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]

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.

In Genesis 1?

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.

Yes.

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?

No, I don’t think it says anything about their nature; just that said thing is alive.

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.]

Our rationality, moral agency are the two that immediately come to mind.

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

Humans, due to their rationality, have a different relationship with YHVH, they are expected to make moral choices, wanted to choose love, which means choosing to trust YHVH over their own desires. Humans are put in charge of extending YHVH’s peace and reign over all the earth, including charge over the animals.

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;

It needs to not contradict sound science, but it doesn’t need to align with it in the sense that they are talking about the same subjects; they aren’t.

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.

I think all of this goes beyond the questions the text is addressing.

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?

No, I don’t at all. The text isn’t addressing scientific questions.

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?

It’s part of it. I think Genesis 1 is talking about a different rationality between humans and non-human animals as well as implying moral agency.

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.

Not according to Gen 1:28-29:

Be fruitful.
Multiply.
Fill the earth.
Subdue it.
Have dominion over the fish and birds and land creatures.
Eat of the plant yielding seed for food.

You talked of following the storyline. The storyline says nothing of consciousness and conscientiousness developing from non-human animal level to human animal level. I agree that humans have developed their understanding, technology, etc., but that’s not what the text is talking about here and it’s certainly not explaining a gradual attainment of human rationality.

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?

In no way have any of my responses denied the sciences. I’m trying to address what the text addresses, which is not what the sciences address.

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.

You are the one claiming the stories should be separated, so what clear textual reasons do you see for doing so? I shared why I think the stories are connected. The first account is about YHVH creating the heavens and earth and giving humans a purpose (1:1, 2:1), while the second account focuses in on the human generations ”when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,” i.e., what was just related in Genesis 1.

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

Yes.

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?

Your argument seems to be that science says this and that we should read science into the text, not that the text itself says it. I don’t see why we should read science into a text not addressing scientific questions.

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.

Which is not in the storyline at all, even if it scientifically happened. The storyline doesn’t contradict that because it isn’t addressing those questions.

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?

The moral principles were there, how they play out in societal rules is developed.

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

It shouldn’t be included because the text isn’t asking scientific questions.

as you imply that Humans were made fully aware of their moral obligations from the beginning.

I am not saying that. I am saying that if humans evolved from non-rational, non-moral beings that Genesis 1 is still talking about the moment they became rational, moral agents.

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.

I was just delineating two questions on the issue as touched upon in what we’ve been talking about.

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.

I agree theism should account for science and that they don’t contradict. Science can indirectly give us some insight into the nature of YHVH.

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.

Your reason would only be compelling if the text addressed scientific questions. What makes you think it does? What specific verses or phrases?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #211]

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.

In Genesis 1?

Yes. We are still discussing The First Creation Story.

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.

Yes.

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?

No, I don’t think it says anything about their nature; just that said thing is alive.

Well, they being alive, gives opportunity for their natures to form, which are what the algorithms YHVH instill into body-sets are about.

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.]

Our rationality, moral agency are the two that immediately come to mind.

Can you put some meat on those bones for the reader, Tanager. Give examples as to those differences as you view them.

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

Humans, due to their rationality, have a different relationship with YHVH, they are expected to make moral choices, wanted to choose love, which means choosing to trust YHVH over their own desires. Humans are put in charge of extending YHVH’s peace and reign over all the earth, including charge over the animals.

And this is what you think of as being YHVH's Image, correct?

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;

It needs to not contradict sound science, but it doesn’t need to align with it in the sense that they are talking about the same subjects; they aren’t.

They are. Science is talking about the physical universe and the Earth sciences are specific to life on Earth, which is the same subject as The First Creation Story.

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.

I think all of this goes beyond the questions the text is addressing.

I think otherwise, since the text is addressing the subject of Life on Earth, the Universe being created and how that relationship between Creator and Creation is set up to evolve.
Just because the text is short on details does not mean that there are no details to the overall story. Science verifies that there are many details.

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

Do you agree?

No, I don’t at all. The text isn’t addressing scientific questions.

Yes it is.
The text is addressing the subject of Life on Earth, the Universe being created and how that relationship between Creator and Creation is set up to evolve.
Just because the text is short on details does not mean that there are no details to the overall story.
Just because science does not address the Creation/Creator subject of the text, does not mean that the text is not addressing the subject of the Universe and Life on Earth.
There is no requirement us to think of the text as being unscientific, especially as it aligns with Evolution Theory.
Nor is there any requirement for Christians or [Theists in general] to think Evolution Theory is somehow competing with Creation/Simulation Theory. It does not.

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?

It’s part of it. I think Genesis 1 is talking about a different rationality between humans and non-human animals as well as implying moral agency.

Yet it does not imply that moral agency was fully understood and furthermore it does not have any commands attached to the First Humans as to what they should or should not do.
This is why I think that the moral agency was an aspect of code designed to evolve as those first Humans evolved - as a way of helping to assist them in situations they would naturally encounter, over long periods of time, rather than there being any implied statement in The First Creation Story that Humans were fully aware of morality, as it appears you are arguing.

