A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis

[wavy]

Well, yes to an extent it is not all chronological, as Jeff Benner shows, but the extent that he shows this is up to verse 5. The rest of the days be shows have proper Hebrew designations for first, second, third, etc. ANd if you noticed he did hold to the idea of 7 days transpiring according to exegetical analysis.

Admittingly, I did speed-read over his posts. I'll have to look again. However, if this is what he believes (because I also retained the idea that the 7 days were meant to be chronological, until I questioned that after reading his essay -- seems I originally agreed with him), then I believe he is still incorrect, and does not deal with the fact that the passage is scientifically and historically inaccurate. Chronology does not change this.

There are differences, which can be distinguished, and if you'll notice Benner would disagree with you on this point, because it conglomerates to much. And Benner rightfully notes that the first three days of creation are thematically about "seperating" while the next three days are on "filling". These are distinct observations & occurances.

Benner has his own opinions. The "separation/filling" observation is acknowledged, however.

Reevaluate what Benner wrote and tell me what you think.

That Benner is still logically and categorically wrong for reasons I mention recurrently throughout this thread.

P.S. Also note that God revamps in short what he did in the creation at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 31:17 saying, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed." There is no ambiguity there.

And here I voice my opposition by comparing this passage in Exodus to that of Deuteronomy:

Exodus 20:10but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Here the author gives his reasons for believing God gave the sabbath command. The Deuteronomist relates another:

Deuteronomy 5:15'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

This author believed the sabbath injunction was enacted because the Israelites were extricated from Egypt (where they had no days of rest; cf Exodus 5:4-7, and Exodus 1:11-13). So the Exodus version does not prove the Genesis narrative literally true just because the author himself believed God to have given the command for this purpose (yet another reason Mosaic authorship is discredited).

Kind regards,
Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Admittingly, I did speed-read over his posts. I'll have to look again. However, if this is what he believes (because I also retained the idea that the 7 days were meant to be chronological, until I questioned that after reading his essay -- seems I originally agreed with him), then I believe he is still incorrect, and does not deal with the fact that the passage is scientifically and historically inaccurate. Chronology does not change this.

Well I would strongly suggest that you read the article in its entirety before we continue if we are to have any kind of fruitful discussion without misunderstanding.

Here the author gives his reasons for believing God gave the sabbath command. The Deuteronomist relates another:

The author? God was speaking in both verses about the Sabbath in Exodus. The only time the author speaks in his own words about it is in the verse you just gave in Deuteronomy.

This author believed the sabbath injunction was enacted because the Israelites were extricated from Egypt (where they had no days of rest; cf Exodus 5:4-7, and Exodus 1:11-13). So the Exodus version does not prove the Genesis narrative literally true just because the author himself believed God to have given the command for this purpose (yet another reason Mosaic authorship is discredited).

Um you didn't read it all in context, Deuteronomy 5:12-15:

"12Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.
13'Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day. "

I have an excerpt from an article on what Deuteronomy 5:12-15 means here but even before I went to that site the very first thing that jumped out at me was verse twelve which referenced back to the original command already given in Exodus. I mean come on. This obviously isn't something new or contradictory here.

Note this article's point:

It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment as given in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to God's rest in creation as the reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this instance mention is made of something else. "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and an out-streched arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day" (Deut. 5:15). This cannot be understood as in any way annulling the sanction of Exodus 20:11; 31:17. Deuteronomy comprises what was the reiteration of the covenant made at Sinai. When the Sabbath commandment is introduced Israel is reminded of the earlier promulgation: "Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deut. 5:12). And we should observe that all the commandments have their redemptive sanction. The preface to all is: "I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 5:6). So what we find in Deut. 5;15 in connection with the Sabbath is but the application of the preface to the specific duty enunciated in the fourth command. It is supplement to Exodus 20:11, not suspension. We have now added reason for observing the Sabbath. This is full of meaning and we must linger to analyze and appreciate.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TheLordsDa ... abbath.htm

And you have to remember why God brought them out of Egypt: to bring them to himself so that they could worship him. They couldn't obey his commandments under the enslavement of Egypt. Many other commands (not just that one) are appealed to on the basis of their salvation (exodus) from Egypt.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Well I would strongly suggest that you read the article in its entirety before we continue if we are to have any kind of fruitful discussion without misunderstanding.

I will reread the article; HOWEVER, what you told me was in the article that I missed does not address my OP and subsequent posts. Rereading the article is irrelevant to future discussion (as this discussion is contingent upon whether Genesis is literal, not whether we both understand Benner).

