The Big Bang Theory

[david_84]

I'm sorry for not being clear about my beliefs. I also believe in the Big Bang Theory. Just not in the long day theory.

 

[CryptoKnight]

I'm sorry for not being clear about my beliefs. I also believe in the Big Bang Theory. Just not in the long day theory.

I think this is interesting, and would like to hear more. Not knowing where you are going with this, I will fill in my views.

I believe in both the Big Bang and long day because Science shows us that the Big Bang is likely, and the Bible tells us that we can know God through his creations, such as:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It seems to me that if we have two apparently conflicting ideas (A Big Bang that has created billions of years of change in the universe versus a biblical account that talks about creation over an apparently short period of time) we should try to reconcile them.

I do not think God would "lie" through creation by giving us something that has an "apparent" age of billions of years, which is in fact only thousands of years old. If we can learn about God through creation, than we must trust our observations.

Now, we could be wrong in what we're observing, but considering the massive data, I don't think so.

So let's look at the other conflicting item: scripture. We are making translation judgements based on our understanding of something that was written thousands of years ago. I consider it far more reasonable to think that an ancient document may be misinterpreted than to think that current tools of measurement which have proved accurate enough for pinpoint operations in space being wrong.

Since: Science and the Bible seem to agree on the possibility of a creation point; the Bible can more easily be reconciled with science being reconciled with the bible on this point ; and the *length* of creation is not key to Christian doctrine (though the EVENT of creation is!), I feel comfortable in my view that the God of the Bible created the universe through what we describe as the Big Bang, and it took billions of years to prep his universe for his culminating creation: humankind.

IMHO

*sigh*, as my grandmother might say, "In _my_ day reading the bible was much easier..." (note the clever use of the word 'day' to refer to a period of time... )

Hmph, I need a .sig

 

[david_84]

I believe in both the Big Bang and long day because Science shows us that the Big Bang is likely

You're right. Science does show the Big Bang theory to be very likely which is why I also believe it happened. But only as God's creative introduction of time, space, and matter.

Now, we could be wrong in what we're observing, but considering the massive data, I don't think so.

Please don't take what I am about to say as an attempt to throw your statement back in your face. I'm just giving my beliefs.

I really do believe that we are wrong in much that we observe. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus said in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Indeed there is a massive amount of data, but the source of that data contradicts the popular interpretation of it.

So either Jesus was wrong because He lied, or He was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or He was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations. I tend to lean toward the final option, which is why I don't believe in the long day theory.

 

[JMRE5150]

Hmmm, awesome thoughts and intellectual ideas on all this. But one thing for me makes it alittle easier to digest the Bible writings as factual...

I'll speak in laymans terms here, instead of trying to sound like I have a Phd. Cause I don't.

It simply amazes me that people today, in their short little lifespans here on earth can think that a theory a few decades old can indeed be fact just because its unique ideas fit into the puzzle hole nicely.
When you think of mans intelligence, we have constantly strived to understand. Period. Whether its how a tree grows, how rivers flow, etc. When we find a 'solution' that we think fits nicely...we latch our intelligence onto it, and claim "WE'VE GOT IT"!

*giggles* Silly, silly creatures we are. The universe has been alive for billions (some say millions - whatever you get the point) of years...churning and churning away its wonders at rates we don't even understand. Then along comes man (and woman) and now WE have all the scientific answers to the world. Well, I believe if you step back and look at this, we truly fancy ourselves as 'smart' creatures who can figure "it all out". I laugh at all our "scientific solutions" on things.

Example 1: How many of us old farts remember that we were taught that dinosaurs walked around upright, but their tails dragged? That was taught forever, but now...we go "whoops" no they didn't. Now 'supposedly' they stick straight out. *giggles*

Example 2: Remember 100 years ago when we thought the best 'treatment' for mentally ill men, women and even children was to lock them away in asylums and torture them, in hope that we would reabiliatate them? This also lasted decades as the "intelligent' solution to this scientific problem. We know now we were 'off our rockers' to think such a thing. But it was the solution that best fit the puzzle hole.