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.

Not according to Gen 1:28-29:

Be fruitful.
Multiply.
Fill the earth.
Subdue it.
Have dominion over the fish and birds and land creatures.
Eat of the plant yielding seed for food.

These are not commands, as I have pointed out. They are natural instincts encoded into the body-sets and could not be willfully disobeyed, as commandments can be disobeyed.

You talked of following the storyline. The storyline says nothing of consciousness and conscientiousness developing from non-human animal level to human animal level.

That is simply because it is not a scientific paper Tanager. Consciousness and conscientiousness did indeed develop through those natural processes and were not somehow automatically present and fully operational in humans, but something which requires development, either as a species or as individuals, otherwise we would see the evidence of this being the case, in very young humans. There is only evidence that these things have to be learned, and the learning is the thing which is about evolution and brings out that which was encoded within our body sets.

I agree that humans have developed their understanding, technology, etc., but that’s not what the text is talking about here and it’s certainly not explaining a gradual attainment of human rationality.

Indeed, that is largely due to the nature of the storyline briefly mentioning points which in scientific terms, took epochs to accomplish. The storyline may give the impression that these things happened overnight, but the evidence supports that they did not, so we must defer to the evidence and therefore accept the rational that the storyline is not meant to be read as if its brief outlines are to be taken as the things mentioned happening literally in six days or even six thousand years.

[That is what I meant by its 'bullet point" style]

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?

In no way have any of my responses denied the sciences. I’m trying to address what the text addresses, which is not what the sciences address.

Are you not saying that the storyline does not convey the science? If you are, then by implication, there is a type of science denial going on when one takes the science out of the story or does not want to include the science in with what the story briefly states about the Universe and more specifically life on Earth.

You are being asked to address the text in line with what the science also addresses. You appear to believe that doing so is not necessary, as if the two cannot be reconciled or shown to align with each other.

Is that how you see it?

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.

You are the one claiming the stories should be separated, so what clear textual reasons do you see for doing so?

You said 'if' and so I was simply asking you to share with the reader what these clear textual reasons are 'if' you see any.

I will continue to share the evidence as to why I think the two Creation Stories are about specific events which are separated by epochs of time along the Earth-timeline.

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

Yes.

Do you mean different as in form or different re why they were created, when they were created?
Or are you conflating the Second Creation Story [re Adam] as being somehow a recap on the First Creation Story and that YHVH is addressing Adam re the interaction between YHVH and the Mankind of the First Creation Story?

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.

Which is not in the storyline at all, even if it scientifically happened.

The scientific evidence clearly shows that it did happen.

The storyline doesn’t contradict that because it isn’t addressing those questions.

Are you suggesting that because the storyline doesn't address the advent of life on Earth in a scientific manner, that this implies that the storyline contradicts science?

If so, then there is no rational reason I have been shown by you as to why the storyline contradicts the science.

If you are just saying that the storyline doesn't address the advent of Life on Earth in a purely scientific manner, but neither does it contradict the science, then we agree.

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 you

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

The moral principles were there, how they play out in societal rules is developed.

So the moral coding was there but required development. The moral coding was not fully operational.

This would signify an agreement between us, agreed?

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

It shouldn’t be included because the text isn’t asking scientific questions.

I have explained why I think it is rational to include it, even if the text is not specifically regarded as a scientific account.

Q: Do you think that YHVH did not create Life on Earth in the manner that Science has revealed to us, Life on Earth came about?

I ask, because I see no rational reason for why you would otherwise argue that it shouldn't be included re discussion of the biblical text re The First Creation Story.

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.

I am not saying that. I am saying that if humans evolved from non-rational, non-moral beings that Genesis 1 is still talking about the moment they became rational, moral agents.

Are you therefore saying that science is claiming that humans evolved from non-rational, non-moral beings?

What moment are you referring to where the First Creation Story talks about when humans became rational, moral agents?

And, how is that any different from what Human Sciences tell it?

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

I was just delineating two questions on the issue as touched upon in what we’ve been talking about.

Nonetheless, if you are conflating science/the theory of evolution with atheism, that does not belong on this table.

The theory of evolution investigates the way in which Life on Earth developed - or from a theistic viewpoint, how YHVH created things to unfold as they have. Thus these do belong on the table of discussion, but not atheism, or atheistic thinking.

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.

I agree theism should account for science and that they don’t contradict. Science can indirectly give us some insight into the nature of YHVH.

Good. We can add that to our First Story Agreement List.

First Story Agreement List
1: Science gives us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

Agreed?

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.

Your reason would only be compelling if the text addressed scientific questions. What makes you think it does? What specific verses or phrases?

I see nothing contradictory between any of the text or that which evolution theory tells us - re how YHVH made things.