The author? God was speaking in both verses about the Sabbath in Exodus. The only time the author speaks in his own words about it is in the verse you just gave in Deuteronomy.

No, God did not write Exodus. The author (the person who actually wrote it) believed (according to tradition) God made this proclamation and thus wrote it down in the first person. The Torah itself does not even agree on who wrote the ten commandments down, nor what the ten commandments are. This will be demonstrated if you have reservations...

Um you didn't read it all in context,

Um, you didn't read my post...

Both accounts give two different reasons for why the Israelites should keep the sabbath (one because of creation, one because of salvation from Egypt). The same article you quote says this very thing.

I quote: your article:

It is noteworthy that the Sabbath commandment as given in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:12-15) does not appeal to God's rest in creation as the reason for keeping the Sabbath day. In this instance mention is made of something else.

Why the accounts vary is the problem. Your article proposes that the second is "added reason for observing the Sabbath". But this assumes consistent authorship (that one author (Moses) wrote both). But literary and historical analysis lends no support to this traditional assumption.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[cyberjosh]

I will reread the article; HOWEVER, what you told me was in the article that I missed does not address my OP and subsequent posts. Rereading the article is irrelevant to future discussion (as this discussion is contingent upon whether Genesis is literal, not whether we both understand Benner).

I think a proper understanding of the account is imortant to argue for the account's integrity. So I do think it makes at least a significant contribution even if it by itself isn't enough.

No, God did not write Exodus. The author (the person who actually wrote it) believed (according to tradition) God made this proclamation and thus wrote it down in the first person. The Torah itself does not even agree on who wrote the ten commandments down, nor what the ten commandments are. This will be demonstrated if you have reservations...

This is where we differ in our presuppositions. I believe God inspired the Bible and I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Um, you didn't read my post...

I don't really like being sarcastic but nonetheless:

Um... You appearantly didn't read mine. I acknowledged the difference but then provided you with a reconcilliatory explanation.

Both accounts give two different reasons for why the Israelites should keep the sabbath (one because of creation, one because of salvation from Egypt). The same article you quote says this very thing.

I quote: your article:

Of course it says that, I'm not blind. Did you even read the rest of it to see its reconcilliation explanation?

But literary and historical analysis lends no support to this traditional assumption.

That's a whole 'nother discussion but I could debate at length with you on that. And from a theological and exegetical position you can reconcile the texts. Please note my explanatory points of the previous ordinance being referenced in verse 12 and the article's own explanation of the tying of the "delivered you from Egypt" preface to all 10 commandments in Exodus with the Sabbath explicitly in Deuteronomy 5:15. In order to discover the depth of the reconcilliation, you would have to analyze the reason of why God used the "delivered you from Egypt" preface for the ten commandments in the first place. To what purpose was it given? And then it should become clear that we do not have conflicting reasons but supplemental reasons actually tied subtley (but maybe not to the Israelites) together in Exodus if you look hard enough. God's reason of delivering them reinforced the reason for their Sabbath observance. Since they were his people and He was their God now (the reason he dilivered them out of Egypt - to be free so that could happen) they should now imitate Him in light of it. So God gives and immediate reason (deliverance) to observe the Sabbath on the example of an earlier occasion/reason for rest (his rest from creation).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

I think a proper understanding of the account is imortant to argue for the account's integrity. So I do think it makes at least a significant contribution even if it by itself isn't enough.

I have occasioned doubt on the itegrity of the text with the OP and other posts. Benner is irrelevant to that because he does not address them. If everything he said about the nature of the account were true, that still leaves everything I have said here. Thus, it does not contribute unless we are debating what Benner means (which we are not -- well --at least I am not).

This is where we differ in our presuppositions. I believe God inspired the Bible and I believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I also believed God inspired the bible. However, there is no evidence aside from tradition that Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy. On a textual slant, there is actually evidence against his authorship.

I don't really like being sarcastic but nonetheless:

Um... You appearantly didn't read mine. I acknowledged the difference but then provided you with a reconcilliatory explanation.

This is what transpired:

I said (quoting Exodus first and Deuteronomy afterwards): "Here the author gives his reasons for believing God gave the sabbath command. The Deuteronomist relates another:"

This encapsulates everything I said. My point was that both accounts give two different reasons for observing the sabbath. That, with the additonal exception of asserting that both were written by two different authors, was my only point.