Not escaping the point of the thread, I view this "big Bang theory" in the same light. Its working for some folks NOW, but I'd love to live long enough to see how we will giggle at this 'intellectual theory' in 100 years. I'm sure it will dissolve away, and some new "We're smarter than we were 100 years ago" theory about how the universe began will crop up, and be the debate. Funny thing is to me though...is how ALL THESE THEORIES change through the years, yet Gods creation of the world still holds ground in most circles for thousands of years.
I'm waiting for folks to post back saying "But WE ARE SMARTER NOW, WITH GREATER UNDERSTANDING THAN OUR ANCESTORS!" - Which is the point of my post. No...we aren't. We just think we are.

There's my .02
JMRE5150

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No we a smarter than we were.

Forgetting about pure science - the way you describe the progress we would not have any technological advances.

There is a reason the interpretation of dinosaurs changed - advances is paleontology and the application of comparitive anatomy. We are not going back to tail dragging for instance.

The big bang arose out of explaining observations we did not posess a century ago.

I know far more physics than Isaac Newton ever hoped of knowing. Does that make me a better physicist than Newton. No. What he did with the information he had was incredible. But what I can do with the knowledge he contributed and others subsequent to him are things he couldn't even dream of.

So to sum up, we ARE smarter (i.e. more capable) than our ancestors.

 

[Sinai]

Jesus said in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Indeed there is a massive amount of data, but the source of that data contradicts the popular interpretation of it.

So either Jesus was wrong because He lied, or He was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or He was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations. I tend to lean toward the final option, which is why I don't believe in the long day theory.

As I understand your analysis, you think the possible choices consist of the following:

• Jesus was wrong because He lied;
• Jesus was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or
• Jesus was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations about creation.

How about a fourth option:

• None of the above.

It appears to be rather unlikely that Jesus was lying or that he was forgetful or that he was not actually God. But it also appears rather unlikely that he was ignorant of the fact that God’s creation of the first man and woman with souls and the capacity to fellowship with God came on the sixth and final yom of creation rather than at the beginning of creation. So what was Jesus actually referring to in the second chapter of Mark? Let’s look at the context, shall we?



Some Pharisees had come to Jesus and attempted to test or trap him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” The Pharisees obviously knew the “correct” answer. After all, they were experts in the law of Moses. But they probably also knew that Jesus and John the Baptist were opposed to divorce—and that John had been killed by Herod after speaking out against divorce and adultery. They therefore devised a question that would either force Jesus to acknowledge the fact that the law of Moses permitted divorce (which would also uphold the Pharisees’ procedures) or make Jesus incur the wrath of Herod (and anyone else who had had a divorce).



Although Jesus acknowledged that Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, he said “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law.” God had initially made man and woman for each other. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”



Jesus was not talking about the beginning of the creation of the universe, but rather the beginning of the creation of man and woman for each other—as opposed to the later law of Moses, which permitted them to separate and go their separate ways. So Jesus was not wrong—and he was not talking about the length of each yom of creation, but rather was talking about God’s creation of man and woman for each other…

 

[david_84]

But it also appears rather unlikely that he was ignorant of the fact that God’s creation of the first man and woman with souls and the capacity to fellowship with God came on the sixth and final yom of creation rather than at the beginning of creation.

As I understand, one meaning of 'beginning' is the 'first part of something.' This being the case, to say man and woman were created at the beginning of creation is not contradictory to a 'literal' reading of Gen. 1 and 2, where the first six days could easily constitute the first part of a 6,000 to 10,000 year time span. However, it is not likely that 20 billion years (minus the few thousand that humans have been around) could be called the first part of something. And Jesus said the 'beginning of creation,' seeming to lump it all together, rather than narrowing it down by saying 'your creation' or 'man's creation.'