If you do see anything contradictory, I am interested in seeing those specific verses or phrases. Otherwise, there is no rational reason as to why we should not be in agreement here.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #212]

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.

In Genesis 1?

Yes. We are still discussing The First Creation Story.

So, you agree that Genesis 1 distinguishes humans as something different than the other animals? I thought you were saying the distinction comes in Genesis 2?

Well, they being alive, gives opportunity for their natures to form, which are what the algorithms YHVH instill into body-sets are about.

My point is that the “Breath of YHVH” isn’t what distinguishes humans from non-human animals. Do you agree?

Our rationality, moral agency are the two that immediately come to mind.

Can you put some meat on those bones for the reader, Tanager. Give examples as to those differences as you view them.

Humans reflect on their existence, talk about cosmology, come up with all kinds of theories, write poetry, feel moral guilt, undergo moral deliberations, while non-human animals don’t do those kinds of things.

Humans, due to their rationality, have a different relationship with YHVH, they are expected to make moral choices, wanted to choose love, which means choosing to trust YHVH over their own desires. Humans are put in charge of extending YHVH’s peace and reign over all the earth, including charge over the animals.

And this is what you think of as being YHVH's Image, correct?

Yes, in Genesis 1, the image of YHVH is functional.

They are. Science is talking about the physical universe and the Earth sciences are specific to life on Earth, which is the same subject as The First Creation Story.

Genesis isn’t talking about creation scientifically. The focus is on YHVH as the good creator and giving humans purpose. Those aren’t scientific issues.

I think otherwise, since the text is addressing the subject of Life on Earth, the Universe being created and how that relationship between Creator and Creation is set up to evolve.
Just because the text is short on details does not mean that there are no details to the overall story. Science verifies that there are many details.

Okay, so I’m saying they focus on different subsections of that more general category. Science explores evolution of what already exists and that sort of stuff; Genesis explores how it all got there in the first place, if humans have a purpose, the relationship between YHVH and humans. Those are different questions/subsections/issues. The details you are speaking of aren’t in the text.

There is no requirement us to think of the text as being unscientific, especially as it aligns with Evolution Theory.
Nor is there any requirement for Christians or [Theists in general] to think Evolution Theory is somehow competing with Creation/Simulation Theory. It does not.

I don’t think they are competing; I think they are addressing different questions. Competing requires a competition over the same question.

Yet it does not imply that moral agency was fully understood and furthermore it does not have any commands attached to the First Humans as to what they should or should not do.
This is why I think that the moral agency was an aspect of code designed to evolve as those first Humans evolved - as a way of helping to assist them in situations they would naturally encounter, over long periods of time, rather than there being any implied statement in The First Creation Story that Humans were fully aware of morality, as it appears you are arguing.

The functions assume certain moral commands, that they should rule in YHVH’s image rather than other alternatives. I’m arguing that humans were moral agents in Genesis 1, not that they knew what to do in every situation. The history of the Torah is applying YHVH’s wisdom in ever new situations.

Not according to Gen 1:28-29:

Be fruitful.
Multiply.
Fill the earth.
Subdue it.
Have dominion over the fish and birds and land creatures.
Eat of the plant yielding seed for food.

These are not commands, as I have pointed out. They are natural instincts encoded into the body-sets and could not be willfully disobeyed, as commandments can be disobeyed.

The text has YHVH directly saying these things to them (v. 28). The text doesn’t present them as encoded instincts, but as commands.

You talked of following the storyline. The storyline says nothing of consciousness and conscientiousness developing from non-human animal level to human animal level.

That is simply because it is not a scientific paper Tanager. Consciousness and conscientiousness did indeed develop through those natural processes and were not somehow automatically present and fully operational in humans, but something which requires development, either as a species or as individuals, otherwise we would see the evidence of this being the case, in very young humans. There is only evidence that these things have to be learned, and the learning is the thing which is about evolution and brings out that which was encoded within our body sets.

Assuming it did develop as you say it did, my point is that the text doesn’t say that. It is addressing different questions/subjects. Thus, its message is different. And even in Genesis 1 it makes the distinction between humans and all other animals.

Indeed, that is largely due to the nature of the storyline briefly mentioning points which in scientific terms, took epochs to accomplish. The storyline may give the impression that these things happened overnight, but the evidence supports that they did not, so we must defer to the evidence and therefore accept the rational that the storyline is not meant to be read as if its brief outlines are to be taken as the things mentioned happening literally in six days or even six thousand years.

I reject a literal six day reading of Genesis 1. Genesis 2:4 then says “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Six-day creationists have the problem that the text also says it all took one day. That is one reason I think the mention of days is a poetic device.

So, I don’t think the storyline gives the impression that these things happened overnight; it just jumps to talking about the fact of the difference. It does so poetically. That’s what I mean when I say it’s not addressing the same subject/issue/question science does. It’s not giving a history of the science or saying how things scientifically happened; it’s saying YHVH is the creator, that the world was created good, and humans have a purpose.

