In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

In other words, the algorithms YHVH placed within the structure of the planet made it happen that way.

I agree that YHVH set up the physical laws and the natures of material things.

[26-27] The process is repeated, this time with Mankind.

We gain some knowledge of what Mankind is in relation to both YHVH and the rest of the critters of earth [as well as plants]

The process isn’t repeated for humans. Yes, they are created, but there isn’t talk of “algorithms”; it’s not “let the earth bring forth man” or “YHVH made man according to his kind”.

and that Mankind is a pairing of a distinct Male and Female animal, and like most other animals, in order to make copies [multiply], they have to mate, and like the other animals, this works from an algorithm [aka instinct] and where the algorithm differs is that there is also the addition of the instinct to subdue and rule over all the earth land and sea beasts, and plants.

Why are you calling this an instinct for humans? Do you mean that in contrast to rationality?

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, as far as I can tell.

In verse 30 we are told that every green plant has been given to “everything that has the breath of life”. This is the first mention of “breath of life”. Are you saying the text is teaching that only animals have the breath of life in them at this point and that humans don’t? If so, why aren’t humans included in this statement?

But whatever the explanation might be, we know from the evidence, that YHVH did not inspire the author of the First Creation Story with any reasons for the change.

The text doesn’t say that the only thing animals could eat were plants. It’s not exhaustive or prescriptive. It may be a comment on how humans, in their ruling over the animals, shouldn’t only think of themselves in their treatment of the vegetation, as it is for the animals as well as the humans. This fits in well with YHVH's command for them to care for creation.

Also to note, death is not mentioned, nor is anything said to be forbidden

Yes, if death occurs and if anything is forbidden is not addressed.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #201]

To me this say's that the Earth was constructed in that manner, to produce those things automatically as YHVH had programed it that way, and so that is how it happened.

In other words, the algorithms YHVH placed within the structure of the planet made it happen that way.

The same happens re the sea, as with the land.

I agree that YHVH set up the physical laws and the natures of material things.

The process isn’t repeated for humans. Yes, they are created, but there isn’t talk of “algorithms”; it’s not “let the earth bring forth man” or “YHVH made man according to his kind”.

It appears that the making of things at this stage is largely done through automation - through an automatic process - such as what we now know re the process of evolution.

The seed appears to have the code within it, to become the tree when the conditions are in place for it to do so. [The physical laws and the natures of material things.]

The process isn’t repeated for humans. Yes, they are created, but there isn’t talk of “algorithms”; it’s not “let the earth bring forth man” or “YHVH made man according to his kind”.

I am aligning the story with what is known about the process of evolution and the human form and all other life forms, coming from the Planet itself - created through that process. [Contrasted with the the more hands on approach YHVH took with the body set of Adam.]

And yes, as far as 'kind' goes, the algorithms did play a part in this sorting process, as humans split from main groups through their wandering, and these groups became cut off from one another and even largely forgotten about, so that when these groups eventually discover the existence of each other epochs later, there were clear distinctions which signaled "not of our kind".

So this idea of sorting things 'according to their kind', is sourced beyond the ancient.

Why are you calling this an instinct for humans? Do you mean that in contrast to rationality?

No. I mean in contrast to getting verbal instructions from a voice in one's head.
The instinct I speak of is more along the lines of how robots behave re coded assignment.

The program of what to do is already part of the body set makeup. There is no requirement to teach humans to multiply and to go forth and subdue. Nor is there a requirement for humans to understand that they are within a created thing, or to know that YHVH even exists.

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, as far as I can tell.

In verse 30 we are told that every green plant has been given to “everything that has the breath of life”. This is the first mention of “breath of life”. Are you saying the text is teaching that only animals have the breath of life in them at this point and that humans don’t? If so, why aren’t humans included in this statement?

The KJV doesn't mention any breath - just life. Re your understanding of the beast which has life but not in the same way Adam had life, because Adam is not a beast, even that his form is made of the same type as the [other] animals

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

"Life" in this sense, isn't "The breath of YHVH".

We will have to examine this together in more detail because the KJV and some other versions, omit the "breath" part of life, whereas some other versions add this in.

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, specifically by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, especially since there was an epoch before ancient times where we know that the human being was more "beast" than "man".

All I can come up with by way of explanation is that YHVH changed the coding so that animals could eat each other and did so because it had something to do with YHVH's agenda.

In that, perhaps animals eating other animals somehow speed up the process, and also perhaps because Human Beings were wanderers, sometimes they wandered in areas where there was a scarcity of plant life, and this slowed them down.

These are just ideas which have some logic to them which could be considered.

But whatever the explanation might be, we know from the evidence, that YHVH did not inspire the author of the First Creation Story with any reasons for the change.

The text doesn’t say that the only thing animals could eat were plants. It’s not exhaustive or prescriptive. It may be a comment on how humans, in their ruling over the animals, shouldn’t only think of themselves in their treatment of the vegetation, as it is for the animals as well as the humans. This fits in well with YHVH's command for them to care for creation.

I currently agree, which is why I am pointing out contrasts between the two creation stories.

There are no specific 'commands' which even suggest that humans should not eat animals. The author has omitted that aspect of what humans eat [the meat of animals] choosing instead to focus mention only on vegetation as the thing eaten, even in contrast to what the author must have known at the time of writing, about human eating behaviors

Also to note, death is not mentioned, nor is anything said to be forbidden

Yes, if death occurs and if anything is forbidden is not addressed.

It is not addressed by the first creation account, but is addressed in the account of evolution. In that, eating other animals and what is forbidden and what is not, is decided by the critters themselves, [re their coding] rather than a voiced command from YHVH.
Evolution also shows us that death happened, as part of the nature of the coding - and one of the reasons why it was necessary to breed - because death happened...likewise why it was necessary to eat - because eating maintain being alive.

The question I ask about this contrast is related to YHVH allowing the codes to do their thing within the local environment and for eons letting the algorithms tick over without interfering too much, and even then, not obviously...

...and a decision made at some point in that process, where YHVH chose to make *Itself known to the human animal, and along with that, to tweak the coding through the relationship as a means for humans to learn to understand that they can change the coding of their instinct by overriding/re-writing it

[*I use the word in respect for the idea that YHVH is both "male and female" rather than one or the other]

[The Tanager]

It appears that the making of things at this stage is largely done through automation - through an automatic process - such as what we now know re the process of evolution.

The seed appears to have the code within it, to become the tree when the conditions are in place for it to do so. [The physical laws and the natures of material things.]

I agree with the automation part, but the language is different when we come to humans. I’m not saying that means it’s speaking against evolution; I don’t think it’s addressing that issue. I have no problem if the human species evolved from other species and was given a rational soul at some point; I’m just saying the text isn’t making that point…or trying to dispute it.

The program of what to do is already part of the body set makeup. There is no requirement to teach humans to multiply and to go forth and subdue. Nor is there a requirement for humans to understand that they are within a created thing, or to know that YHVH even exists.

I agree with you. I think our conscience is also part of the program.

The KJV doesn't mention any breath - just life. Re your understanding of the beast which has life but not in the same way Adam had life, because Adam is not a beast, even that his form is made of the same type as the [other] animals

I don’t think the KJV is the best translation. In Hebrew, it’s nephesh hayyim (translated “breath of life” by the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and others), not just hayyim or “life”. I think humans and other animals share the characteristic of having the “breath of life,” the uniqueness for humans coming in being made in the image of YHVH.

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, specifically by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, especially since there was an epoch before ancient times where we know that the human being was more "beast" than "man".

Genesis 7:22 uses a different term (nishmat hayyim) that is also often translated as “breath of life” and seems to be talking about the same element in animals, namely, that they are living beings. This (nishmat hayyim) is what YHVH breathes into Adam in Genesis 2:7, as well. I think these (nishmat hayyim and nephesh hayyim) are two ways to say the same thing.

