Paleotheology and Genesis

I must admit, that to read Gen 1 and 2 within the confines of those two chapters is constraining, difficult, and to my reckoning not entirely legitamate. I think it is a good excercise, but one could easily misunderstand texts if they limit themselves to only those chapters. I think that one must first discern the context of the text and the intention of the author for sure ... this in mind I think it is important to realize that the same author who wrote chapter one also wrote chapter two and the proceeding chapters. I think this is important because the author is writing from this side of the fall ... he already knows massive amounts of history by the time he begins this pentalogy ... this is of course if we assume the author is Moses ... which I do. I also take the Genesis account to be a dipiction of the workings of God written in the form of ancient literature. We have been influenced by the various "ages" (scientific, enlightenment, etc.) and so our approach to the text may demand information or processes that were obsolete to Moses. I want to be careful not to force the text to tell me more than it is intended to do. Just as Genesis begins with Elohim and his workings ... I want to view all of my interpretations (as best as I can and with the help of the Holy Spirit) focusing on God more than on man. Who is Elohim? What is he doing? Why?

I know I am cheating when I do this, but I cannot help it ... tell me if I am breaking the rules ... I checked out Elohim ... it is facinating to me to note that Gen 1 has the highest concentration of the term Elohim with the book, however within all of the Hebrew Scriptures Deuteronomy contains the most usages of the Elohim. Just a thought. Within Genesis though this is huge. Here more than in any other chapter is the word Elohim used. It is true that it is plural in form however it acts as a singular since the verbs that are connected to it are such. I don't exactly know what to make of this oddity ... plural in form yet singular in action.

God creates light ... but the text never says that he created darkness. It simply was there (like the water). Again, I take the initial "God created the heavens and the earth" to include all things. I say this in part because some Rabbi's hypothesize that following the phrase is an aleph and tav (taeî) which are the first and last letters of the Hebrew language. They believe it is the equivalent to the Greek Alpha and Omega ... ring a bell? In other words it is as though God is saying that he has made averthing from A to Z ... EVERYTHING. With this being said, I don't think that everything has to be spelled out in order for us to conclude that God has created it, thus the water and darkness are covered in the aleph tav conjecture.

One thing that strikes me "in the beginning" is how God creates. This is so different then how we create ... we must use our hands to create (unless we are creating words or sounds), but God by simply speaking calls things into being ... light, earth, birds, fish, animals, etc. There is power in God's speach. When God speaks things happen. This makes me tremble at the thought of such authority.

The separation of waters has often baffled me. I have read it to mean that there was a "sky" lake and land lakes. I don't think that the "sky" lake simply meant the atmosphere as we know it (again I can't help but think of the flood account ... which the author would be aware of). If there were never any rainbows, certainly there must have been a different atmosphere pre-flood. Maybe there was a dense covering of suspended water? I've seen models of it which demonstrated how there would be a more equalized and temperate climate throughout the entire earth. Not sure though.

I have to agree with Raj on the creating light and then creating the sources of light later. I don't understand it unless "light" means more than what is emitted from my light bulb. Maybe it means something like understanding ... you know to be "enlightened?"

I find the parallel of vs 22 and 28 interesting. God blesses the fish and the birds and later blesses man. God tells the fish and the birds to be fruitful and multiply and then later he says the same to man. But what is different is that man is authorized to subdue the earth and have dominion over the fish and birds and animals, thus graduating him to a higher level of responsibility and accountability.

I noticed that most of you comment on the vegan diet of the people ... but this also included the animals too. My problem is not so much with man but with the animals. This indicates that lions, tigers, and bears were omnivours. But they certainly ain't anymore. Are they supposed to change their diets? Again thinking ahead, (though remaining with the same author and book) God tells Noah after the flood that he was to eat the flesh of animals ... how could he have eaten otherwise, everthing was destroyed and was beginning again?

I'll write more on chapter two later,

daniel