You said I didn't read the context, but then double-mindedly (or inadvertently) aquiesced with my conclusion by repeating what I had already stated (that the accounts give two different reasons for observing the sabbath). So you did not demonstrate how I took the text out of context, and this has lead me to believe you did not read my post (or did not comprehend it). All you did, as you say, was give a "reconciliatory explanation" (albeit, with a dubious premise). But again, you failed to show why I took the text out of context.

That's a whole 'nother discussion but I could debate at length with you on that.

We could start with this post:

Well, let's consider the evidence. I'll begin with mine.

Genesis 36:31 And these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before a king reigned from Israel's sons...

The author is is making a matter-of-fact assertion about a past event using "reign" in the perfect tense ("reigned"). He lists Edomite kings down to the last who lived roughly 200 years after Moses' time. And the indefinite "a king" is used, meaning the author was familiar with at least one more king after Israel's first king (Saul, 11th century) was in power.

There are several more examples, but we'll begin with this for now.

*waits for appeal to "prophecy"*

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[cyberjosh]

But again, you failed to show why I took the text out of context.

I meant that not to throw doubt on the fact that two reasons are given between the Exodus and Deuteronomist accounts but rather for you to look at verse 12 which leaves room for reference back to the Exodus command (thus you only gave "partial context" not looking to the previous supplemental reason), thus tying them together. Now that you understand what I was pointing out, what do you think of my proposed reconciliation of how the deliverance was an immediate reason to observe a previous reason for which God rested (read my last post for the full arguement)?

Once we get past this point then perhaps I can move to a different point more in line with the intention of the OP, but I hope to draw a point out of this if we could please discuss it a little longer.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Wavy,

Are we going to continue this conversation? This thread had lied dormant for almost 2 weeks. Once we get to a point of resolution I will try to tie it back into Genesis 1. I'm just trying to argue the proper context in which to understand the creation.

~Cyber

 

[Imagican]

It's amazing that so many are so confused about Genesis. Guys and Gals, do yourself a 'favor'. Pretend you know NOTHING about 'the stories' you've heard in Sunday School. Pretend you've NEVER even heard the story before. NOW, read it. It becomes apparent after only the first two chapters that what YOU have been TOLD that it means is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

Let me offer a beginning of understanding;

There were ACTAULLY TWO creations of man. One simply placed on the planet and told to be fruitful and multiply. The other, with an ACTUAL relationship with God.

Read the first two chapters WITHOUT letting preconcieved notions guide you, and then get back to me with your questions and I WILL validate each and every point that I have made. And it gets WAY deeper than simply 'two creations'. There is MUCH that is MISUNDERSTOOD by those that have simply accepted what the churches have 'gotten WRONG' for thousands and thousands of years that I can 'clear up' with minimal effort. NOT ME, but The Word itself.

Poetry, maybe. But the biggest problem in a 'literal interpretation' of Genesis is understanding it LITERALLY.


MEC

 

[wavy]

Re:

Wavy,

Are we going to continue this conversation? This thread had lied dormant for almost 2 weeks. Once we get to a point of resolution I will try to tie it back into Genesis 1. I'm just trying to argue the proper context in which to understand the creation.

~Cyber

it's been a year. want to continue?


~eric

 

[BobRyan]

Re: A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesi

It is good that you set forth you presuppositions. . .

You are no doubt familiar with the approach that there is one creation account - Gen1:1 through to Gen2:3 which essentially gives 7 days of creation the last of which is the day of rest- much later to be called the Sabbath.

From Gen2:4ff the text, I believe, focuses in on man, the garden. . .etc and then the 'fall' by chapter 3.

So first an overview, then zooming in on man in relation to God and the world.

I am not able to comment on Hebrew poetry - and provided the poetic sense is not entirely lost in the translation - expressing something in poetic form do not necessarily negate it from being 'historical'.

An example might be 'the serpent'. Is it literal or symbolic? Literal or symbolic but still historical.

blessings: stranger

Good post Stranger!

You are correct.

Exegesis demands that we look at the author's intent to his primary readers.

There is no question at all about it - Moses' readers would be thinking of "evening and morning" for each day - as a real day and the way that the Exocus 20:8-11 text of LAW summarizes it -- puts it beyond doubt.

7 literal days "according to the text".

We may not "like" what the text says if we hold to something else as a higher authority - but we should at least KNOW what it says.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Re:

But again, you failed to show why I took the text out of context.