I think you are taking this as literal history when it’s not meant to be taken that way. It’s not meant to be a historical recording of how life came about scientifically or historically.

There are no specific 'commands' which even suggest that humans should not eat animals. The author has omitted that aspect of what humans eat [the meat of animals] choosing instead to focus mention only on vegetation as the thing eaten, even in contrast to what the author must have known at the time of writing, about human eating behaviors.

I do think this is telling us that humans were originally meant to be vegetarians because in 9:3, YHVH tells Noah and his family that YHVH is giving them animals for food, just as YHVH gave them green plants to eat (in 1:30).

It is not addressed by the first creation account, but is addressed in the account of evolution. In that, eating other animals and what is forbidden and what is not, is decided by the critters themselves, [re their coding] rather than a voiced command from YHVH.

I think evolution can account for neither human rationality nor human morality being objective, but I agree that it can account for non-human animal behavior.

Evolution also shows us that death happened, as part of the nature of the coding - and one of the reasons why it was necessary to breed - because death happened...likewise why it was necessary to eat - because eating maintain being alive.

I agree death was a part of reality prior to the “Fall”.

...and a decision made at some point in that process, where YHVH chose to make *Itself known to the human animal, and along with that, to tweak the coding through the relationship as a means for humans to learn to understand that they can change the coding of their instinct by overriding/re-writing it

I don’t see the text showing that humans are overriding/re-writing their previous beast-like coding; they are like beasts in ways, but created differently in other ways.

[*I use the word in respect for the idea that YHVH is both "male and female" rather than one or the other]

This is just a tangent, but the text doesn’t say YHVH is both male and female. It says that both male and female are made in YHVH’s image. I don't think YHVH is male or female or both.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #203]

It appears that the making of things at this stage is largely done through automation - through an automatic process - such as what we now know re the process of evolution.

The seed appears to have the code within it, to become the tree when the conditions are in place for it to do so. [The physical laws and the natures of material things.]

I agree with the automation part, but the language is different when we come to humans.

In what way do you see the language used to describe the creation of humans, as being different?

I have no problem if the human species evolved from other species and was given a rational soul at some point;

What do you mean by "rational soul"?
Do you mean that this developed as part of the automated process of evolution?

The program of what to do is already part of the body set makeup. There is no requirement to teach humans to multiply and to go forth and subdue. Nor is there a requirement for humans to understand that they are within a created thing, or to know that YHVH even exists.

I agree with you. I think our conscience is also part of the program.

That is to say, you think that consciousness develops?

The KJV doesn't mention any breath - just life. Re your understanding of the beast which has life but not in the same way Adam had life, because Adam is not a beast, even that his form is made of the same type as the [other] animals

I don’t think the KJV is the best translation. In Hebrew, it’s nephesh hayyim (translated “breath of life” by the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and others), not just hayyim or “life”. I think humans and other animals share the characteristic of having the “breath of life,” the uniqueness for humans coming in being made in the image of YHVH.

The Hebrew word nephesh or nefesh (נפש, pronounced “neh-fesh”) in the Hebrew Bible generally translates to “soul”. {SOURCE}

At that, are you arguing that the "life" is something YHVH breathed into all living things [plants included] but the "soul" was an extra addition reserved for humans?

With this first creation story, there is no mention of YHVH making the humans alive, specifically by instilling within them The Breath of YHVH, and no logical reason for us to assume that this must have been the case, especially since there was an epoch before ancient times where we know that the human being was more "beast" than "man".

Genesis 7:22 uses a different term (nishmat hayyim) that is also often translated as “breath of life” and seems to be talking about the same element in animals, namely, that they are living beings.

In that, The Breath of YHVH can be considered to be that which powers up the lifeless [cadaver-like] form but not that which grants consciousness or anything else already programmed into the form?

Is this how you see it?

I think you are taking this as literal history when it’s not meant to be taken that way. It’s not meant to be a historical recording of how life came about scientifically or historically.

I would agree that the short story of the first creation is nothing like a scientific paper.

However, it would still be remis if what scientific papers have to say about how forms become what they do, cannot be equate with the first creation story.

If such cannot be equated, then the papers to follow would have to be the scientific ones.

However, I do not read anything within the first creation story which deviates or contradicts the science.

Therefore, while I am happy to agree with you that there is difference between how science say's it and how the Bible says it, the Bible is simply far more succinct, but no less accurate of its portray for that.
That is to say, the Bible story in principle is not for the purpose of instructing us on the intricacies of history or science, it does touch on these sufficiently for future human investigations which revealed evolution as the process.

Agreed?

There are no specific 'commands' which even suggest that humans should not eat animals. The author has omitted that aspect of what humans eat [the meat of animals] choosing instead to focus mention only on vegetation as the thing eaten, even in contrast to what the author must have known at the time of writing, about human eating behaviors.

I do think this is telling us that humans were originally meant to be vegetarians because in 9:3, YHVH tells Noah and his family that YHVH is giving them animals for food, just as YHVH gave them green plants to eat (in 1:30).

My point is that humans were not meant to do anything if there was no command either encoded within the form or spoken by an invisible voice, which forbade certain behaviors.

Thus, I cannot agree at this point, that humans were originally meant to be vegetarians as an explanation for why eating meat for food was not mentioned alongside eating vegetation.
The idea that YHVH changed the coding with Noah - well after Adam - may give a false impression as to when humans first began to eat meat instead of just vegetation.

For now though, Adam and Noah are not Characters within the First Creation Story as they have Adam has yet to be created, and Noah born from that linage.

It is not addressed by the first creation account, but is addressed in the account of evolution. In that, eating other animals and what is forbidden and what is not, is decided by the critters themselves, [re their coding] rather than a voiced command from YHVH.

I think evolution can account for neither human rationality nor human morality being objective, but I agree that it can account for non-human animal behavior.

The eating of animal meat is part of the story of evolution. Humans as hunters were known to exist, and that without the eating of animal meat, the human race could not have as easily survived as plants were not as readily available and had less of a shelf-life.

Early humans followed the animals [as food source], and the animals followed seasonal events and consistently migrated.

Farming came much later.

Human rationality was therefore working in that humans observed animals [beasts of the field] as a food source and observed other animals [beasts of the ?] hunted the field-beasts and those hunter-beasts were specifically designed in form [claws teeth strength] to catch and consume their food in that way.

Humans would have had to have rationalized that they could mimic the hunter-beasts even that the human form was not so obviously designed as a hunting device.

Add to that, a human was as much a source of food for hunter-beasts as were the field beasts.

So the uniqueness of the human form, was that it was neither hunter or field beast, but was capable of being both, and YHVH designed it that way. [through the coding].

Evolution also shows us that death happened, as part of the nature of the coding - and one of the reasons why it was necessary to breed - because death happened...likewise why it was necessary to eat - because eating maintain being alive.

I agree death was a part of reality prior to the “Fall”.

Therefore, we have a possible way in which Adam could have understood 'death' as something which naturally happened.
If so, then Adam too, would have understood that his form, like every other form, would eventually die.
And if this were the case, then, when YHVH informed Adam that should Adam eat the forbidden fruit, that Adam would 'surely die' and 'on the day' - YHVH must have been referring to a death which was different to that of the body simply expiring.

YHVH was not talking about Adams body being that which would die on that day.
Nor was YHVH referring to Adam as the body, but rather, YHVH was referring to the personality that was Adam.

Agreed?

...and a decision made at some point in that process, where YHVH chose to make *Itself known to the human animal, and along with that, to tweak the coding through the relationship as a means for humans to learn to understand that they can change the coding of their instinct by overriding/re-writing it

I don’t see the text showing that humans are overriding/re-writing their previous beast-like coding; they are like beasts in ways, but created differently in other ways.

