Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
- Bereishit 1 (Genesis)
Got to thinking about this last night in bed, staring at the clock 3:18...3:19 (I should get up and write this out...Nah I'm so cozy...)
If man is in God's image, and in the image of the angels, the man, God, and the angels all look alike. But then why is every account of man and angels coming face to face describing angels as anything but a man? That's part one.
Part two is this: When God creates man from 'the dust of the earth' He obviously isn't creating us out of dust mites. But the ancient authors who wrote that were meaning to use the smallest single bits of matter, but they had no knowledge of cells or the microscopic world (to say nothing of the quantum.) If they had, would they have said 'from the quarks and other quantum-level particles...?'
So I got to speculating about how we, God, and angels all look alike, and were created from the smallest bits of matter known to God. Is it possible then that the 'image' we all share isn't the outward body, but the image of particles or cells? Blood cell's pretty much a blood cell from animal to animal, skin cell a skin cell, etc.
Do humans, angels, and God all look alike under a microscope? Blood cells, skin cells, etc.
Part three is this: the ancient author of Genesis thinking logically would work backwards to a first man and woman reproducing so as to populate the earth. But being humans at the time of the writing of Genesis they'd of course make everything human. They're not going to say '...and God created Neanderthals...' or the like. But if God created us from the smallest particles available, is it not then likely what He actually created wasn't modern human beings but some primate version or even the first organic molecules or simple living cells? And over billions of years that first created life then evolved into us?
Being humans, the author of the text would put a human-spin on everything having nothing else to relate themselves to. To say nothing of no knowledge of modern science, evolution, particles and so on. Everything they'd describe would be from the perspective of modern humans. But if they had our modern scientific jargon and lexicons to use more accurate terms would it then be something like this,
And in the beginning, God created time via the Big Bang. And light filled the universe. Matter was pulled from the heavens into the first minerals which pulled matter together becoming the first rocks which over time became the Earth. Then God created life in the heavens as organic molecules which became the first living cells. God deposited the building blocks for life onto the Earth and saw that it was good.
Isn't that a bit more believable than what we have now?
- Bereishit 1 (Genesis)
Got to thinking about this last night in bed, staring at the clock 3:18...3:19 (I should get up and write this out...Nah I'm so cozy...)
If man is in God's image, and in the image of the angels, the man, God, and the angels all look alike. But then why is every account of man and angels coming face to face describing angels as anything but a man? That's part one.
Part two is this: When God creates man from 'the dust of the earth' He obviously isn't creating us out of dust mites. But the ancient authors who wrote that were meaning to use the smallest single bits of matter, but they had no knowledge of cells or the microscopic world (to say nothing of the quantum.) If they had, would they have said 'from the quarks and other quantum-level particles...?'
So I got to speculating about how we, God, and angels all look alike, and were created from the smallest bits of matter known to God. Is it possible then that the 'image' we all share isn't the outward body, but the image of particles or cells? Blood cell's pretty much a blood cell from animal to animal, skin cell a skin cell, etc.
Do humans, angels, and God all look alike under a microscope? Blood cells, skin cells, etc.
Part three is this: the ancient author of Genesis thinking logically would work backwards to a first man and woman reproducing so as to populate the earth. But being humans at the time of the writing of Genesis they'd of course make everything human. They're not going to say '...and God created Neanderthals...' or the like. But if God created us from the smallest particles available, is it not then likely what He actually created wasn't modern human beings but some primate version or even the first organic molecules or simple living cells? And over billions of years that first created life then evolved into us?
Being humans, the author of the text would put a human-spin on everything having nothing else to relate themselves to. To say nothing of no knowledge of modern science, evolution, particles and so on. Everything they'd describe would be from the perspective of modern humans. But if they had our modern scientific jargon and lexicons to use more accurate terms would it then be something like this,
And in the beginning, God created time via the Big Bang. And light filled the universe. Matter was pulled from the heavens into the first minerals which pulled matter together becoming the first rocks which over time became the Earth. Then God created life in the heavens as organic molecules which became the first living cells. God deposited the building blocks for life onto the Earth and saw that it was good.
Isn't that a bit more believable than what we have now?
