god is a moron - genesis

[abaris]

oh, and if you read revelation God is described as being or radiating pure light

So why did he need to create some?

[Mudhammam]

A few thoughts:

The separate creation myths of Genesis 1 and 2 are probably reflective of two different traditions that were incorporated into Jewish theology, each evolving to possess their own significance. For example, one may have been viewed as the creation of mankind in general, while the other specifically related the original progenitors of the Hebrews. Philo of Alexandria, for example, considered Genesis 1 to represent the creation of the Platonic Ideas whereas Genesis 2 related their manifestation into a multiplicity of material objects. He also ascribed to an allegorical interpretation of the seven days by reading Pythagorean number theory into them.

That's not to say that there haven't always been literalists who mistake the symbolism of the myth for (un)factual description, but that is a deeply impoverished reading of the text that misses the philosophical or theological ideas concealed beneath the surface, in much the same way that underlying Plato's Timaeus or Ovid's Metamorphoses are a wealth of possible metaphysical or moral considerations to explore.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

A few thoughts:

The separate creation myths of Genesis 1 and 2 are probably reflective of two different traditions that were incorporated into Jewish theology, each evolving to possess their own significance. For example, one may have been viewed as the creation of mankind in general, while the other specifically related the original progenitors of the Hebrews. Philo of Alexandria, for example, considered Genesis 1 to represent the creation of the Platonic Ideas whereas Genesis 2 related their manifestation into a multiplicity of material objects. He also ascribed to an allegorical interpretation of the seven days by reading Pythagorean number theory into them.

That's not to say that there haven't always been literalists who mistake the symbolism of the myth for (un)factual description, but that is a deeply impoverished reading of the text that misses the philosophical or theological ideas concealed beneath the surface, in much the same way that underlying Plato's Timaeus or Ovid's Metamorphoses are a wealth of possible metaphysical or moral considerations to explore.

Philo of Alexandria didn't know squat about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 because they didn't exist when he was supposedly alive.  The books weren't divided into chapters until 1382.

[Mudhammam]

A few thoughts:

The separate creation myths of Genesis 1 and 2 are probably reflective of two different traditions that were incorporated into Jewish theology, each evolving to possess their own significance. For example, one may have been viewed as the creation of mankind in general, while the other specifically related the original progenitors of the Hebrews. Philo of Alexandria, for example, considered Genesis 1 to represent the creation of the Platonic Ideas whereas Genesis 2 related their manifestation into a multiplicity of material objects. He also ascribed to an allegorical interpretation of the seven days by reading Pythagorean number theory into them.

That's not to say that there haven't always been literalists who mistake the symbolism of the myth for (un)factual description, but that is a deeply impoverished reading of the text that misses the philosophical or theological ideas concealed beneath the surface, in much the same way that underlying Plato's Timaeus or Ovid's Metamorphoses are a wealth of possible metaphysical or moral considerations to explore.

Philo of Alexandria didn't know squat about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 because they didn't exist when he was supposedly alive.  The books weren't divided into chapters until 1382.

In the first place therefore, from the model of the world, perceptible only by intellect, the Creator made an incorporeal heaven, and an invisible earth, and the form of air and of empty space: the former of which he called darkness, because the air is black by nature; and the other he called the abyss, for empty space is very deep and yawning with immense width. Then he created the incorporeal substance of water and of air, and above all he spread light, being the seventh thing made; and this again was incorporeal, and a model of the sun, perceptible only to intellect, and of all the light giving stars, which are destined to stand together in heaven... the incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it... After this, Moses says that "God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life." And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God. For man as formed now is perceptible to the external senses, partaking of qualities, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. But man, made according to the image of God, was an idea, or a genus, or a seal, perceptible only by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, imperishable by nature. But he asserts that the formation of the individual man, perceptible by the external senses is a composition of earthy substance, and divine spirit. For that the body was created by the Creator taking a lump of clay, and fashioning the human form out of it; but that the soul proceeds from no created thing at all, but from the Father and Ruler of all things. For when he uses the expression, "he breathed into," etc., he means nothing else than the divine spirit proceeding form that happy and blessed nature, sent to take up its habitation here on earth, for the advantage of our race, in order that, even if man is mortal according to that portion of him which is visible, he may at all events be immortal according to that portion which is invisible; and for this reason, one may properly say that man is on the boundaries of a better and an immortal nature, partaking of each as far as it is necessary for him; and that he was born at the same time, both mortal and the immortal. Mortal as to his body, but immortal as to his intellect.

That's from Philo's On the Creation. He also wrote three treatises called Allegorical Interpretation (I-III) and three Questions and Answers on Genesis, which, if you want to understand his attempt to combine Plato and Moses into his philosophical system, can be read, along with his other writings, here: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

With regards to the fact that chapters and verses weren't inserted into the texts until centuries later, that doesn't mean "Philo of Alexandria didn't know squat about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2." But I'm sure you'll find a way to get tangled in your special form of stupidity as you usually do.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Philo of Alexandria didn't know squat about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 because they didn't exist when he was supposedly alive.  The books weren't divided into chapters until 1382.