I am not wanting to conflate the 'human body' with 'humans'.

The body set is the hardware made alive by the software installed as coding, and while it does influence the personality to whatever degree the personality using it, might allow, that influence is not so hard-wired that the body set somehow "becomes a 'human'".

Rather, it is not the form which should be described as 'being human' [a human being] but the personality that is grown within the form. It is the personality that YHVH is interested in and regards as the 'human' - not the form.

The form was designed to die. YHVH was referring to the personality when Adam was told "YOU shall surely die on that day."

Agreed?

[*I use the word in respect for the idea that YHVH is both "male and female" rather than one or the other]

This is just a tangent, but the text doesn’t say YHVH is both male and female. It says that both male and female are made in YHVH’s image. I don't think YHVH is male or female or both.

I do not think that is a tangent. It is important to understand in the context of both creation stories.

For now my only question re that is;

Q: What is the image of YHVH?

[The Tanager]

In what way do you see the language used to describe the creation of humans, as being different?

There isn’t mention of “according to its kind,” but there is talk of being made in YHVH’s image, of ruling over the earth, along with more conversation to humans.

What do you mean by "rational soul"?
Do you mean that this developed as part of the automated process of evolution?

No, I don’t mean that. I don’t think intelligence can emerge from non-intelligence. I believe YHVH would have had to add it in.

That is to say, you think that consciousness develops?

No, that our moral conscience, right and wrong is programmed into humans.

At that, are you arguing that the "life" is something YHVH breathed into all living things [plants included] but the "soul" was an extra addition reserved for humans?

No, I’m not. I think you can say animals have ‘souls’ if you don’t mean the same kind of soul. It’s not a rational soul that can reason and reflect like we do.

In that, The Breath of YHVH can be considered to be that which powers up the lifeless [cadaver-like] form but not that which grants consciousness or anything else already programmed into the form?

Is this how you see it?

Yes.

I would agree that the short story of the first creation is nothing like a scientific paper.

However, it would still be remis if what scientific papers have to say about how forms become what they do, cannot be equate with the first creation story.

If such cannot be equated, then the papers to follow would have to be the scientific ones.

However, I do not read anything within the first creation story which deviates or contradicts the science.

Therefore, while I am happy to agree with you that there is difference between how science say's it and how the Bible says it, the Bible is simply far more succinct, but no less accurate of its portray for that.
That is to say, the Bible story in principle is not for the purpose of instructing us on the intricacies of history or science, it does touch on these sufficiently for future human investigations which revealed evolution as the process.

I agree they don’t contradict, but I don’t think they are talking about the same subject except in a very general sense, i.e., that YHVH is the creator behind it all.

My point is that humans were not meant to do anything if there was no command either encoded within the form or spoken by an invisible voice, which forbade certain behaviors.

Thus, I cannot agree at this point, that humans were originally meant to be vegetarians as an explanation for why eating meat for food was not mentioned alongside eating vegetation.
The idea that YHVH changed the coding with Noah - well after Adam - may give a false impression as to when humans first began to eat meat instead of just vegetation.

For now though, Adam and Noah are not Characters within the First Creation Story as they have Adam has yet to be created, and Noah born from that linage.

Genesis is offered as a cohesive account, so we must take things that are told later into account, when appropriate. I don’t think YHVH changed any coding. I think 9:3 shows that humans were meant to be vegetarian at the beginning. Otherwise, the command to eat animals would also have been in Genesis 1 instead of just coming in at 9:3. I think 9:3 may also be YHVH condescending to a practice that humans were already doing (since we have talk of sacrifices in between these chapters).

The eating of animal meat is part of the story of evolution. Humans as hunters were known to exist, and that without the eating of animal meat, the human race could not have as easily survived as plants were not as readily available and had less of a shelf-life.

According to Genesis, it’s the tree of life that would keep the human race alive prior to their rebellion.

Therefore, we have a possible way in which Adam could have understood 'death' as something which naturally happened.

I agree, but I’m also not convinced that one must experience death in order to understand it.

If so, then Adam too, would have understood that his form, like every other form, would eventually die.

At least that it had that potential, yes.

And if this were the case, then, when YHVH informed Adam that should Adam eat the forbidden fruit, that Adam would 'surely die' and 'on the day' - YHVH must have been referring to a death which was different to that of the body simply expiring.

YHVH was not talking about Adams body being that which would die on that day.
Nor was YHVH referring to Adam as the body, but rather, YHVH was referring to the personality that was Adam.

I disagree. The personality doesn’t die on that day either. What happens on that day is (1) a spiritual separation between YHVH and Adam and Eve and (2) a loss of access to the tree of life. Nothing in the story line addresses the breath as separate from the flesh; Adam is a dirt-being made alive, not a breath trapped in dirt.

I do not think that is a tangent. It is important to understand in the context of both creation stories.

For now my only question re that is;

Q: What is the image of YHVH?

In the context of Genesis 1, I think all we can say is it is at least functional. Ancient rulers would erect self-images in their realm as a sign of their rule running that land. I think this is the imagery drawn on by saying humans are made in YHVH’s image. To be YHVH’s image is to have dominion in the way of YHVH versus in the image of self or someone else; something given to male and female.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #205]

In what way do you see the language used to describe the creation of humans, as being different?

There isn’t mention of “according to its kind,” but there is talk of being made in YHVH’s image, of ruling over the earth, along with more conversation to humans.

So there are five verses the author dedicates to the creation of humans, and one whole "GOD-day" in which YHVH uses to create the humans.

How does that equate to humans not being animated in the same manner as the rest of the animals?

What do you mean by "rational soul"?
Do you mean that this developed as part of the automated process of evolution?

No, I don’t mean that. I don’t think intelligence can emerge from non-intelligence. I believe YHVH would have had to add it in.

How are you defining intelligence? Certain levels of? Differing types of? When you observe the spider making its web, do you see that as a clear indication of the spiders intelligence or as a program the spider is responding to instinctively?

That is to say, you think that consciousness develops?

No, that our moral conscience, right and wrong is programmed into humans.

Of what requirement did humans at this point, have the need for moral conscience, since there were no instructions on what NOT to do?

We can understand through what the second creation story tells us about Adam, that this was the case, but for now we are focusing on the first creation story, and in that there is no indication whatsoever that the human YHVH creates are instructed in any moral manner.

Are you perhaps meaning that - since humans seem to have developed social rules - that this points to a moral conscience being programed in humans to activate as the need for morals became apparent, in relation to the program compelling them to multiply and subdue?

Re The Breath of YHVH

The KJV doesn't mention any breath - just life. Re your understanding of the beast which has life but not in the same way Adam had life, because Adam is not a beast, even that his form is made of the same type as the [other] animals

I don’t think the KJV is the best translation. In Hebrew, it’s nephesh hayyim (translated “breath of life” by the NIV, ESV, NRSV, and others), not just hayyim or “life”. I think humans and other animals share the characteristic of having the “breath of life,” the uniqueness for humans coming in being made in the image of YHVH.

The Hebrew word nephesh or nefesh (נפש, pronounced “neh-fesh”) in the Hebrew Bible generally translates to “soul”. {SOURCE}

At that, are you arguing that the "life" is something YHVH breathed into all living things [plants included] but the "soul" was an extra addition reserved for humans?

No, I’m not. I think you can say animals have ‘souls’ if you don’t mean the same kind of soul. It’s not a rational soul that can reason and reflect like we do.

Are you saying that only the human animal received The Breath of YHVH and that The Breath of YHVH was not that which gave life/movement/purpose but that which gave humans the ability to be rational and to reason and to reflect?

You are thinking that humans would have needed these things to survive, whereas other animals do not?