Are you not saying that the storyline does not convey the science? If you are, then by implication, there is a type of science denial going on when one takes the science out of the story or does not want to include the science in with what the story briefly states about the Universe and more specifically life on Earth.

You are being asked to address the text in line with what the science also addresses. You appear to believe that doing so is not necessary, as if the two cannot be reconciled or shown to align with each other.

Is that how you see it?

I am saying the storyline doesn’t convey the science. That doesn’t imply a denial of the science in any way. Does every writing you read and write address science, history, literary, etc.? No, it focuses in on things. What it doesn’t address, does that mean you are denying those things are true? Of course not. Texts focus on certain questions and not others. Silence on the ones they don’t address aren’t denials of them.

You said you wanted to follow the storyline. Okay, then leave off your scientific questions because the text doesn’t address them. If you want to talk about how the story meshes or doesn’t mesh with science, then that is going outside of the storyline.

I’m fine doing either. I think they are easily reconcilable, but thought that you wanted to focus on the point of Genesis, not on reconciling a creator with evolution.

You said 'if' and so I was simply asking you to share with the reader what these clear textual reasons are 'if' you see any.

I will continue to share the evidence as to why I think the two Creation Stories are about specific events which are separated by epochs of time along the Earth-timeline.

I see no clear textual reasons to make the “if” part true.

Do you mean different as in form or different re why they were created, when they were created?
Or are you conflating the Second Creation Story [re Adam] as being somehow a recap on the First Creation Story and that YHVH is addressing Adam re the interaction between YHVH and the Mankind of the First Creation Story?

I don’t see any reason to believe the stories are talking about two different sets of humans.

Are you suggesting that because the storyline doesn't address the advent of life on Earth in a scientific manner, that this implies that the storyline contradicts science?

Absolutely not. I don’t think it can contradict science because it is addressing different questions.

If you are just saying that the storyline doesn't address the advent of Life on Earth in a purely scientific manner, but neither does it contradict the science, then we agree.

Yes, I’ve been saying that.

So the moral coding was there but required development. The moral coding was not fully operational.

This would signify an agreement between us, agreed?

If you mean that the humans in Genesis 1 only had the potential to become moral, we disagree. If you mean that all humans develop morally from babies to adults, then we agree.

Q: Do you think that YHVH did not create Life on Earth in the manner that Science has revealed to us, Life on Earth came about?

I ask, because I see no rational reason for why you would otherwise argue that it shouldn't be included re discussion of the biblical text re The First Creation Story.

I’m scientifically undecided on whether (1) humans evolved from non-rational species but were endowed, in a special creative act, with rationality, morality, etc. or (2) humans were specially created with no evolving link from a non-rational species. I think Genesis doesn’t answer this question one way or the other.

The reason to say this shouldn’t be included in a discussion of the storyline is that it isn’t a question addressed by the storyline and, so, foreign to the point of it. That doesn’t mean one can’t go beyond the text to make statements about other questions.

What moment are you referring to where the First Creation Story talks about when humans became rational, moral agents?

I’m saying it talks about humans as though they have already reached that element, it is assumed and implied by the commands in Genesis 1.

Nonetheless, if you are conflating science/the theory of evolution with atheism, that does not belong on this table.

I am not conflating the theory of evolution with atheism.

First Story Agreement List
1: Science gives us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

Agreed?

I agree, but I don’t think it gives us any insight into the “First Story”.

I see nothing contradictory between any of the text or that which evolution theory tells us - re how YHVH made things.

If you do see anything contradictory, I am interested in seeing those specific verses or phrases. Otherwise, there is no rational reason as to why we should not be in agreement here.

You said you had offered a compelling reason to include evolutionary theory into understanding Genesis 1. I disagree. That’s different from saying there is something contradictory between science and Genesis 1. I’m not saying they contradict. I’m saying evolution theory, assuming it is true, gives us no insight into understanding Genesis 1.

[The Tanager]

I don't remember if this came up in this thread or another one, but I recently heard a talk that made a point about the cloud that took Jesus up (Acts 1:9). I thought I'd share it with you for what it's worth. It was that the cloud that would have come to the mind of the readers would have been that found in Exodus, the pillar of cloud, that guided the Israelites and symbolized the glory of YHVH. While there still is a lifting up, it's not Jesus going all the way up into the clouds as we usually think of them.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #213]

Yes. We are still discussing The First Creation Story.

So, you agree that Genesis 1 distinguishes humans as something different than the other animals? I thought you were saying the distinction comes in Genesis 2?

Well, they being alive, gives opportunity for their natures to form, which are what the algorithms YHVH instill into body-sets are about.

My point is that the “Breath of YHVH” isn’t what distinguishes humans from non-human animals. Do you agree?

Having re-read the chapter, there is no mention of The Breath of YHVH in Genesis One.

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.]

Our rationality, moral agency are the two that immediately come to mind.