Speaking of context though, do you think that the context of 1 Cor. 15:22 or 1 Cor. 15:47 gives up any possibity of a figurative interpretation of the first man, Adam?

 

[servant4ever]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. In my Bible (NIV not that that should matter) plants are mentioned on the third day, and only on the third day. God said "let the land produce vegetation..." and "the land produced vegetation"

There is no mention of planting or later springing up either on the 4th day OR on the 6th day. As the second account DOES mention the planting, but puts man in the garden BEFORE it mentions the plants coming out of the ground it is an error to assume 4th and 6th days for these events. Either the first account is wrong in saying that plants were both ordered and grown on the third day, or the second account is wrong in saying that the plants grew AFTER man was placed.

This discrepancy isn't a problem if you see the literary techniques used, but if you are claiming a strict literal meaning, you CANNOT claim that plants were seeded on the 4th day, and grew on the 6th. Genesis 1:9-13 is very clear that it was the 3rd day.

Hello Deamiter,

I know I may be critized by people, since I am a young-earth creationist, but what you are saying here is that there is a contradiction in the Bible. I am not trying to start a debate, I just want to see if you would understand how this contradiction can be explained. How this apparent "contradiction" can be explained is that God is describing what is going to happen on the earth, and that happened a few days later. Another example of this is in the beginning God wanted to creat mankind for one reason: to have a loving people to have a relationship with. He decided that the people that he has a relationship with will have eternal life with Him. Of course, our free will decided another way, our own. Since sin has seperated us from a loving relationship with God, God had to provide a way for people to love Him, which is Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus did not appear on the spot to be a sacrifice, it was several thousand years until He came to earth to be a perfect sacrifice for our sins, so that we could be in a loving relationship with Him once again. God had a plan in mind, but it took a little while for that to happen, God is a patient God, who always appears at the perfect time.

servant4ever

 

[Sinai]

Speaking of context though, do you think that the context of 1 Cor. 15:22 or 1 Cor. 15:47 gives up any possibity of a figurative interpretation of the first man, Adam?

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking whether I think Adam was an actual person or was only figurative, my personal view is that he was an actual person, although I understand how some Christian brothers may disagree with that interpretation.....

 

[CryptoKnight]

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking whether I think Adam was an actual person or was only figurative, my personal view is that he was an actual person, although I understand how some Christian brothers may disagree with that interpretation.....

IMHO, a Christian (independent of being "young earth" or "old earth") would, of necessity, need to view Adam as an actual person. I personally believe God may have used evolution to populate the earth, but He had to put His hand in creation for humankind.

There had to be an "Adam" and "Eve" because there had to be a first person with a soul to go to Heaven. Theologically, you cannot have a race that "sorta has souls". Adam and Eve had to either be created as a simple Biblical reading states, or created though evolution but with a significant leap forward from the previous generations. If nothing else, the generation that received Prevenient Grace (Adam and Eve) were a significant evolutionary step forward (How does one evolve to have a soul?)

Similarly, many of these talks about "contradictions" stem from simplistic readings that do not take into account various "isms" of Jewish culture. It is these simplistic readings that cause contradictions (literal 7-day creation versus God being revealed in the heavens we observe). Biblical readings that take into account original language nuances and culture help to reconcile contradictions without having to say "well, I just take it on faith."

It wasn't until I learned to read the Bible critically, and start examining possible meanings of individual words ("day") and phrases ("turn the other cheek") that the contradictions melted away to insignificance.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

IMHO, a Christian (independent of being "young earth" or "old earth") would, of necessity, need to view Adam as an actual person.

And yet a majority of British CofE and Roman Catholic clergy do not. It is far from necessary.

I personally believe God may have used evolution to populate the earth, but He had to put His hand in creation for humankind.