If we take into account the instinct imbued within those first humans [from the first creation story] to multiply and to subdue, perhaps we can identify where it was necessary for those humans to have those extra abilities mentioned, to multiply and to subdue.

Within the practice of subduing, humans domesticated certain animals and there are things we can observe in other creatures which could be said to be signs of those creatures having rationality, and reasoning things out and reflecting [pausing to consider options] so your argument appears to come from a place where you consider those things as being evidence of The Breath of YHVH in humans, but - for some reason - not in other animals?

In that, The Breath of YHVH can be considered to be that which powers up the lifeless [cadaver-like] form but not that which grants consciousness or anything else already programmed into the form?

Is this how you see it?

Yes.

So why would YHVH inspire the author(s) to mention The Breath of YHVH in the second story but not in the first?

Why mention The Breath of YHVH at all, if all that it is, is simply something which powers up otherwise non-living forms?
If The Breath of YHVH is simply that uniform thing, what relevance does it have in relation to it being specifically mentioned alongside the creation of Adam, in the second creation story?

Therefore, while I am happy to agree with you that there is difference between how science say's it and how the Bible says it, the Bible is simply far more succinct, but no less accurate of its portrayal for that.
That is to say, the Bible story in principle is not for the purpose of instructing us on the intricacies of history or science, it does touch on these sufficiently for future human investigations which revealed evolution as the process.

I agree they don’t contradict, but I don’t think they are talking about the same subject except in a very general sense, i.e., that YHVH is the creator behind it all.

The evidence clearly shows us that in evolution theory there is no mention of YHVH being the creator 'behind it all'.

The same subject being spoken of is the process of the material of the earth becoming the animated life forms which exist on the planet. That is not 'very general' at all Tanager.

My point is that humans were not meant to do anything if there was no command either encoded within the form or spoken by an invisible voice, which forbade certain behaviors.

Thus, I cannot agree at this point, that humans were originally meant to be vegetarians as an explanation for why eating meat for food was not mentioned alongside eating vegetation.
The idea that YHVH changed the coding with Noah - well after Adam - may give a false impression as to when humans first began to eat meat instead of just vegetation.

For now though, Adam and Noah are not Characters within the First Creation Story as they have Adam has yet to be created, and Noah born from that linage.

Genesis is offered as a cohesive account, so we must take things that are told later into account, when appropriate.

I disagree due to the fact that if we get something wrong in the beginning, anything we then rationalize based on a false reading, will also be incorrect.

Much in the same way as, if a surveyor at the first point is out in her calculations - even a fraction of a degree - the further she moves from that initial point, the more incorrect the rest of her measurements are going to be...

I don’t think YHVH changed any coding. I think 9:3 shows that humans were meant to be vegetarian at the beginning. Otherwise, the command to eat animals would also have been in Genesis 1 instead of just coming in at 9:3. I think 9:3 may also be YHVH condescending to a practice that humans were already doing (since we have talk of sacrifices in between these chapters).

As I explained, for now the focus is on YHVH and the first humans in the first creation story, not the decedents of Adam and the more direct role YHVH appears to play in their part of the overall story...we can get to that once we come to some type of agreement that the two stories are not different telling's of the same one, but are purposefully inspired by YHVH to inform the reader that the stories did not occur as the same story told differently, but two stories which - while related - happened at different points of time along the overall unfolding storyline of Life on Earth.

The eating of animal meat is part of the story of evolution. Humans as hunters were known to exist, and that without the eating of animal meat, the human race could not have as easily survived as plants were not as readily available and had less of a shelf-life.

According to Genesis, it’s the tree of life that would keep the human race alive prior to their rebellion.

Unless the stories are not conflated. We can look into the role of the tree of life, once we get back to discussing the second creation story.

The first creation story has no tree of life. There is mention of the food which humans could eat which would assist them with surviving, but no command that other food couldn't be sourced in the hunting, killing and eating of the flesh of the beasts of the field.

Therefore, we have a possible way in which Adam could have understood 'death' as something which naturally happened.

I agree, but I’m also not convinced that one must experience death in order to understand it.

Are you also unconvinced that one would possibly understand that process of death if one were to experience it for themselves, way more than one could understand it, simply by observing it happening to others?

At this point, we do not have to add anymore to that particular subject as we agree that Adam would have observed death within The Garden, which would have given him enough of an understanding about death, that - in said understanding - he would have thought that at any time he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die soon thereafter.

Agreed?

[We know that in the Story of The Garden, the author does not write that Adam died soon after consuming the forbidden fruit- and this can be discussed once we move our focus back to that story...]

If so, then Adam too, would have understood that his form, like every other form, would eventually die.

At least that it had that potential, yes.

Lets agree for now to focus on agreeing with each other [even if only tentatively] re the first creation story...as it is the reason I decided to postpone discussing The Garden story and focus on the first creation story, as I realized you were conflating the stories as whereas I see the stories as two different creation events which YHVH performed at two different points of time on the one planet.

I do not think that is a tangent. It is important to understand in the context of both creation stories.

For now my only question re that is;

Q: What is the image of YHVH?

In the context of Genesis 1, I think all we can say is it is at least functional. Ancient rulers would erect self-images in their realm as a sign of their rule running that land. I think this is the imagery drawn on by saying humans are made in YHVH’s image. To be YHVH’s image is to have dominion in the way of YHVH versus in the image of self or someone else; something given to male and female.

Are you saying that those first humans were designed to exhibit what the actions of YHVH would be, if YHVH were in their position?

____________________________
Notes Re YHVH
I feel to add as information to all who are reading this thread;

At the time that this thread was created [ by William » Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:54 pm] I understood the two creation stories as describing one thing, just as Tradition Christianity teaches it, and just as Tanager is arguing the same understanding, from that same source.

It is only in recent days - perhaps the last couple of weeks - that this communion between Tanager and myself has helped to trigger something inside my thinking process which has enabled me to realize that the two stories are two stories because they are expressing two different events which YHVH made to happen, and that conflating those two events can mislead the reader and all those who have been influence by the words of the overall story which developed - to that point of supporting it through the device of belief - however those beliefs then interpret everything else...

...in this I am extremely interested, because I see that in conflating the two stories, there is the possibility we are being misled.

In that, I am not trying to suggest any type of conspiratorial thing is taking place, but rather - the whole of humanity has duped itself in our collective consciousness - rather than being duped by some ruling elite humans, alien entities, garden voices [nice or nasty] religious texts, or scientific papers.

I have nothing but respect for Tanager, and consider our ongoing pursuit of building a genuine friendship between us to being "YHVH inspired" however anyone might interpret that, as being.

I think YHVH is watching this spot with interest. That is just my position on the matter, and I accept that I might be mistaken, but for now - have seen no reason as to why I should think otherwise.

On the subject of "YHVH" - I have been through many twists and turns in the last 40 years, and some of those turns had me deeply hating YHVH because in those times I was wrestling with notions that YHVH was a pretend "god" who was really an extraterrestrial who's specie had also evolved from the stuff and process of the universe...evolution...

And that this advanced species [The Elohim] where 'playing god' and influencing everything which happens on our planet, and wanting humans in specific to worship them - through that image of YHVH - and declare YHVH the creator of The whole Universe/everything which is the universe.

In that context, YHVH could not have created YHVH, so the alien god species was false, as they couldn't have both created themselves AND created the universe from which their species evolved...it was illogical.

Thus they were 'playing god' and imo were not playing GOD as a true creator-god of the universe, would/should play the role.

In that, I have spent the last 40 years coming to terms with the apparent contradiction, in order to come to understand that my notions of "how a true-creator god would 'play the role'" were placed under question;

Q: How I could possibly KNOW how a "true-creator god" would play such a role?