I meant that not to throw doubt on the fact that two reasons are given between the Exodus and Deuteronomist accounts but rather for you to look at verse 12 which leaves room for reference back to the Exodus command (thus you only gave "partial context" not looking to the previous supplemental reason), thus tying them together. Now that you understand what I was pointing out, what do you think of my proposed reconciliation of how the deliverance was an immediate reason to observe a previous reason for which God rested (read my last post for the full arguement)?

This is also a good argument. Deut 5 comes 40 years after the Mt Sinai event where God thunders the Ten Commandments directly to all the people standing at the foot of the mountain.

In Deut 5 this is just Moses "recounting history" and he adds the fact that these people are not only MADE by their creator -- they were DELIVERED by their Creator and so they above all people should OBEY their Creator.

He was not practicing "revisionist history" here.

But getting back to Exodus 20:8-11 there we see God Himself summarzing the Gen 1-2:3 event in a away that puts it lock-step into the 24 hour day of Sinai. If man were ever going to speculate around that point - it is too late. God put the final comma and period into the sentence at that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[biblecatholic]

The literal sense is not meaning a literal 7 days...the author was not intending this. it is a true story but there is much symbolism.....It's important to see that the "day"wasn't created until the 4th day
Gen 1:14-19

 

[BobRyan]

Actually the DAY was created on DAY one "and there was evening and morning the FIRST day" in all of scripture the "evening and morning" phrase indicates a day.

In the SUMMARY of that event given in LAW "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea AND ALL that is in them and rested the 7th day... SIX DAYS you shall labor and do all your work" the same term for day -- linked and locked in summary fashion to the Gen 1-2:3 events.

Impossible to wrench out of there -- the text is explicit.

Notice that on the FIRST day God "created light" and we have "EVENING and MORNING" there is NO text in ALL of scripture making the self-conflicted claim "day was not created until day 4" you are eisegeting IN to the text what it explicitly denies.

From day 1 you have LIGHT and you have "evening and morning" which shows rotation of the Earth AND and a single sided light source. All we know is that we HAD light and it was single-sided for earth we do not know what that light source was. For all we know this was God lighting up the Milky Way core in some initial-fire-and-light way and as the Earth rotated in our "Orion Arm" of the galaxy we would STILL have the effect of light vs dark rotating away from the Galaxy center vs toward it. However the text does not say - all we know is that it was a light source and it was single sided from Earth's POV.


You take from that and spin out to a massive "no day and no detail to accept" -- which is a horrible wrenching of the text.

There is no way Moses MEANT to convey to his readers "no DAY until day 4". That alone eliminates the self-conflicted eisgesis of trying to get to "NO day until day 4"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW in the "Which model do you choose" Catholic Crusader asks the reader to choose between a "read the Bible and see what IT SAYS" vs a "take your Magesterium's word for it" approach to scripture.

Non-Catholics typically use the "SEE what the bible actually says" model. And to do that they HAVE to embrace rigid rules for exegesis avoiding the eisegetical "stick in whatever pleases your magesterium" at all costs.

The problem is -- that is a difficult challenge because man-made-traditions and the dictates of each magesterium hold such a strong influence. But still it remains the method and challenge in an open forum like this one. There is no such thing here as "think whatever the RCC tells you to think" as a compelling form of debate or discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[biblecatholic]

BTW in the "Which model do you choose" Catholic Crusader asks the reader to choose between a "read the Bible and see what IT SAYS" vs a "take your Magesterium's word for it" approach to scripture.

Non-Catholics typically use the "SEE what the bible actually says" model.

is that why there are a thousands of interpretations?

The problem is -- that is a difficult challenge because man-made-traditions and the dictates of each magesterium hold such a strong influence. But still it remains the method and challenge in an open forum like this one. There is no such thing here as "think whatever the RCC tells you to think" as a compelling form of debate or discussion.

your private interpretation is the man-made-tradition---a product of the enlightenment


there is actually a wide range of interpretations on this subject. The magistrium protects us from error. it's not a free-for-all what ever you "see" the bible saying.

it's important to know literally what the author was conveying

 

[BobRyan]

Each denomination be they RC or Lutheran or Methodist or ... may appeal to the MAGESTERIUM of their own denomination to tell them what to think when they read scripture. There is nothing objective or "new" there. It is just a fact.

But in the case of Genesis 1-2:3 the facts are that EACH day is couched in the specific literal "Evening - morning" sequence AND in Exodus 20:8-11 the entire Creation account is "summarized in LAW".