I don't think so. At least, He was not specially involved any more than He was actually intricately involved in the entire evolutionary process. I do not subscribe to a Deistic "God letting Evolution run its course" model; I view evolution as being the actual outworking of God's creative intent.

There had to be an "Adam" and "Eve" because there had to be a first person with a soul to go to Heaven. Theologically, you cannot have a race that "sorta has souls". Adam and Eve had to either be created as a simple Biblical reading states, or created though evolution but with a significant leap forward from the previous generations. If nothing else, the generation that received Prevenient Grace (Adam and Eve) were a significant evolutionary step forward (How does one evolve to have a soul?)

I'm not convinced of this idea of "soul" - it seems more Greek than Hebrew to me. Adam becomes a living soul when God breathes life into him; he does not acquire a living soul. It seems to me that all the functions of "soul" are actually emergent properties of the brain; interfere physically with a person's brain and you can change their personality, their beliefs, their emotions - the lot.

We go to heaven not because we have an immortal "essence", IMO, but because God can raise us from death, just as He did Jesus. So the issue is not whether a creature has a "soul", but rather whether it is raised from death in a resurrection body.

Similarly, many of these talks about "contradictions" stem from simplistic readings that do not take into account various "isms" of Jewish culture. It is these simplistic readings that cause contradictions (literal 7-day creation versus God being revealed in the heavens we observe). Biblical readings that take into account original language nuances and culture help to reconcile contradictions without having to say "well, I just take it on faith."

Well, most of the contradictions disappear when one abandons literal interpretation. A few remain - those we have to engage with. This doesn't necessarily mean resolve - the Bible was written from disparate traditions and some differences are to be expected.

 

[lucaspa]

As far as I know, we do not try to define the existence of our God by what He does. Our attempts to define his existence are based on who He is, His attributes. He is love, He is holy, He is just. When Moses asked who to tell the Hebrews had sent Him, God replied with "I am who I am". He did not say "I am what I do."

God's existence is determined by what God does. For instance, Moses and the Hebrews knew God existed because 1) God manifested Himself to Moses, 2) God freed them from Egypt, and 3) God set them up in their own kingdom. Notice that the famous "I am what I am" does not tell you any attributes. It doesn't tell you that God is love, holy, or just. All those are deductions about God from how God behaves.

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis is a book of history, relating to us the lives of certain men and the role that God played with them.

Genesis is a book of theology set in the form of God relating to the lives of certain people. The theology does not depend on any of them being actual historical figures. I have no reason to think Abraham and Sarah were not historical, but there is very strong extrabiblical evidence to doubt the historicity of anyone in Genesis 1-11.

I don't know any biographer or historian who would start their task of presenting an accurate account by putting forth fiction as fact and then following it up with another piece of fiction presented as fact which absolutely contradicts the former.

Which tells you that Genesis 1-3 are neither biography nor history, because this is exactly what happens in these chapters. We have two separate creation stories that contradict on very essential points.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are not true then the Bible itself would be guilty of breaking the 3rd commandment which says to not misuse God's name. Genesis 1 and 2 would be putting words in God's mouth and having Him do things that He did not do.

Only if you read the chapters literally. If you read them as intended, then God does just what He did: creates the heavens and the earth and tells certain theological truths.

 

[lucaspa]

In answer to your first question, I am willing to 'tolerate' seeming disagreement to the point that it becomes absolutely irreconcilable. If the author of these two chapters thought that they were compatible then perhaps they are.

There wasn't "one" author. There were at least two. But probably Genesis 1 was the work of more than one person. There were at least 3, probably 4, different accounts that were edited together to make up what we see as the Pentateuch. The Documentary Hypothesis is as accepted in Biblical scholarship circles as evolution is within scientific circles.

If the disagreement is between God and man I will immediately believe God rather than man. Therefore when Jesus says in Mark 10:6 "At the BEGINNING OF CREATION God 'made them male and female,'" I tend to believe Him rather than other people who only speculate our origins and weren't responsible for them.