I don't know whether I should fell shame or relief for my blunder, but consider both emotions to being a potential stumbling block to what I now regard as a process I have been going through in order to come to a place where I can fully embrace YHVH, and heal that riff in my understanding.

Sincerely
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

____________________________

[The Tanager]

So there are five verses the author dedicates to the creation of humans, and one whole "GOD-day" in which YHVH uses to create the humans.

How does that equate to humans not being animated in the same manner as the rest of the animals?

I claimed the language used was different. It is. Humans are the only ones talked about as being made in the image of YHVH. This notes a distinction between humans and animals. I didn’t make any comment about their being animated in a different way.

How are you defining intelligence? Certain levels of? Differing types of? When you observe the spider making its web, do you see that as a clear indication of the spiders intelligence or as a program the spider is responding to instinctively?

It does seem to me that animals act/react on instincts, not through some reasoning process. The spider isn’t considering whether it should spin a web or philosophize on what it means to be a spider. The reasoning process seems unique to humans.

Of what requirement did humans at this point, have the need for moral conscience, since there were no instructions on what NOT to do?

We can understand through what the second creation story tells us about Adam, that this was the case, but for now we are focusing on the first creation story, and in that there is no indication whatsoever that the human YHVH creates are instructed in any moral manner.

Even chapter 1 implies that the human race out to be fruitful, they ought to fill the earth, they ought to subdue it, ruling in YHVH’s image. That would necessarily include the need to not do things that go against those aims. The Torah is not set up as a gradual revelation of all the dos and don’ts that YHVH expects humans to learn and do. It is the message that life is too complex to boil down to a few rules that humans should follow; life is meant to live in constant relationship with YHVH and listening to YHVH’s guidance, applying that wisdom in ever new situations. What does it look like to rule in YHVH’s image, to love the person you want to objectify, to use to gain some personal benefit, the one that disagrees with you, the one that frustrates your goals, etc.

Are you perhaps meaning that - since humans seem to have developed social rules - that this points to a moral conscience being programed in humans to activate as the need for morals became apparent, in relation to the program compelling them to multiply and subdue?

I wasn’t meaning this, but I do believe that our development of social rules based on consistent moral principles does point to a moral conscience being programmed into humans, but that this conscience can be dulled as we turn away from YHVH’s guidance and wisdom through such personal and social situations.


On the Breath of YHVH

Are you saying that only the human animal received The Breath of YHVH and that The Breath of YHVH was not that which gave life/movement/purpose but that which gave humans the ability to be rational and to reason and to reflect?

No, I’m not saying that. Chapter 2 portrays humans being intimately created by YHVH while not addressing whether other animals received that same treatment.

You are thinking that humans would have needed these things to survive, whereas other animals do not?

If we take into account the instinct imbued within those first humans [from the first creation story] to multiply and to subdue, perhaps we can identify where it was necessary for those humans to have those extra abilities mentioned, to multiply and to subdue.

Within the practice of subduing, humans domesticated certain animals and there are things we can observe in other creatures which could be said to be signs of those creatures having rationality, and reasoning things out and reflecting [pausing to consider options] so your argument appears to come from a place where you consider those things as being evidence of The Breath of YHVH in humans, but - for some reason - not in other animals?

Humans reason and reflect in a vastly different way than any other animal does, if they can do those things at all. Other animals don’t philosophize, write books, keep historical records, have court systems, etc. My point is that this is reflected, linguistically, in chapter 1 through talk of being YHVH’s image, not through YHVH breathing life into Adam’s nostrils. I agree that this level of rationality is needed to subdue/rule the earth well, in YHVH’s way.

So why would YHVH inspire the author(s) to mention The Breath of YHVH in the second story but not in the first?

Why mention The Breath of YHVH at all, if all that it is, is simply something which powers up otherwise non-living forms?
If The Breath of YHVH is simply that uniform thing, what relevance does it have in relation to it being specifically mentioned alongside the creation of Adam, in the second creation story?

Chapter 1 is a broad overview, including of the creation of humans without mention of breathing into anything’s nostrils. Chapter 2 focuses in on humans because it’s being written by humans and is about humans. It’s poetic language that speaks to the intimacy of YHVH’s relationship with humans (without saying anything about non-human animals not having an intimate but different relationship with YHVH).

The evidence clearly shows us that in evolution theory there is no mention of YHVH being the creator 'behind it all'.

The same subject being spoken of is the process of the material of the earth becoming the animated life forms which exist on the planet. That is not 'very general' at all Tanager.

My point is that Genesis is not making scientific statements about the order of creation, of how life arose, of whether animals evolved, that humans are mud beings, etc. Generally, it’s a statement about YHVH being the creator of the world. Science doesn’t contradict that statement. Evolutionary theory doesn’t contradict YHVH being the creator behind it all. Evolutionary theory doesn’t mention their being a creator or not because that isn’t a scientific question; it’s a philosophical one. There are atheists and theists who accept evolutionary theory as true and do so, coherently, within their wider worldview.

Genesis is offered as a cohesive account, so we must take things that are told later into account, when appropriate.

I disagree due to the fact that if we get something wrong in the beginning, anything we then rationalize based on a false reading, will also be incorrect.

I agree with that, so that can’t be why we disagree with what I said. Of course what we get out of the early chapters will affect (positively or negatively) our possibility of properly understanding what comes later. My point is that the reverse is also true, that there are details revealed later in the story that will help us answer questions that arise in our minds that aren’t immediately addressed earlier.

As I explained, for now the focus is on YHVH and the first humans in the first creation story, not the decedents of Adam and the more direct role YHVH appears to play in their part of the overall story...we can get to that once we come to some type of agreement that the two stories are not different telling's of the same one, but are purposefully inspired by YHVH to inform the reader that the stories did not occur as the same story told differently, but two stories which - while related - happened at different points of time along the overall unfolding storyline of Life on Earth.

Okay, but right now, your case seems to me to be based on assumption and reading science and your philosophical views into empty spaces in the text of questions you have but the text doesn’t address.

Are you also unconvinced that one would possibly understand that process of death if one were to experience it for themselves, way more than one could understand it, simply by observing it happening to others?

No. I agree experience of something gives us the possibility of a deeper understanding. What I’ve been saying is that a non-experiential knowledge is enough to say Adam and Eve understood what ‘death’ meant.

At this point, we do not have to add anymore to that particular subject as we agree that Adam would have observed death within The Garden, which would have given him enough of an understanding about death, that - in said understanding - he would have thought that at any time he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die soon thereafter.

Agreed?

I don’t agree that “death” would have only been understood as a bodily thing.

Lets agree for now to focus on agreeing with each other [even if only tentatively] re the first creation story...as it is the reason I decided to postpone discussing The Garden story and focus on the first creation story, as I realized you were conflating the stories as whereas I see the stories as two different creation events which YHVH performed at two different points of time on the one planet.

Okay,

Are you saying that those first humans were designed to exhibit what the actions of YHVH would be, if YHVH were in their position?

That humans were given the abilities to do so and called to do so, yes.


On the notes

It is only in recent days - perhaps the last couple of weeks - that this communion between Tanager and myself has helped to trigger something inside my thinking process which has enabled me to realize that the two stories are two stories because they are expressing two different events which YHVH made to happen, and that conflating those two events can mislead the reader and all those who have been influence by the words of the overall story which developed - to that point of supporting it through the device of belief - however those beliefs then interpret everything else...

...in this I am extremely interested, because I see that in conflating the two stories, there is the possibility we are being misled.

Are you saying the conflating of two stories into one is more apt for misleading than deflating a connected account into two would be, in a general sense? Or just noting one equally possible error rather than the other in this specific case?