Can you put some meat on those bones for the reader, Tanager. Give examples as to those differences as you view them.

Humans reflect on their existence, talk about cosmology, come up with all kinds of theories, write poetry, feel moral guilt, undergo moral deliberations, while non-human animals don’t do those kinds of things.

These differences may have something to do with the body-set abilities as designed. It may be that pain felt during the birthing process is not seen as some kind of punishment by other animals, but curiously can be seen that way by Humans. Even so, it is the nature of the form design as a whole, which allows for this to occur.
What else could it be which allows humans to do these things you mention? [reflect on their existence, talk about cosmology, come up with all kinds of theories, write poetry, feel moral guilt, undergo moral deliberations]

Humans, due to their rationality, have a different relationship with YHVH, they are expected to make moral choices, wanted to choose love, which means choosing to trust YHVH over their own desires. Humans are put in charge of extending YHVH’s peace and reign over all the earth, including charge over the animals.

And this is what you think of as being YHVH's Image, correct?

Yes, in Genesis 1, the image of YHVH is functional.

YHVH said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

YHVH created man in his own image, in the image of YHVH created he him; male and female created he them.

YHVH blessed them, and YHVH said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ~ Genesis One

The function appears to be domination through multiplication - to be the dominant animal on the planet. Is this what you are referring to as The Image of YHVH? To dominate and to subdue?
What is it that YHVH wants Humans to dominate re the other animals? To breed the wild out of them? Something else?

It needs to not contradict sound science, but it doesn’t need to align with it in the sense that they are talking about the same subjects; they aren’t.

They are. Science is talking about the physical universe and the Earth sciences are specific to life on Earth, which is the same subject as The First Creation Story.

Genesis isn’t talking about creation scientifically. The focus is on YHVH as the good creator and giving humans purpose. Those aren’t scientific issues.

Are you saying that human science and Creation Theory [Genesis One] are unable to be reconciled with one another?

Human Science shows us that the purpose humans develop comes about through the function of the Body Set in relation to the environment. Genesis One tells us that the body set was created with those attributes, and placed within said environment.

I think otherwise, since the text is addressing the subject of Life on Earth, the Universe being created and how that relationship between Creator and Creation is set up to evolve.
Just because the text is short on details does not mean that there are no details to the overall story. Science verifies that there are many details.

Okay, so I’m saying they focus on different subsections of that more general category. Science explores evolution of what already exists and that sort of stuff; Genesis explores how it all got there in the first place, if humans have a purpose, the relationship between YHVH and humans. Those are different questions/subsections/issues. The details you are speaking of aren’t in the text.

How does that matter? If we cannot examine the whole elephant as it presents, but only choose to be like the blind one's feeling the elephant and calling it something else, how is that helpful or even rational?

This is why I think that the moral agency was an aspect of code designed to evolve as those first Humans evolved - as a way of helping to assist them in situations they would naturally encounter, over long periods of time, rather than there being any implied statement in The First Creation Story that Humans were fully aware of morality, as it appears you are arguing.

The functions assume certain moral commands, that they should rule in YHVH’s image rather than other alternatives.

Are you suggesting that the Humans understood from the go-get how they should "rule in YHVHs Image"?

I’m arguing that humans were moral agents in Genesis 1, not that they knew what to do in every situation.

Again, there is no mention of morality in Genesis One. The attributes mentioned were encoded into the body-sets and left to develop as the humans responded to those codes, by multiplying, exploring, following the food sources and developing Tribal ritual et al.

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.

Not according to Gen 1:28-29:

Be fruitful.
Multiply.
Fill the earth.
Subdue it.
Have dominion over the fish and birds and land creatures.
Eat of the plant yielding seed for food.

These are not commands, as I have pointed out. They are natural instincts encoded into the body-sets and could not easily be willfully disobeyed, as commandments can be willfully disobeyed.

The text has YHVH directly saying these things to them (v. 28).

This is a poetic rendition of the science obviously used by YHVH. Encoding is how YHVH instills such "word" into the human psyche - through what we think of as "instinct".

The text doesn’t present them as encoded instincts, but as commands.

Sure - in the same sense as algorithms are sets of commands/encoded instincts. They are not commands which can be resisted, thus there is no moral obligation involved.

Consciousness and conscientiousness did indeed develop through those natural processes and were not somehow automatically present and fully operational in humans, but something which requires development, either as a species or as individuals, otherwise we would see the evidence of this being the case, in very young humans. There is only evidence that these things have to be learned, and the learning is the thing which is about evolution and brings out that which was encoded within our body sets.

Assuming it did develop as you say it did, my point is that the text doesn’t say that. It is addressing different questions/subjects. Thus, its message is different. And even in Genesis 1 it makes the distinction between humans and all other animals.

The distinction made is specific to YHVHs Image. In that, the animals and plants also multiply and as we understand, this process of multiplying also requires subduing, because YHVH made it that way.
It is YHVHs Image which is undetermined in the storyline as a distinct attribute which other animals do not have, and which might involve the ability to develop conscientiousness, if indeed it can be established that all other animals are non-conscientiousness.

[Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. {SOURCE}]

I agree that humans have developed their understanding, technology, etc., but that’s not what the text is talking about here and it’s certainly not explaining a gradual attainment of human rationality.

Indeed, that is largely due to the nature of the storyline briefly mentioning points which in scientific terms, took epochs to accomplish. The storyline may give the impression that these things happened overnight, but the evidence supports that they did not, so we must defer to the evidence and therefore accept the rational that the storyline is not meant to be read as if its brief outlines are to be taken as the things mentioned happening literally in six days or even six thousand years.

So, I don’t think the storyline gives the impression that these things happened overnight; it just jumps to talking about the fact of the difference. It does so poetically. That’s what I mean when I say it’s not addressing the same subject/issue/question science does. It’s not giving a history of the science or saying how things scientifically happened; it’s saying YHVH is the creator, that the world was created good, and humans have a purpose.

My point continues to be as stated. We must defer to the evidence, not the poetry about the evidence.
In that - the evidence tells us Humans within the Creation - that it all took a very long time to accomplish. Each epoch YHVH created, mentioned poetically, does not change that fact.

It appears we may be able to agree that the evidence supporting YHVH creativity is best understood through the science which makes the evidence available to us...and that the evidence supports the poetic version adequately.

Agreed?

Silence on the ones they don’t address aren’t denials of them.

That depends on the type of silence being employed.
In the case of the subject of the creation of the created things, deferring to the science is better than the silence of ignoring the science, in favor of the poetry.

As long as you are not attempting to do that, we should be agreeing with one another.

You said you wanted to follow the storyline. Okay, then leave off your scientific questions because the text doesn’t address them. If you want to talk about how the story meshes or doesn’t mesh with science, then that is going outside of the storyline.

When I said "The Story-Line" I was not just referring to the poetic biblical account, but rather - and rightly so - how that biblical account aligns with the scientific account.

I’m fine doing either. I think they are easily reconcilable, but thought that you wanted to focus on the point of Genesis, not on reconciling a creator with evolution.

The reason I wanted to focus upon Genesis One is that it became apparent that in order to understand Genesis Two [which we were attempting to discuss, and agree with], there is the First Creation Story - which appears to me to be a completely different one, more aligned with the Scientific evidence, than that of The Eden Story.

Simulation Theory is an aspect of science, and science cannot be discarded just because you argue that it should be left out.
If you are unwilling to incorporate the evidence of science, then we can end this conversation now.
Otherwise, let us call upon the evidence of science as the best manner in which to discuss the poetry of Genesis One.

Agreed?

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

You said 'if' and so I was simply asking you to share with the reader what these clear textual reasons are 'if' you see any.

I will continue to share the evidence as to why I think the two Creation Stories are about specific events which are separated by epochs of time along the Earth-timeline.

I see no clear textual reasons to make the “if” part true.

Then please share with the reader what clear textual reasons there are, for the two creation stories to be conflated/treated as the same creation story.

There appears to be no evidence that Genesis One is the same story as Genesis Two.

Do you mean different as in form or different re why they were created, when they were created?
Or are you conflating the Second Creation Story [re Adam] as being somehow a recap on the First Creation Story and that YHVH is addressing Adam re the interaction between YHVH and the Mankind of the First Creation Story?

I don’t see any reason to believe the stories are talking about two different sets of humans.

Nevertheless, there is no reason given as to why we should think of these two stories as describing the same thing.
Indeed, Genesis Two appears to be a specific interjection by YHVH, and is most likely speaking of a time in the unfolding evolution of Life on Earth, far more recent than the epoch poetically covered in Genesis One.

That is enough reason for me to treat the two stories - while related to the overall Story-Line [per science] - as being different [brief commentaries] re different events.

If you cannot see any reason for thinking the same, we can go no further with this discussion, or move to the Second Creation Story

If you are just saying that the storyline doesn't address the advent of Life on Earth in a purely scientific manner, but neither does it contradict the science, then we agree.

Yes, I’ve been saying that.

Then we should be able to agree to agree that the First Creation Story agrees and is supported with the evidence of science, whereas the Second is different to the First, and not so easily aligned with any Scientific evidence.

First Story Agreement List
1: Science gives us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

Agreed?

I agree, but I don’t think it gives us any insight into the “First Story”.

I think that it does if we include "Human" in the agreement.

1: The Human Sciences give us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

The First Creation Story is just a brief poetic writing which we cannot say much about other than it is written to celebrate the idea of YHVH as a Creator Entity, rather than anything else.

I see nothing contradictory between any of the text or that which evolution theory tells us - re how YHVH made things.

If you do see anything contradictory, I am interested in seeing those specific verses or phrases. Otherwise, there is no rational reason as to why we should not be in agreement here.