The LAW form affirms the 7 literal day model of Genesis 1-2:3 saying "SIX days YOU shall labor and do all you work but the Seventh day is... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that is in them and RESTED the Seventh day" --

The Exegesis of this shows the subject to be the SAME - the author the same the root for day "Yom" the SAME in both the DAY of Creation week and the DAY for "you to work".

This means the literal Sinai and LEGAL concept does not allow us to "re-invent" or "imagine" that Moses in Gen 1 was trying to say "Darwinism".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Square]

Discrepancies with modern science:

A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this firmament/dome. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this firmament, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.

Analogies are fun, often misleading and apt to get a person into believing the wrong thing (like the Zeitgeist movie leading people into believing analogies and symbolisms are 'true evidence'), but still fun to ponder with unbridled speculation.

If the first creation story was derived from previous writings (Moses would have known of them since he had previously held a high position in Egypt), and If the inference of "waters" was the aether as is loosely paralleled to Tao (the fish bowl), and If the Spirit of God "moved" were taken in a literal sense of implying "vibrated," then it might be speculated that the creation story may have been a layman's attempt of describing the wave-nature of the universe. The wave-nature of Creation was well known long before modern physics, and it is possible that the original creation story holds correct information.

While it is not wise to give credit where no credit is fully earned, it could be speculated (very loosely, yet entertainingly) that the creation story might be within the ballpark of accepted modern physics.

 

[BobRyan]

Step 1 is to exegete Genesis 1-2:3 accurately without trying eisegete-INTO-it modern myths like Darwinism. Clearly Moses was not "thinking Darwinism" when he wrote the text.

Exegesis demands that we go to the author and the audience -- notice how he uses the concepts and what the audience would be "expected to think" given the way the author writes.

For example in Gen 1-2:3 Moses tells his readers (Hebrews -- sometime near the time of Mt Sinai and smoke and fire thundering of the Ten commandments) about the 7 days of creation week - each creation day bounded in the literal terms "Evening and Morning were the nth-day".

1. Is there ANY indication in scripture that the Bible writers MEANT their readers to read "evening and morning were the n-th day" and think "Darwinism"??

No? None? Then exegesis is pretty clear on this point.

Step 2. Notice how the same author deals with the same topic in very literal and very specific documents like - LAW.

4th Commandment -- The Sabbath memorial of Creation.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Clearly the "summary in LAW" of the 7 day event in Genesis 1-2:3 leaves us with no room for speculating that Moses has said -- "and by that I mean Darwinism"

Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed[/b], and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.[/b]

Both the "Summary in LAW" found in Exodus 20 and the "account" in Genesis are in perfect agreement on those "Evenings and mornings" amounting to 7 actual days.

3. So when answering the "part of the question" that is "What was Moses writing?" it is clear -- he was telling his readers about 7 days -- just as they had 7 days of time at Sinai to count off creation memorial Sabbaths. The term for day "yom" is the same in both cases -- same word, same author, same context. Impossible to 'bend" to the needs of "darwinists".

4. That only leaves us with the question of "what to do about it". Trying "rewrite it" now to appease atheist darwinist "needs" is nothing short of revisionist history and eisegesis.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Noting the "details IN the text" from the previous post we see that the "timeline" for creating all life on earth -- and for creating a functioning Sun and Moon for our solar system - is 7 literal days.

The "order of those created events" is as stated in the chronological sequence of Gen 1-2:3

1. Light (Single sided light source with a rotating planet for "evening and morning")
2. Dry land - atmosphere
3. Plants
4. Sun and Moon
5. Fish and birds
6. All other Animals, insects etc - and mankind
7. Memorial -- holy day.

 

[wavy]

Analogies are fun, often misleading and apt to get a person into believing the wrong thing (like the Zeitgeist movie leading people into believing analogies and symbolisms are 'true evidence'), but still fun to ponder with unbridled speculation.

If the first creation story was derived from previous writings (Moses would have known of them since he had previously held a high position in Egypt), and If the inference of "waters" was the aether as is loosely paralleled to Tao (the fish bowl), and If the Spirit of God "moved" were taken in a literal sense of implying "vibrated," then it might be speculated that the creation story may have been a layman's attempt of describing the wave-nature of the universe. The wave-nature of Creation was well known long before modern physics, and it is possible that the original creation story holds correct information.

While it is not wise to give credit where no credit is fully earned, it could be speculated (very loosely, yet entertainingly) that the creation story might be within the ballpark of accepted modern physics.

You're just reading things into the text that aren't there. Point blank.

~eric