1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
After all that dividing, we now get some multiplying.
"Them" is apparently "every living creature that moveth"; but now that seems to refer only to sea animals. The phrasing is repeatedly very strange: living creatures excludes land animals, birds, and sometimes whales.
This passage may clarify the previous one. It seems that the multiplying is still in the future, so the earlier "after their kind" was misplaced. Also, "abundantly" is less than filling the waters.
The phrase "in the earth" I'll take just to mean "on dry land", not underground. Although the phrase "fowl multiply in the earth" does make me picture chickens in a cave doing math homework.
For no particular reason, the fish are supposed to be fruitful, but not the birds. But both should multiply. More strange is that the fruit trees and grains, despite having their reproductive cycle described, are not even instructed to multiply. Maybe God thought that telling the fruit trees to be fruitful would be too obvious.
God's blessing for fish and birds is instructions to have lots of descendants. That's very Darwinian of him. Anyway, this is the first blessing. Apparently the stars, moon, sun, plants, heaven, earth and light didn't get blessed.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Whales
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Here whales are distinguished from "every living creature that moveth", as opposed to last verse's "moving creature that hath life". Is it because whales don't move? Aren't alive? Birds, too.
Other translations say "sea monsters" instead of "great whales".
Unlike the previous verse, this one says "after their/his kind". This phrase was used to describe seeds of trees and grains before: an apple tree has apples containing apples seeds which grow into apple trees, etc. It doesn't seem to make much sense here, but by analogy, it's talking about birds having bird babies and creatures having creature babies. Maybe.
That would almost call for a very odd interpretation of this, in which multiple generations of creatures are being described here. Which raises the issue of whether the abundance is the water creating lots of creatures; or whether it's the creatures, once created, breeding abundantly. Grammatically, abundantly is modifying "bringing forth", which the water is doing; but we've seen enough not to entirely trust the grammar.
Here whales are distinguished from "every living creature that moveth", as opposed to last verse's "moving creature that hath life". Is it because whales don't move? Aren't alive? Birds, too.
Other translations say "sea monsters" instead of "great whales".
Unlike the previous verse, this one says "after their/his kind". This phrase was used to describe seeds of trees and grains before: an apple tree has apples containing apples seeds which grow into apple trees, etc. It doesn't seem to make much sense here, but by analogy, it's talking about birds having bird babies and creatures having creature babies. Maybe.
That would almost call for a very odd interpretation of this, in which multiple generations of creatures are being described here. Which raises the issue of whether the abundance is the water creating lots of creatures; or whether it's the creatures, once created, breeding abundantly. Grammatically, abundantly is modifying "bringing forth", which the water is doing; but we've seen enough not to entirely trust the grammar.
Monday, October 5, 2009
May fly
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Ok, we've got exciting new stuff here. Two creations, and more information about heaven.
In verse 11, God asked the earth to bring forth plants. Here he's asking the water to bring forth animals. The first is "the moving creature that hath life"; that's pretty broad. It's not clear here whether it means a single animal, or one species, or pretty much all animals. Well, maybe "abundantly" rules out a single animal. The second is "fowl", or birds. If this were limited to sea animals, it would perhaps make sense for the water to bring them forth. But, it definitely includes birds, so it's rather odd that they come from the water.
Of course, all animals coming from the ocean agrees with modern evolutionary theory, at least to some degree. As does the plants predating the animals. But the plants not coming from the ocean would be a conflict; not to mention the plants predating the stars. I think it's safe to say the two viewpoints are fairly independent.
We know that God placed the sun, moon and stars in heaven. But here we get more. First, heaven is described as "open"; this is a bit startling for two reasons. One, it's full of stars. Two, it's dividing the waters above from those below. Beyond that, heaven here is where birds fly.
So this clarifies the layout of the world as viewed by the author. At the bottom we have earth and sea, with the earth now covered in plants, and birds and animals coming from the sea. Above that we have heaven, which is full of air and flying birds. In heaven, presumably toward the top, are the sun and moon and stars. And above that, more water.
This reminds me somehow of pictures drawn before perspective, but this is perhaps more before gravity.
What does it mean that fowl are not considered moving creatures that have life? Just some more random inconsistency.
Ok, we've got exciting new stuff here. Two creations, and more information about heaven.
In verse 11, God asked the earth to bring forth plants. Here he's asking the water to bring forth animals. The first is "the moving creature that hath life"; that's pretty broad. It's not clear here whether it means a single animal, or one species, or pretty much all animals. Well, maybe "abundantly" rules out a single animal. The second is "fowl", or birds. If this were limited to sea animals, it would perhaps make sense for the water to bring them forth. But, it definitely includes birds, so it's rather odd that they come from the water.
Of course, all animals coming from the ocean agrees with modern evolutionary theory, at least to some degree. As does the plants predating the animals. But the plants not coming from the ocean would be a conflict; not to mention the plants predating the stars. I think it's safe to say the two viewpoints are fairly independent.