You said you had offered a compelling reason to include evolutionary theory into understanding Genesis 1. I disagree. That’s different from saying there is something contradictory between science and Genesis 1. I’m not saying they contradict. I’m saying evolution theory, assuming it is true, gives us no insight into understanding Genesis 1.

My focus is upon how a Creator Entity, created and I think that science shows us how YHVH did so, and why it is important to include that evidence in this discussion.

[thomasdixon]

While there still is a lifting up, it's not Jesus going all the way up into the clouds as we usually think of them.

This is a bit off-topic but since your brought up Jesus I feel I can at least ask this question.
Does anyone here know why the Rabis convinced the Romans to crucify Jesus?
I did find this post on another forum that brings up this conflict of interest.
https://tinyurl.com/5667pvd3
BTW It is a lengthy post.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #214]

Jesus comes later on in the story...we are still at Genesis One

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #217]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #214]

Jesus comes later on in the story...we are still at Genesis One

I agree. Like I said, I couldn't remember where we had talked about that, so I just put it here. I probably should have sent a private message. I just thought you might be interested in it because we had talked about it.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #215]

Okay, so I’m saying they focus on different subsections of that more general category. Science explores evolution of what already exists and that sort of stuff; Genesis explores how it all got there in the first place, if humans have a purpose, the relationship between YHVH and humans. Those are different questions/subsections/issues. The details you are speaking of aren’t in the text.

How does that matter? If we cannot examine the whole elephant as it presents, but only choose to be like the blind one's feeling the elephant and calling it something else, how is that helpful or even rational?

Because you were talking about how you wanted to follow the storyline of Genesis. Examining the whole elephant is different than that (to me). I’m fine with doing either.

When I said "The Story-Line" I was not just referring to the poetic biblical account, but rather - and rightly so - how that biblical account aligns with the scientific account.

That is a very confusing phrase to me, but thanks for clarifying that now.


1. Does Genesis 1 and 2 talk about the same thing concerning humans or are they talking about two entirely different events/times/series of events.

Then please share with the reader what clear textual reasons there are, for the two creation stories to be conflated/treated as the same creation story.

There appears to be no evidence that Genesis One is the same story as Genesis Two.

I think they are both talking about the same event of the start of humans (although Genesis 1 is a bigger picture that goes beyond humans) for the following reasons:

Negatively, I see nothing in Genesis 2 that distinguishes it from Genesis 1, talking about improvements or changes, etc.

But more importantly, positively, I would point to these verses:

From the first account:

1:1 - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”
2:1 - “And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights.”

From the second account:

2:4 - “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.”

The second account begins by stating it is about the generations when the heavens and earth were created (which is how the first account is described). It’s not about an event that happened long after that happened. It’s about the same thing.

Then we should be able to agree to agree that the First Creation Story agrees and is supported with the evidence of science, whereas the Second is different to the First, and not so easily aligned with any Scientific evidence.

What do you think, in the second account, contradicts current science?


2. What is the distinction between humans and non-human animals?

Scientifically speaking

I'll let you fill this area in with your thoughts.

In the storyline of Genesis

Note that I’m not saying this contradicts the scientific answer. I think Genesis is more focused in the distinction being made. I think Genesis is speaking about the distinction of purpose/function that YHVH has for humans on the earth.

Human Science shows us that the purpose humans develop comes about through the function of the Body Set in relation to the environment. Genesis One tells us that the body set was created with those attributes, and placed within said environment.

Science has nothing to say about purpose; it just tells us how our bodies work and how they could help us perform certain functions. Purpose is a philosophical concept.

The function appears to be domination through multiplication - to be the dominant animal on the planet. Is this what you are referring to as The Image of YHVH? To dominate and to subdue?
What is it that YHVH wants Humans to dominate re the other animals? To breed the wild out of them? Something else?

Why do you think the domination is through multiplication? The animals are told to be fruitful and multiply as well. Humans are introduced (v. 27) as being made in YHVH’s image and the very next thing mentioned is to rule. Ancient kings would erect statues or monuments with images of themselves in the places they conquered and ruled as a symbol of whose will was being done.

The rest of Genesis is all about humans trying to rule in their own ways (which leads to death in so many different ways) and learning how to rule as YHVH would, which involves applying principles in ever new situations. I think this is saying that YHVH created humans to rule in the way of YHVH over the entire earth. What that all looks like would be revealed as humans go on in life via their relationship with YHVH.

On your interpretation, YHVH would be telling humans to rule by animal instinct here in Genesis 1 and then, in Genesis 2, destroys that image to remake humans into something else. That doesn’t make sense to me. It makes better sense, it seems to me, to see Genesis 2 as a focus on humans having that role and trying to live it out.

Again, there is no mention of morality in Genesis One. The attributes mentioned were encoded into the body-sets and left to develop as the humans responded to those codes, by multiplying, exploring, following the food sources and developing Tribal ritual et al.

