Monkeys in the image of God

I’ll have to look more into that as I wasn’t aware that the crocodile was an iconic animal in Egypt.

However, from what you posted it still sounds like the crocodile was used to represent a chaos creature.

You asked why would there be a mythological creature when the rest of the animals mentioned are not? The answer is it lives in the sea.

The sea represents death and chaos in ANE. For example read Jonah’s prayer after he is thrown into the ocean he says he went into ‘sheol’. In Egyptian Mythology and many others it was the passage way to the underworld where the dead lived. This is why in Revelation it says the sea will be no more, there no talking about no more oceans but no more death and chaos. Shalom has been ushered in.

The whole account of Genesis 1 is about God bringing order out of chaos. On day 3 when he makes dry ground the image is a mountain being raised up where humanity can live safely.

Do you know what ‘all at once’ means in this context?

And what’s your point? Let’s say one has the position that scientists have absolutely no clue about how vertebrates evolved, are unsolved mysteries in science good evidence or proof of a supernatural or spontaneous creation of them?

Although science cannot prove a miraculous intervention, science can assess the probability of a natural cause.

The situation: There were a few simple worms, simple invertebrates, and small shelly fauna, at the beginning of Cambrian. Then, at the time of the Chenjiang Lagerstatten, 517 Ma, the vertebrates appear along with some amphioxus like animals (headless, brainless, sightless, boneless). DNA evidence shows that the vertebrate DNA is derived from amphioxus DNA. So, the evidence indicates that vertebrates descended from an amphioxus-like animal, which evolved in the early Cambrian. Vertebrates are deuterostomes, and no other deuterostomes appear in the fossil record before 517 Ma. I believe that a recent paper indicates that the interpretation of sea squirts (deuterostomes) in the fossil record of the Chenjiang at this time is incorrect, but I don’t want to go into this here.

The first vertebrates (517 Ma) were lampreys. The early vertebrate brain has millions of neurons whereas amphioxus had thousands of neurons. The following features were not in amphioxus or any other animals of the early Cambrian. The vertebrates have an internal skeleton with a unique head with braincase, mouth, and two eyes, branchial skeleton surrounding the gills, cartilaginous pipe. Neural crest cells, unique to vertebrates, migrate from the neural crest, along the nerve cord, and leave the nerve cord at various locations in the body, triggering the formation of different organs. These cells form the bones of the chest, the head, the ears and other sensory organs, the skin and pigmentation of the skin, teeth, and depending on the vertebrate, scales, feathers, or hair. Other features formed by the neural crest cells include adrenal glands in the kidneys that produce hormones, neurons in the central nervous system that connect to the peripheral nervous system (spinal ganglia), intestinal tract nervous system that governs gastrointestinal processes, and some of the blood vessel sections. The lamprey had a fully developed vertebrate eye whereas amphioxus only had light sensitive eyespots rather than eyes. Henry Gee described the unique features of the vertebrate nervous system, many of which were in place in the original vertebrate fish. The olfactory bulb communicates smell to the brain through the amydala, in lampreys and in humans. The pituitary gland (hypophysis) controls appetite and sexual arousal through MSH. It also regulates reproduction, growth, and stress. All vertebrates have olfactory, optic, oculomotor, trochlear, trigemal, abducens, facial, auditory, glossopharyngeal, vagus, accessory, and hypoglossal nerves, but invertebrates do not have these nerves. The myelin sheaths that encase vertebrate nerves are an important part of the nervous system. Mylenated nerves cause impulses to jump from periodic breaks, and travel 100 m/sec. Loss of myelin causes loss of function because signals travel at least 100 times slower. Interestingly, the genes for myelination are found in lampreys even though they did not have myelin sheaths or myelin. It seems that the genetic code for producing myelin was in place before the appearance of myelin. The vertebrate closed blood vessels are lined with endothelium, which is unique to vertebrates. Endothelial cells give unique filtration and signaling capabilities to blood vessels, enable scabbing (hemostasis), aid in the immune system. The chambered heart is unique to vertebrates. The vertebrate kidneys control a water management system that is unique to vertebrates and allows them to live out of water. Vertebrate sex organs are uniquely controlled by hormone signaling. The vertebrate acquired immunity system (antibodies) is particularly remarkable. The vertebrate kidney was an important feature for the eventual migration of vertebrates to land. It regulates salts, the acid-base balance, and electrolyte concentrations. The kidney removes salts, ammonia, and toxins in urine. It also controls fluid levels in various fluid compartments in the body and filters one-fifth of the blood volume that enters the kidneys. The kidney is not in any invertebrates. The vertebrate adaptive immunity system is highly complex. Plasma cells form specific antibodies designed to attach to specific types of pathogens. This triggers a series of enzymes called the antibody complement system that actually drill a hole in the wall of the pathogen. Helper T cells recognize foreign matter and communicate that information to the immune system. The vertebrate Hox gene system is basically 4 times for complex than invertebrate Hox genes.