I don't know whether I should fell shame or relief for my blunder, but consider both emotions to being a potential stumbling block to what I now regard as a process I have been going through in order to come to a place where I can fully embrace YHVH, and heal that riff in my understanding.

Sincerely
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Thank you for sharing this bit of your story. I wish more people would do so, rather than just try to “win” debates. It’s natural for me to want to only focus on the arguments, but I love going beyond that.

I agree feelings of shame and relief are often misleading. I definitely think conflating stories and deflating one story and all kinds of things that cause misunderstanding of reality happen (purposefully and with the best intentions) by humans. It’s why I like having conversations here. Yes, there are some people who aren’t really seeking truth, but seeking to set others straight, but there are many who aren’t like that.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #207]

So there are five verses the author dedicates to the creation of humans, and one whole "GOD-day" in which YHVH uses to create the humans.

How does that equate to humans not being animated in the same manner as the rest of the animals?

I claimed the language used was different. It is. Humans are the only ones talked about as being made in the image of YHVH. This notes a distinction between humans and animals. I didn’t make any comment about their being animated in a different way.

So YHVH created man in The Image of YHVH. In the The Image of YHVH, YHVH created male and female. YHVH created them.

We agree with that, and are still in the process of identifying what "The Image of YHVH" is, and whether it has something to do with "The Breath of YHVH"...agreed?

How are you defining intelligence? Certain levels of? Differing types of? When you observe the spider making its web, do you see that as a clear indication of the spiders intelligence or as a program the spider is responding to instinctively?

It does seem to me that animals act/react on instincts, not through some reasoning process. The spider isn’t considering whether it should spin a web or philosophize on what it means to be a spider. The reasoning process seems unique to humans.

So essentially the spider is just doing its thing as it was designed by YHVH to do...there is no need for the spider to self-identify as "being a Spider" - being named, and naming it's offspring or wondering about the reason it exists as it does or if it was created, and who/what that creator might be...

"The Image of YHVH", having something to do with "The Breath of YHVH",...Is this "That which causes the human being to wonder about their existence within the situation they are in, and to react differently than the other animals, who are simply going along with the Code YHVH placed into their DNA - happily instinctive about it all"?

Shall we agree to that?

Even chapter 1 implies that the human race out to be fruitful, they ought to fill the earth, they ought to subdue it, ruling in YHVH’s image.

The coding took care of that. They did not have any relationship with YHVH - they simply moved with the food and subdued as they could. Because of this early state, the process took a very long time...indeed, a number of epochs.
Earlier on, there would have been no requirement for moral guidance. It would have been unnecessary as human actions re breeding and becoming superior to all other animals didn't need to be done in any particular manner.
Those things developed far further into the future of that beginning time...YHVH would have known this.

That would necessarily include the need to not do things that go against those aims.

Eventually this is what needed to be established, yes.

The Torah is not set up as a gradual revelation of all the dos and don’ts that YHVH expects humans to learn and do.

That is specific to a particular type of human being which developed from Adams lineage, specific to the advent of The Second Creation Story.

It is the message that life is too complex to boil down to a few rules that humans should follow;

And is understood in that way, as life became more complex re human specie development

life is meant to live in constant relationship with YHVH and listening to YHVH’s guidance, applying that wisdom in ever new situations.

Only when within a particular environment which allows for that to become the normal thing to do.
Adam was in that situation from his beginning. That was not the case for the humans in The First Creation Story.

What does it look like to rule in YHVH’s image, to love the person you want to objectify, to use to gain some personal benefit, the one that disagrees with you, the one that frustrates your goals, etc.

I am unclear as to what you are trying to ask here.

Are you perhaps meaning that - since humans seem to have developed social rules - that this points to a moral conscience being programed in humans to activate as the need for morals became apparent, in relation to the program compelling them to multiply and subdue?

I wasn’t meaning this, but I do believe that our development of social rules based on consistent moral principles does point to a moral conscience being programmed into humans, but that this conscience can be dulled as we turn away from YHVH’s guidance and wisdom through such personal and social situations.

What will be, will be.

Chapter 1 is a broad overview, including of the creation of humans without mention of breathing into anything’s nostrils. Chapter 2 focuses in on humans because it’s being written by humans and is about humans.

We differ as to the nature of the two stories. Chapter One is about early human development [re evolution] and Chapter two is specifically about Adam - perhaps inserted into the human story to act as a type of hack-code in order to speed up the process of human evolution in both knowledge and moral understanding.

Adam's 'fall' was showing his failure to being able to keep his connection with YHVH, even while YHVH was silent. Adam therefore, chose to listen to the voices of others and in doing so, became dead to YHVH.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t contradict YHVH being the creator behind it all.

Then there is no reason why we couldn't agree that The First Creation Story is specific to evolution theory, even that it isn't saying so in the language of science.

Genesis is offered as a cohesive account, so we must take things that are told later into account, when appropriate.

I disagree due to the fact that if we get something wrong in the beginning, anything we then rationalize based on a false reading, will also be incorrect.

I agree with that, so that can’t be why we disagree with what I said. Of course what we get out of the early chapters will affect (positively or negatively) our possibility of properly understanding what comes later. My point is that the reverse is also true, that there are details revealed later in the story that will help us answer questions that arise in our minds that aren’t immediately addressed earlier.

Then let us agree to stick with the storyline from the beginning, rather than jump ahead - so that each stage of agreement acts as a navigation device through the pages as they turn.

My point was to do with there being two specific stories, and IF the stories get conflated, THEN what follows will also be distorted, and this distortion should be able to be identified as those pages get turned.

We are still currently with The First Humans of The First Creation Story. Adam came later, and Eve even later still...Humans were already in the process of subduing the Earth, even before The Garden of Eden was created.

As I explained, for now the focus is on YHVH and the first humans in the first creation story, not the decedents of Adam and the more direct role YHVH appears to play in their part of the overall story...we can get to that once we come to some type of agreement that the two stories are not different telling's of the same one, but are purposefully inspired by YHVH to inform the reader that the stories did not occur as the same story told differently, but two stories which - while related - happened at different points of time along the overall unfolding storyline of Life on Earth.

Okay, but right now, your case seems to me to be based on assumption and reading science and your philosophical views into empty spaces in the text of questions you have but the text doesn’t address.

I am okay about placing science into the gaps in the story as - not to do so - would appear to be an attempt to separate two things which should otherwise be naturally conflated, since these happened upon the same Planet, in the same spacetime.

Agreed?

What I’ve been saying is that a non-experiential knowledge is enough to say Adam and Eve understood what ‘death’ meant.

The way it reads, clearly Adam understood that he was dead to YHVH. Or perhaps not? Certainly we can understand that YHVH understood that Adam was dead to YHVH.

At this point, we do not have to add anymore to that particular subject as we agree that Adam would have observed death within The Garden, which would have given him enough of an understanding about death, that - in said understanding - he would have thought that at any time he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die soon thereafter.

Agreed?

I don’t agree that “death” would have only been understood as a bodily thing.

Well. since you refrain from saying why you don't agree, there is nothing I can comment on re that.

Are you saying the conflating of two stories into one is more apt for misleading than deflating a connected account into two would be, in a general sense?

Yes. Thinking of the two stories as different telling's of the same story, did lead to errors.

I definitely think conflating stories and deflating one story and all kinds of things that cause misunderstanding of reality happen (purposefully and with the best intentions) by humans. It’s why I like having conversations here.

After a while, debating seems counterintuitive or even something YHVH has no interest in doing...
From where I am currently at, it appears that understanding The Two Creation Stories as separate events with an extremely long gap between them, lends itself to viewing everything else through that same lens, and coming up with a different point of view than tradition teaches through the devices of organized Abrahamic religion.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #208]

We agree with that, and are still in the process of identifying what "The Image of YHVH" is, and whether it has something to do with "The Breath of YHVH"...agreed?