In the first place therefore, from the model of the world, perceptible only by intellect, the Creator made an incorporeal heaven, and an invisible earth, and the form of air and of empty space: the former of which he called darkness, because the air is black by nature; and the other he called the abyss, for empty space is very deep and yawning with immense width. Then he created the incorporeal substance of water and of air, and above all he spread light, being the seventh thing made; and this again was incorporeal, and a model of the sun, perceptible only to intellect, and of all the light giving stars, which are destined to stand together in heaven... the incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it... After this, Moses says that "God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life." And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God. For man as formed now is perceptible to the external senses, partaking of qualities, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. But man, made according to the image of God, was an idea, or a genus, or a seal, perceptible only by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, imperishable by nature. But he asserts that the formation of the individual man, perceptible by the external senses is a composition of earthy substance, and divine spirit. For that the body was created by the Creator taking a lump of clay, and fashioning the human form out of it; but that the soul proceeds from no created thing at all, but from the Father and Ruler of all things. For when he uses the expression, "he breathed into," etc., he means nothing else than the divine spirit proceeding form that happy and blessed nature, sent to take up its habitation here on earth, for the advantage of our race, in order that, even if man is mortal according to that portion of him which is visible, he may at all events be immortal according to that portion which is invisible; and for this reason, one may properly say that man is on the boundaries of a better and an immortal nature, partaking of each as far as it is necessary for him; and that he was born at the same time, both mortal and the immortal. Mortal as to his body, but immortal as to his intellect.

---

That's from Philo's On the Creation. He also wrote three treatises called Allegorical Interpretation (I-III) and three Questions and Answers on Genesis, which, if you want to understand his attempt to combine Plato and Moses into his philosophical system, can be read, along with his other writings, here: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

With regards to the fact that chapters and verses weren't inserted into the texts until centuries later, that doesn't mean "Philo of Alexandria didn't know squat about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2." But I'm sure you'll find a way to get tangled in your special form of stupidity as you usually do.

So you think old Philo wrote in English using modern words and punctuation.  You are one gullible fellow.

BTW, while the Jesus character quoted Isaiah he never mentioned Genesis.  Being God and all you would think he would have known the Genesis story like old Philo did.

[Mudhammam]

So you think old Philo wrote in English using modern words and punctuation.  You are one gullible fellow.

Jesus, man, are you just trolling? Are you uneducated? Do you know what the fuck a "translation" is?

[robvalue]

A few thoughts:

The separate creation myths of Genesis 1 and 2 are probably reflective of two different traditions that were incorporated into Jewish theology, each evolving to possess their own significance. For example, one may have been viewed as the creation of mankind in general, while the other specifically related the original progenitors of the Hebrews. Philo of Alexandria, for example, considered Genesis 1 to represent the creation of the Platonic Ideas whereas Genesis 2 related their manifestation into a multiplicity of material objects. He also ascribed to an allegorical interpretation of the seven days by reading Pythagorean number theory into them.

That's not to say that there haven't always been literalists who mistake the symbolism of the myth for (un)factual description, but that is a deeply impoverished reading of the text that misses the philosophical or theological ideas concealed beneath the surface, in much the same way that underlying Plato's Timaeus or Ovid's Metamorphoses are a wealth of possible metaphysical or moral considerations to explore.

This made me think that Christians may well miss out on certain aspects of the bible. Because they have to take it somewhat seriously, they are much less likely to actually consider the source of the myths, why we have more than one account of some things and so on. While pretending it is fully coherent and original, they will fail to appreciate the real history of the book in the way an objective reader can.

That's rather a sad thought

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So you think old Philo wrote in English using modern words and punctuation.  You are one gullible fellow.

Jesus, man, are you just trolling? Are you uneducated? Do you know what the fuck a "translation" is?

The problem with your BS translation is that the writer is using a word and concept that wasn't in existence to sell his fairy tale to stupid people, such as you.  So when are you going to produce original documents instead of BS some con man fabricated in the 1940s?  The answer is never because those documents simply don't exist.  Now get busy and produce them for our review and analysis.  The con man had to use the word "judgment" in his fairy tale so that he could use the "J" for Jesus.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seriously?

you didn't read the posted article did you? Light is independent of the sun. Light goes well beyond the visual spectrum. (meaning no sun needed to produce or/source light) I thought you guys were 'thinkers' were all 'science up.' Seems to me you are no better than those who mocked what they full don't comprehend, you just assume you are in a position of knowledge rather than click on a link to confirm it or deny it.

the 'rubber band' is well intact.

Ha HA! I get it. you think that the whole electromagnetic spectrum is light, right? Ha Ha!
That is a chart of Frequency. X-ray and Gamma rays are not light, they don't include photons..

Light has to have a source to start from and a direction to go to. So tell us what frequency this "unsourced" light would have? What period did it have?

How embarrassing for him.

[John V]

day 1 - Creates the heavens and the earth.

day 2 -  he couldn't see a god damned thing creates light and dark also created the moon. (didn't create a source of light till day 4, if god was so smart he would have created the sun)

day 3 - creates vegetation (again no light source and no insects and bees to pollinate said vegetation)

day 4 - finally creates the god damned sun 

If you want to leave some of god's fuck ups please do this will be a educational thing for theists on the website.

Why can't an omnipotent god have light without the sun, or vegetation without insects?

Actually that third one is a pretty good fine-tuning argument for ID.