There is a reasonably good fossil record from the Ediacaran Period prior to the Cambrian. There is no evidence of any of the vertebrate features in the Ediacaran or in the early Cambrian. What is the likelihood that all of the features of vertebrates formed along with and after amphioxus between 542 and 517 Ma? DNA molecular clock scientists calculate time spans like 100, 200, or 400 million years for the formation of the vertebrates. Yet, there is no evidence of any evolution between amphioxus and vertebrates in the fossil record prior to 517 Ma.

If you want to believe that God never intervened in the universe and that the evidence for vertebrate evolution is hidden somewhere in the rocks of the earth, then that is up to you. However, please do not criticize the belief that God intervened and formed the vertebrates because you have no data to support your position.

I think it is a case of the semantic domain of the Hebrew word being broader than the English word used to translate. It’s not that they referred to chaos monsters as crocodiles, it’s that the Hebrew word encompassed both crocodiles and chaos monsters. It’s like how ‘serpent’ in English can refer to perfectly normal snakes, the Devil, and (if you are Thranduil in The Desolation of Smaug) the dragons of the North.

2 Likes

Thanks for clearing that up. It really is amazing how many different interpretations that people have had for this and many other words in the Bible. It seems odd that even though everyone is trying to do their best, that there would be so much variation in interpretation. I may be wrong, but I think that the Ancient Hebrews did not even allow people to read this chapter, or maybe it was just certain people like young people. Maybe they had the right approach.

@mitchellmckain

Well, as you can see from a quote from your link that you kindly provided … Hell is reserved for a pretty small crew!

"Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally "

The parallels between Egyptian and Mesopotamian symbolism regarding the fresh water source of the Abzu/Apsu has always fascinated me.

As for “chaos” creatures, even Etyptian metaphysics describes the first chaos creature as a giant snake… rather than a giant crocodile.

The crocodile’s head gets into the action as the agent of destruction for those who fail the Maat test (for the heart to be as light as a feather).

The Persians (aka, Zoroastrians) characterized snakes as personifications of Evil … not just as “chaos”.

And so the Genesis reference to snakes being crushed by the head appears to indicate contact with the Zoroastrian concept of the daily good deed of killing a snake… rather than of killing a crocodile.

Yes this is a bandaid solution to make more palatable the absurdity of heaven and hell as reward and punishment for being judged as good or evil. While universalism is more of a throw the baby out with the bathwater solution. The better answer and more Christian answer is to discard the whole notion of heaven and hell as reward and punishment for being judged as good or evil. It is not about that. It is about choices regarding how you deal with the bad habits we call sin which are eating away everything of value within you including your free will. Will you fight and get the surgeon to cut them out, or will you choose running and avoidance which gives those bad habits free reign until there is nothing left to save?

@mitchellmckain

Interesting!

I’ve always seen the TWO views you distinguish as being compatible as a UNIFIED scenario!

Some would say any afterlife scenario that “sniffs” like karma would be essentially the best of both ideas…

Someone earlier in this thread, perhaps it was you, pointed out the gaps in the evidence for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is certainly an interesting one, but for me it is not an article of faith and this theory will almost certainly be revised or rejected at some point - as all scientific theories are as our understanding deepens.