Yes, but you were talking about algorithms/instinct playing a role for humans and non-human animals. I think the language in chapter 1 shows a distinction that speaks to humans not being purely instinctual, unlike non-human animals. Do you agree?

"The Image of YHVH", having something to do with "The Breath of YHVH",...Is this "That which causes the human being to wonder about their existence within the situation they are in, and to react differently than the other animals, who are simply going along with the Code YHVH placed into their DNA - happily instinctive about it all"?

Shall we agree to that?

I see no reason to think they are deeply connected in meaning. The breath of life is what makes humans alive, rather than just matter. Non-human animals also have the breath of life (1:30 and other verses). I agree humans have this additional rational element, but I don’t see it textually related to YHVH breathing the breath of life into them.

The coding took care of that. They did not have any relationship with YHVH - they simply moved with the food and subdued as they could. Because of this early state, the process took a very long time...indeed, a number of epochs.

They do have a relationship with YHVH; they are YHVH’s images. The text isn’t an exhaustive account of any particular length of time.

Earlier on, there would have been no requirement for moral guidance. It would have been unnecessary as human actions re breeding and becoming superior to all other animals didn't need to be done in any particular manner.

If the text was talking about such a period, sure, but I see no reason to think it does.

Those things developed far further into the future of that beginning time...YHVH would have known this.

If humans evolved and then, at some later point, were given consciousness, I still see no reason to read that into chapter 1. As the section says (1:1, 2:1) this is a summary account of the creation of the heavens and earth. The main thrust is that YHVH is the creator of the world, and that the world was created as very good with the purpose for humans being to multiply, fill the earth, and rule it in YHVH’s image. It’s not about the scientific process that took place.

That would necessarily include the need to not do things that go against those aims.

Eventually this is what needed to be established, yes.

The text, in chapter 1, shows a distinction of humans over the animals. Not a created equality, where humans rise to the top, and then are rewarded or chosen or anything like that. What humans are told to do requires moral abilities. There isn’t any hint of “at some point in your evolution, you’ll be asked to do this kind of stuff and get the abilities to do so later.”

That is specific to a particular type of human being which developed from Adams lineage, specific to the advent of The Second Creation Story.

If there are clear textual reasons to separate the stories into two distinct creation accounts. I see no reason to think that.

And is understood in that way, as life became more complex re human specie development

The storyline doesn’t say/imply that.

What does it look like to rule in YHVH’s image, to love the person you want to objectify, to use to gain some personal benefit, the one that disagrees with you, the one that frustrates your goals, etc.

I am unclear as to what you are trying to ask here.

It was a rhetorical question. It was a continuation of my claim that being made in YHVH’s image (chapter 1) necessarily requires moral agency. Moral agency isn’t something that comes later.

I wasn’t meaning this, but I do believe that our development of social rules based on consistent moral principles does point to a moral conscience being programmed into humans, but that this conscience can be dulled as we turn away from YHVH’s guidance and wisdom through such personal and social situations.

What will be, will be.

I’m not sure what your response means in relation to what I wrote above.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t contradict YHVH being the creator behind it all.

Then there is no reason why we couldn't agree that The First Creation Story is specific to evolution theory, even that it isn't saying so in the language of science.

There is a reason to not agree there: the text doesn’t say anything about evolution. It doesn’t present a transformation of humans into being YHVH’s image, but mentions this difference from non-human animals at the very beginning of the creation of humans. The above are two separate issues: (1) if evolutionary theory is correct as it pertains to the origin of human life, is this evidence for theism over atheism (or vice versa)...it isn’t and (2) is Genesis 1 describing evolutionary theory…I see no reason to think so beyond speculation and assumption from silence.

Then let us agree to stick with the storyline from the beginning, rather than jump ahead - so that each stage of agreement acts as a navigation device through the pages as they turn.

We can do that, as long as we stick to the questions the text addresses and not the questions we’d like it to have addressed.

My point was to do with there being two specific stories, and IF the stories get conflated, THEN what follows will also be distorted, and this distortion should be able to be identified as those pages get turned.

And, just the same, if they are wrongly deflated into two completely distinct stories, then what follows will also be distorted, which should also be able to be identified as those pages get turned.

We are still currently with The First Humans of The First Creation Story. Adam came later, and Eve even later still...Humans were already in the process of subduing the Earth, even before The Garden of Eden was created.

What, textually, points to this chronological difference? In 1:1 and 2:1 we see the first account being about YHVH making the heavens and the earth. In 2:4, the second account is about the human generations of the heavens and earth ”when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” That seems to connect them to the same event.

I am okay about placing science into the gaps in the story as - not to do so - would appear to be an attempt to separate two things which should otherwise be naturally conflated, since these happened upon the same Planet, in the same spacetime.

Agreed?

Only if the text was addressing the same subject. It’s mytho-history, talking about YHVH creating and loving us, humanity's failure apart from YHVH, and that sort of thing, not history and science, talking about evolution and a literal historical account like modern historians might want to do.

The way it reads, clearly Adam understood that he was dead to YHVH. Or perhaps not? Certainly we can understand that YHVH understood that Adam was dead to YHVH.

We were disagreeing on whether Adam and Eve understood what death meant prior to breaking YHVH’s command and eating of that tree. You think they didn't understand it; I think they did.

I don’t agree that “death” would have only been understood as a bodily thing.

Well. since you refrain from saying why you don't agree, there is nothing I can comment on re that.

I have said why...in an earlier post and didn't think I needed to say it again. It's because they don’t physically die when they eat it. YHVH eventually gives them the consequence of not being able to eat of the tree of life (thus, they will die because of this mistrust), but the immediate thing that happens is that they hide from YHVH; their relationship is broken. This is a spiritual death.

Are you saying the conflating of two stories into one is more apt for misleading than deflating a connected account into two would be, in a general sense?

Yes. Thinking of the two stories as different telling's of the same story, did lead to errors.

By “in a general sense”, I mean not specific to the Bible, but just any general accounts/stories. Are you saying that the error of treating 2 stories as 1 is inherently more prone to further mistakes than the error of treating 1 story (in two accounts) as 2 different stories?

After a while, debating seems counterintuitive or even something YHVH has no interest in doing…

I sometimes distinguish between dialogue and debate, where I think YHVH has great interest in dialogue, but no interest in empty debates where people are just trying to win a case subjectively rather than being interested in truth, loving others, and mutual respect through challenging each other’s view. Is this something like what you mean here?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #209]

We agree with that, and are still in the process of identifying what "The Image of YHVH" is, and whether it has something to do with "The Breath of YHVH"...agreed?

Yes, but you were talking about algorithms/instinct playing a role for humans and non-human animals. I think the language in chapter 1 shows a distinction that speaks to humans not being purely instinctual, unlike non-human animals. Do you agree?

If you mean, humans have both instincts/algorithms and something they are able to connect into/realize which allows for that distinction, then yes - I agree.

"The Image of YHVH", having something to do with "The Breath of YHVH",...Is this "That which causes the human being to wonder about their existence within the situation they are in, and to react differently than the other animals, who are simply going along with the Code YHVH placed into their DNA - happily instinctive about it all"?

Shall we agree to that?

I see no reason to think they are deeply connected in meaning. The breath of life is what makes humans alive, rather than just matter. Non-human animals also have the breath of life (1:30 and other verses). I agree humans have this additional rational element, but I don’t see it textually related to YHVH breathing the breath of life into them.

Okay. So you see a difference between "The Breath of YHVH" and "The Image of YHVH" based upon the knowledge that animals also received The Breath of YHVH but not The Image of YHVH.

Therefore, are you arguing that The Breath of YHVH has something to do with how the nature of animals and humans are similar and that The Image of YHVH denotes that which is not similar between humans and all other animals?

