he is attributing to "God".@@markpaladiy5748
the most ridiculous explanation I ever heard. pushing the story too far too connect the genesis story to science, where there is none.
None? Consider:
Genesis 1 gives exactly five reports of God naming things. These five namings seem to be of:
1. the thermally regulative day/night cycle ('day' and 'night', v. 5);
2. the thermally regulative atmosphere ('shamayim', v. 8);
3. the land/sea surface thermal exchange system ('earth' and 'seas', v. 10).
Humans do not live Cluelessly 'Physics'-Centric lives, in Star Trek like space ships, randomly and ignorantly wandering the mere stellar 'cosmos'. Rather, humans experience the water-rich Earth under the stellar cosmos. Consequently, humans' most normal perception of Genesis 1:1-8 is in terms of their everyday cosmological experience. Genesis 1:1-8 confirms this terrestrial bias.
Thus, the term 'the heaven' in v. 1 confirms the family of stars, Sun, and Moon, 'above'. And the term 'the Earth' in v. 1 confirms the human sense of cosmic locality. Verse 2, therefore, confirms the human need for water. And, v. 3-5 confirms their need for a day-night cycle. That cycle is the Earth's own 'engine' for the water cycle, with the 'fuel' from the Sun (vs. 3-10). That 'fuel' is good (v. 3) for the Earth's physical system of life support, which is mediated by the atmosphere (vs. 6-8). And, that system is good (v. 10) for biological life (vv. 11-12, 20-30).
1. the general cosmos and its 'masculine' relation to its special, 'feminine' Earth (Genesis 1:1)
2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water (v. 2)
3. that water, in general, and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle (v. 3-10)
4. The water cycle, in general, and its special beneficiary and member, biology (vs. 11-12)
5. biology, in general, and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal) (vs. 20-25)
6. Animal biology, in general, and its special category, human (vs. 26-28)
7. The general man and the special woman (Genesis 2:7-25).
@@markpaladiy5748 again exactly my point, pushing it even too far!🤣.. if i search for any connection for the story i would defiantly find one. i could even say multi verse is explained in the bible b/c genesis mention two accounts of some stories.. how can we prove this.? you can't. cos your starting from a conclusion to justify your story & look for meanings on where ever link you find. the very definition of pseudoscience.
You provide your opinion and nothing else. So I should say you give an opinion with an exaggerated voice to give weight to an empty opinion. I say it sincerely.