What verses talk about humans responding to codes? Of gaining abilities by multiplying, exploring, following food sources, tribal rituals? I see no mention of that or of these things being necessarily required by the verses that are there.

I’m saying the commands in Genesis 1 to rule over other animals in a specific way (the image of YHVH) necessarily requires moral agency. I’m saying you can’t rule in YHVH’s image without being a moral being, so that the mention of ruling in YHVH’s image necessarily includes us being moral beings.

This is a poetic rendition of the science obviously used by YHVH. Encoding is how YHVH instills such "word" into the human psyche - through what we think of as "instinct".

So, you are saying there are these two different ways YHVH could have made humans: put instincts in them to do such-and-such or tell them commands to do such-and-such and that it is poetry to use one alternative to really mean the other? That’s not how poetry works.

The distinction made is specific to YHVHs Image. In that, the animals and plants also multiply and as we understand, this process of multiplying also requires subduing, because YHVH made it that way.

Why do you think the process of multiplying requires subduing? If that is what the text means, then why add “subdue” to humans? No, it’s additional to multiplying and the animals are not told to subdue.


3. Can science give us insight into understanding the points of Genesis 1 and 2?

Simulation Theory is an aspect of science, and science cannot be discarded just because you argue that it should be left out.
If you are unwilling to incorporate the evidence of science, then we can end this conversation now.
Otherwise, let us call upon the evidence of science as the best manner in which to discuss the poetry of Genesis One.

Agreed?

I am not arguing science should be left out of understanding reality. I’m saying it seems to have no bearing on what Genesis 1 is teaching. Why do you think it will give us insight into the point of Genesis 1? Or what other insights do you see from it that you want to discuss?

First Story Agreement List
1: Science gives us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

Agreed?

I agree, but I don’t see that it gives us any insight into the “First Story”.

I think that it does if we include "Human" in the agreement.

1: The Human Sciences give us some insight into the nature of how YHVH Created life of Earth.

I agree with this, but I don’t think this belief gives us any insight into the “First Story”.

My focus is upon how a Creator Entity, created and I think that science shows us how YHVH did so, and why it is important to include that evidence in this discussion.

What insights do you believe follow from science?


4. When were humans distinguished from non-human animals?

Scientifically speaking

I'll let you fill this in with your thoughts.

In the storyline of Genesis

Note that I’m not saying Genesis gives a contradictory answer to science on this question. I think Genesis jumps in at the point that humans are already scientifically distinguished from non-human animals, however that historically/scientifically occurred.

Having re-read the chapter, there is no mention of The Breath of YHVH in Genesis One.

Genesis 2:7 doesn’t have “Breath of YHVH” either. There YHVH breathes into man the “breath of life”. This breath is “neshamah” as opposed to the “nephesh” in 1:30, but “neshamah” is used in Gen 7:22 to refer to everything that has the spirit of life in it, not just humans. Thus, “neshamah” breath isn’t a “breath of YHVH” that is unique to humans.

Still, humans are distinguished from non-human animals in Genesis 1. Humans, alone, are made in the image of YHVH. Humans, alone, in Genesis 1, are told to have dominion over the rest.

Are you suggesting that the Humans understood from the go-get how they should "rule in YHVHs Image"?

They would have understood things as YHVH revealed them. I’m suggesting they were capable of learning these things from the get-go. I’m saying they didn’t need to wait until their abilities became developed.

This is not an argument against evolution. I’m saying that if humans evolved from a non-rational species, that Genesis 1 is talking about them after they had already gained rationality and all the natural abilities we currently have.

These differences may have something to do with the body-set abilities as designed. It may be that pain felt during the birthing process is not seen as some kind of punishment by other animals, but curiously can be seen that way by Humans. Even so, it is the nature of the form design as a whole, which allows for this to occur.
What else could it be which allows humans to do these things you mention? [reflect on their existence, talk about cosmology, come up with all kinds of theories, write poetry, feel moral guilt, undergo moral deliberations]

Are you saying these differences don’t come in until Genesis 2, though? If so, why do you think that?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #219]

These differences may have something to do with the body-set abilities as designed. It may be that pain felt during the birthing process is not seen as some kind of punishment by other animals, but curiously can be seen that way by Humans. Even so, it is the nature of the form design as a whole, which allows for this to occur.
What else could it be which allows humans to do these things you mention? [reflect on their existence, talk about cosmology, come up with all kinds of theories, write poetry, feel moral guilt, undergo moral deliberations]

Are you saying these differences don’t come in until Genesis 2, though? If so, why do you think that?

I am saying that IF one does not conflate the two creation stories to the degree that one claims they are renditions of the same creation story THEN, both ET and ST support CT.

In that, I am saying that traditional CT [TCT - regardless of where it is sourced through] appears to be unable to allow for either ET or ST.

My task is to find reconciliation between ST, ET and CT, which is why I choose to communicate hereabouts with certain folk, such as yourself Tanager.