We know that God placed the sun, moon and stars in heaven. But here we get more. First, heaven is described as "open"; this is a bit startling for two reasons. One, it's full of stars. Two, it's dividing the waters above from those below. Beyond that, heaven here is where birds fly.
So this clarifies the layout of the world as viewed by the author. At the bottom we have earth and sea, with the earth now covered in plants, and birds and animals coming from the sea. Above that we have heaven, which is full of air and flying birds. In heaven, presumably toward the top, are the sun and moon and stars. And above that, more water.
This reminds me somehow of pictures drawn before perspective, but this is perhaps more before gravity.
What does it mean that fowl are not considered moving creatures that have life? Just some more random inconsistency.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Fourth day
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The fourth day is the first with a sun. Days here are clearly tied to cycles of light and darkness: evening and morning. But evening and morning in my worldview come from the rotation of the earth bringing the sun (the main light source) into or out of view in a particular area. The worldview described here is clearly distinct from mine; the first three days in particular don't even have a sun.
The geocentric worldview ("the sun orbits the earth; the sun being up causes day, and the sun being down causes night") predates the heliocentric one ("the earth rotates relative to the sun; the sun being in view causes day"). But the view here seems to even predate the geocentric one. Here it says something more like, "When it happens to be day, the sun comes out to rule the day." Of course, it also says the purpose of the sun is to light the earth, which seems to conflict.
And the writing and the posting were the nineteenth entry.
The fourth day is the first with a sun. Days here are clearly tied to cycles of light and darkness: evening and morning. But evening and morning in my worldview come from the rotation of the earth bringing the sun (the main light source) into or out of view in a particular area. The worldview described here is clearly distinct from mine; the first three days in particular don't even have a sun.
The geocentric worldview ("the sun orbits the earth; the sun being up causes day, and the sun being down causes night") predates the heliocentric one ("the earth rotates relative to the sun; the sun being in view causes day"). But the view here seems to even predate the geocentric one. Here it says something more like, "When it happens to be day, the sun comes out to rule the day." Of course, it also says the purpose of the sun is to light the earth, which seems to conflict.
And the writing and the posting were the nineteenth entry.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Day and over
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
At least now God is seeing by light coming from a light source.
I promise, tomorrow is the last of the six verses on sun moon stars.
At least now God is seeing by light coming from a light source.
I promise, tomorrow is the last of the six verses on sun moon stars.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Give light upon
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
This verse ends in a comma. That's even worse than a colon.
Apparently God made the sun, moon and stars somewhere else, and then put them in heaven. Maybe he had a workshop on earth.
Between the repetition and the bad numbering of verse, I've got nothing else new to say here.
This verse ends in a comma. That's even worse than a colon.
Apparently God made the sun, moon and stars somewhere else, and then put them in heaven. Maybe he had a workshop on earth.
Between the repetition and the bad numbering of verse, I've got nothing else new to say here.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Lesser light
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
This is more specific than just lights in heaven. They're not explicitly named here, but it's clearly the sun and the moon. And the stars are named.
The first point I want to make is this: the moon is radically different from the sun and stars. The sun and stars are actually light sources; the moon just reflects sunlight. The moon is technically not a light.
I mentioned before that this tells us something about heaven: it contains the sun, the moon, and the stars.
The most interesting bits here are the new purposes. The purpose of the sun here is "to rule the day"; the purpose of the moon is "to rule the night". This is pretty strange if taken literally; it makes the sun and moon sound like kings or gods. I think this is one of the hints that this story is older than monotheism.
The other thing about this is: the moon isn't always out during the night, and isn't always visible during the night. It doesn't rule the night the same way the sun rules the day. And the moon is sometimes visible during the day, although never nearly as bright as the sun. But, during total solar eclipses, the moon passes in front of the sun, blocking it out. At that moment, you could say that the moon rules the day. Ironically, that is also when the sun seems most kingly, as that is when you can most clearly see its crown.
It notable that the only purpose (ruling) given here for the sun and the moon is not even listed among the six purposes previously mentioned for the lights.
This is more specific than just lights in heaven. They're not explicitly named here, but it's clearly the sun and the moon. And the stars are named.
The first point I want to make is this: the moon is radically different from the sun and stars. The sun and stars are actually light sources; the moon just reflects sunlight. The moon is technically not a light.
I mentioned before that this tells us something about heaven: it contains the sun, the moon, and the stars.
The most interesting bits here are the new purposes. The purpose of the sun here is "to rule the day"; the purpose of the moon is "to rule the night". This is pretty strange if taken literally; it makes the sun and moon sound like kings or gods. I think this is one of the hints that this story is older than monotheism.
The other thing about this is: the moon isn't always out during the night, and isn't always visible during the night. It doesn't rule the night the same way the sun rules the day. And the moon is sometimes visible during the day, although never nearly as bright as the sun. But, during total solar eclipses, the moon passes in front of the sun, blocking it out. At that moment, you could say that the moon rules the day. Ironically, that is also when the sun seems most kingly, as that is when you can most clearly see its crown.
It notable that the only purpose (ruling) given here for the sun and the moon is not even listed among the six purposes previously mentioned for the lights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