If so, can you define what is NOT similar between say...Dolphins/Whales and Humans?
[This will help the reader in understanding how you view these differences re YHVH's Breath and YHVH's Image.]

The coding took care of that. They did not have any relationship with YHVH - they simply moved with the food and subdued as they could. Because of this early state, the process took a very long time...indeed, a number of epochs.

They do have a relationship with YHVH; they are YHVH’s images.

This is why I have asked you for examples re the differences between Dolphins/Whales and Humans

The text isn’t an exhaustive account of any particular length of time.

This is known to be the case, yes.
But as I earlier wrote, the text still has to align with the science, and The First Creation Story does so, according to how I view it - aligning it with the following sciences;

Earth and related Environmental sciences

Geosciences, multidisciplinary; Mineralogy; Palaeontology; Geochemistry and geophysics; Physical geography; Geology; Volcanology; Environmental
Meteorology and atmospheric; Climatic research;
Oceanography. Hydrology;

Cell biology, Microbiology; Virology; Biochemistry and molecular biology; Biochemical research methods; Mycology; Biophysics;
Genetics and heredity; Reproductive biology; Developmental biology; Heredity reproductive biology;
Plant sciences, botany;
Zoology. Ornithology. Entomology. Behavioural sciences biology;
Marine biology, freshwater biology, immunology; Ecology; Biodiversity conservation
Biology (theoretical, mathematical, thermal, cryobiology, biological rhythm), Evolutionary biology: other biological topics - and other natural sciences.

Being made in the image of YHVH does not equate to the human animal knowing [even instinctively] that this is the case.
That is the train of thought I am presently travelling on.

The Image of YHVH may be present, but is not activated fully in the awareness of the specie collective. This appears to be something which occurs in individual personalities, one by one.

The species can be largely left to their own devices as they being the journey YHVH commissioned of them. A long amount of time can be invested in that process of going out into the world and discovering what is there to be discovered.

YHVH does not have to be specifically present and verbally teaching this First Creation of Humans, as YHVH obviously was re The Garden Story [The Second Creation Story] as things are more on auto-pilot re The First Humans Created by YHVH.

Earlier on, there would have been no requirement for moral guidance. It would have been unnecessary as human actions re breeding and becoming superior to all other animals didn't need to be done in any particular manner.

If the text was talking about such a period, sure, but I see no reason to think it does.

The science I mentioned is a great reason to think that it does.

Do you agree?

Those things developed far further into the future of that beginning time...YHVH would have known this.

If humans evolved...

The science shows this to be the case, yes.

...and then, at some later point, were given consciousness, I still see no reason to read that into chapter 1.

All animals appear to have consciousness, and we might even agree that consciousness has many layers and we can develop our consciousness by moving through and learning from those layers.
However, you were being specific to moral values, and appear to be arguing that YHVH invested those morals into humans from the go-get that humans could know right from wrong [good and evil] from that moment on, whereas I am arguing - not for the absence of consciousness, but of conscientiousness as this developed as human consciousness developed.

That is the difference in our views, agreed?

That would necessarily include the need to not do things that go against those aims.

Eventually this is what needed to be established, yes.

The text, in chapter 1, shows a distinction of humans over the animals. Not a created equality, where humans rise to the top, and then are rewarded or chosen or anything like that. What humans are told to do requires moral abilities. There isn’t any hint of “at some point in your evolution, you’ll be asked to do this kind of stuff and get the abilities to do so later.”

There were no commands from YHVH in The First Creation Story, therefore there is no reason why one cannot accept that consciousness and conscientiousness developed and allowed for Humans to naturally work things out as their abilities to do so, allowed for that.

The Science of Engineering shows us that this appears to be the case - Humans actually do develop their Minds and this results in the development of the tools they invent for the purpose of subduing the Earth.

HUMANITIES
History and Archaeology
History (history of science and technology - history of specific sciences to be under respective headings); Archaeology;

Languages and Literature

General language studies; Specific languages; General literature studies; Literary theory; Specific literatures; Linguistics

Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

Philosophy, History and philosophy or science and technology;
Ethics (except ethics related to specific subfields); Theology; Religious studies,

Arts (arts, history of arts. performing arts, music)

Arts, Art history; Architectural design; Performing arts studies (Musicology, 'Theater science, Dramaturgy); Folklore;

Studies on Film, Radio and Television;
Other humanities

As the section says (1:1, 2:1) this is a summary account of the creation of the heavens and earth. The main thrust is that YHVH is the creator of the world, and that the world was created as very good with the purpose for humans being to multiply, fill the earth, and rule it in YHVH’s image. It’s not about the scientific process that took place.

Nor do I argue that it is. I argue that - within the personalities mind - it has to be aligned with the sciences, rather than deny the science in favor of any religious representation which refuses to align with science.

Agreed?

That is specific to a particular type of human being which developed from Adams lineage, specific to the advent of The Second Creation Story.

If there are clear textual reasons to separate the stories into two distinct creation accounts.

Please share with the reader, what these "clear textual reasons" are.

I see no reason to think that.

Are you saying there is no evidence that the First Humans were any different from Adam?

And is understood in that way, as life became more complex re human specie development

The storyline doesn’t say/imply that.

I am saying why it does. Why do you say that it doesn't?

What does it look like to rule in YHVH’s image, to love the person you want to objectify, to use to gain some personal benefit, the one that disagrees with you, the one that frustrates your goals, etc.

I am unclear as to what you are trying to ask here.

It was a rhetorical question.

Even so, I am still unclear as to what you are trying to ask here.

It was a continuation of my claim that being made in YHVH’s image (chapter 1) necessarily requires moral agency. Moral agency isn’t something that comes later.

To further share my own thoughts re that, I am not arguing that the coding wasn't placed in the Body Sets of the First Humans, but rather that it was designed to activate in line with Human experience over epochs - as per the evolution of consciousness and conscientiousness.

I wasn’t meaning this, but I do believe that our development of social rules based on consistent moral principles does point to a moral conscience being programmed into humans, but that this conscience can be dulled as we turn away from YHVH’s guidance and wisdom through such personal and social situations.

What will be, will be.

I’m not sure what your response means in relation to what I wrote above.

It means that I agree with you our development of social rules and therein that process, these came into being through that process of development, rather than being fully operational from the go-get as you are implying in your posts.

So what was it Tanager? Development of or fully operational?

Evolutionary theory doesn’t contradict YHVH being the creator behind it all.

Then there is no reason why we couldn't agree that The First Creation Story is specific to evolution theory, even that it isn't saying so in the language of science.

There is a reason to not agree there: the text doesn’t say anything about evolution. It doesn’t present a transformation of humans into being YHVH’s image, but mentions this difference from non-human animals at the very beginning of the creation of humans.

I have presented the case for the inclusion of science. You will have to explain to the reader as to why evolution should not be included in the biblical account as you imply that Humans were made fully aware of their moral obligations from the beginning.

The above are two separate issues: (1) if evolutionary theory is correct as it pertains to the origin of human life, is this evidence for theism over atheism (or vice versa)...it isn’t

Atheism does not belong on the table of this conversation Tanager. Science is what is being pointed to re my arguments.

Theism is able to include science within its theologies, and indeed - should do so in order to help theists understand even more of the nature of YHVH re the growing understanding of the nature of the physical universe.

and (2) is Genesis 1 describing evolutionary theory…I see no reason to think so beyond speculation and assumption from silence.

Well now Tanager, I have offered compelling reason to include evolutionary theory into all theological concepts considered to be true, including the biblical account of The First Creation.

[Evolution Theory can also be incorporated into Simulation Theory.]

If you are still unable to agree, at least it has been sorted where you and I part company and the reader can take from that, what they will.