I am not an evolutionary biologist, and I doubt that many on this thread are either, so our half baked guesses are of little value. I frankly don’t care if God made us out of dust, or out of monkeys. For me the miraculous pet is that we were created.

It may in time be shown that the universe is teeming with life and that life is itself a characteristic of matter - that once matter is created in sufficient diversity and volume, that life will itself be an inevitable consequence. Or we might be alone. Again I have an open mind on that and don’t see either as being theologically significant.

What I am convinced of though is that our “guesses” as to whether God created monkeys in his own image as a means to making man is a futile waste of time.

I think that likely, as it is unlikely to have been written down but rather orally transmitted, or when finally written once civilization progressed, only in a form that trained scribes could read and write, and probably just a few copies kept in storage.

I agree with you, but from a different perspective: The solar system began as a dark chaos (tohu wa bohu), and God gradually made it ordered. There were some natural processes, such as the formation of light (sun) and the formation of a disk, but God also intervened with important separations, adjustments of the heavens, and ultimately with the formation of humans in his image. I think that this bringing of order from chaos is common ground that I have with many in the biologos group. My understanding from reading Walton’s books is that he didn’t think that it was possible that Genesis could be referring to scientific facts, because he did not think that there were actual parallels in natural science with the statements in Genesis.

I would like to invite people to reexamine that assumption. I think it is important to realize that Dr. Walton admittedly knew very little about science or natural history when he came to his conclusion that Genesis 1 could not possibly refer to science. In one book, he stated that the thing that really caused him to reject the scientific interpretation of Genesis was that he concluded that it was impossible for light to be separated from darkness. Is this really impossible? Most scholars in history have thought that the light of Genesis 1:3 was the sun. Is there no conceivable way in which the sun could be physically separated from darkness? How about separating the sun from the dark molecular cloud in which it formed? There is also a logical need for such a separation to take place. The planetary orbits would have been disturbed by gravitation from nearby stars in the stellar nursery.

@mitchellmckain,

Au contraire my dear sir. Maybe in your view Universalism claims that everyone ends up the same…

But I think your perception of Universalism is too brittle or two black-and-white, or both.

By your description, you present Universalism as essentially devoid of any moral gradations. Do you know ANYONE that thinks that there is nothing to be gained in the afterlife ? … Or anyone that thinks there is nothing to be suffered in the afterlife … by acting poorly now?

@michsmith34

Find a single Unitarian Universalist who thinks how a person behaves has no effect on their afterlife, and I will agree with you. “Everyone being in the same place” is hardly a valuable criteria to Universalists… compared to the nature of the moral dimension.

You have a very bad habit of making very bad assessments based on the concrete definition of a word YOU want to use.

You should break that habit.

You changed the words. These are not the same.

  1. everyone ends up the same.
  2. how a person behaves has no effect on the afterlife.

The first is what I explained that universalism claims and I demonstrated that this was in accord with the public definition. The second is what you have changed my words into for some reason. Would you like to explain why?

Universalism usually includes a belief that how a person behaves has an effect on the afterlife, but every human soul nevertheless reconciled to God in the end. But this does not follow simply from discarding the notion of heaven and hell as reward and punishment for being judged as good or evil, and I explained another alternative and why this does not equate to universalism.

You should break the habit of replacing the words of others with your own, for the result is that you are talking to yourself rather than having a discussion with someone else.

@mitchellmckain

You are so fixed on interpreting a whole world-view based on one definition, you have lost the point of the distinction.

Universalism of the New England variety (and probably consistent with all of the forms of Western Civilization) is not just about whether there is a Hell or not. It involves how morality is still relevant despite the absence of Hell… and some Universalists might venture that morality is even more important to Universalists in the absence of Hell.

Look at Christianity: Since there are TWO ultimate destinations, does Christianity dismiss the relevancy of moral distinctions in the afterlife?

I doubt even you think this would be true or applicable.

Michell, think about this: you are ARGUING what Universalism means … with a Universalist! What the heck is your problem?

@mitchellmckain

The problem is you trying to define Universalism based on a single dimension… by insisting that Universalism is flawed because it only involves a single dimension.

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.