posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 07:18 AM
I think you must have not read my post very carefully, or at any rate, have misunderstood its import. Or perhaps, like most fundamentalists (who
cannot even produce a "fundamental" text they can read in the original) you merely gloss over those "uncomfortable" facts which do not support
your wholly untenable position with regards to any alleged scientific "evolutionary" parallels in Genesis chapter one (the socalled 1st Creation
Fact #1 Genesis chapter 1:1 to 2:4a is written in a different style that that which follows (2:4b to 4:26) and its content and theology is wholly
DIFFERENT than that which follows (Gen 2:4b to 4:26). The "first" myth shows Elohim as a transcendent god who merely speaks and "it is so..."; the
second myth (beginning in Gen 2:4b) has YHWH elohim crunching around in the garden of "Qeden" (which is a Sumerian Loan word, meaning "steppe")
who is portrayed "anthropomorophically" (i.e. in the shape of a human with legs and all).
Of course you'll have to READ the two texts first------ which is something the proponents of your theory rarely do.
Or if they do, they probably only read the Masoretic Version in English or other translation out of the Hebrew (The Masoretic Text is a LATE TEXT = AD
850 in Leningrad =).
These two Creation Myths in Bere#h ("lit. "in the Beginning" or Gk. "Genesis") are CONTRADICTORY CREATION MYTHS (i.e. order of creation in both
accounts is quite different, the 2nd writer has the sotry of Hayaah, whereas male and females are BOTH called Adam in the 1st writer's style (which
continues in Gen 5:1 "male and female created he them and HE CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM" , i.e. no Hayyah ("Eve"), etc.
Fact #2 There is NO FIRMAMENT surrounding a flat earth ("SOLID dome" , Heb.= Raq'ia'q), so Gensis 1:6 is NOT SCIENCE. If you think there is a
FIRMAMENT (i.e. an inverted beaten copper bowl) then show me where it is. EVOLUTION DOES NOT TEACH THERE IS A SOLID DOME WITH "WATER" ABOVE IT
Fact # 3 Evolution teaches that Vegetation APPEARED AFTER the Sun, the Moon or the Stars....NOT BEFORE (as the Hezekielte writer states).
So the order "of Evolution" is scientifically wrong in the book of Genesis.
The Creation of Vegetation is OUT OF ORDER IN GENESIS and therefore has NO Scientific "evolutionary" PARALLEL.
[The Septuaginta-LXX, the late Masoretic Text, the Pe#ta, the Palestinian DSS copies AND the Samaritan Pentateuch ALL HAVE VEGETATION CITED AS HAVING
BEEN CREATED "BEFORE" THE SUN, MOON and STARS.
So all of these confused texts were apparently copying this error from an older more original text that had it wrong from the "beginning".
EVOLUTION teaches that Galaxies (including stars which are the same as "suns") PRECEDE Vegetable Life on Planets: they do NOT come AFTER like your
misguided writer of Genesis writes.
So get your facts straight before you start claiming that the messy hotchpotch of pseudo-science, superstition and borrowed traditions (including the
DOME) which the Israelitish priests tacked on to the beginning of their socalled Torah is in any way SCIENCE. It is NOT.
The Creation Myths in Genesis had their origin in the cult of YHWH's Spring Rituals, modelled after Canaanite and Egyptian models e.g. the 7-fold
peal of Baal, see Psalms 29 for an echo of this fertility ritual.
The different groups of Levetical Yahwistic priests who re-wrote these Myths after the Babylonian Exile were "celebrating the Creation," in terms of
their own clan-god, not scientifically picking it apart or describing it in modern scientific terms---something these pre-scientific peoples were in
no position to understand in the modern astronomical sense anyway--how could they?