So you are going with Genesis 1 and saying Genesis 2 is wrong? Because Jesus referred to Genesis 1. Also, remember at the time that Jesus was fully human. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that, during his human life, Jesus possessed knowledge of the past greater than his contemporaries.

The stories are incompatible, even down to the name used for God. Genesis 1 is Elohim and Genesis 2-3 is Yahweh.

 

[lucaspa]

I really do believe that we are wrong in much that we observe. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus said in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Indeed there is a massive amount of data, but the source of that data contradicts the popular interpretation of it.

First, you took Mark 10:6 out of context. Is Jesus talking about creation? NO!

Let's start at the beginning, at Mark 10:2

"And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?""

So, we are talking about divorce. Not creation.

"He answered them, "What did Moses command you?""

Notice that Jesus said Moses, not God. Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

"They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment."

Hmm. Seem Moses got it wrong, too. Because Jesus is about to correct Moses and the divorce law.

"But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." "

So, what we have here is not Jesus giving a detailed how of creation, but using the theological message of Genesis 1 and 2 to decide a theological question about divorce.

Now, even using your out-of-context and misrepresentation idea, what data has Jesus contradicted? From the beginning of the human species we have been male and female. Even at the time of the last common ancestor of humans and apes, the species had two sexes. So God did create us male and female.

So either Jesus was wrong because He lied, or He was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or He was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations.

Or you took the verse out-of-context and have it mean something Jesus never intended. Didn't consider that option, did you?

 

[lucaspa]

As I understand, one meaning of 'beginning' is the 'first part of something.' This being the case, to say man and woman were created at the beginning of creation is not contradictory to a 'literal' reading of Gen. 1 and 2, where the first six days could easily constitute the first part of a 6,000 to 10,000 year time span.

The problem is that you are taking a literal Genesis 1 and 2 but not a literal Mark 10:6! IOW, the Bible is literal except when you don't want it to be! Suddenly Jesus' words are not literal "beginning of creation" because they contradict the literal Genesis 1 where humans were not created at the beginning but on day 6.

However, it is not likely that 20 billion years (minus the few thousand that humans have been around) could be called the first part of something.

No, but they are irrelevant to the "beginning of creation" of humans. You opened the door to non-literal. Sinai and I are saying Jesus was referring to the creation of humans. It is human divorce that Jesus is talking about, after all. So he is going back to the beginning of humans.

Speaking of context though, do you think that the context of 1 Cor. 15:22 or 1 Cor. 15:47 gives up any possibity of a figurative interpretation of the first man, Adam?

Yes. Paul is constructing a theology of Jesus dying for our sins. And Paul is using Adam as he was intended in Genesis 2-3 -- as an archetype to stand for each and every one of us.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

So as each of us sins (as Adam the archetype human did), Christ shall make each of us alive.

"The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven."

No problem. All humans are of the earth. Right? Physical beings. Jesus isn't after the Resurrection and Paul is simply pointing to the contrast.

 

[lucaspa]

IMHO, a Christian (independent of being "young earth" or "old earth") would, of necessity, need to view Adam as an actual person. I personally believe God may have used evolution to populate the earth, but He had to put His hand in creation for humankind.

Adam means "dirt" in Hebrew. What actual person do you know that would be named "Dirt" Adam and Eve are archetypes.

What's more, transistional series of fossils are difficult to find. Therefore, don't you find it ironic that one of the best such series of individuals is in our own lineage such that we can trace our ancestry back 4 species to a species not even in our genus? It's as if God is shouting "I did it by evolution!"

There had to be an "Adam" and "Eve" because there had to be a first person with a soul to go to Heaven. Theologically, you cannot have a race that "sorta has souls". Adam and Eve had to either be created as a simple Biblical reading states, or created though evolution but with a significant leap forward from the previous generations.

OR, God simply inserted a soul into one generation during evolution. Into all the members of that generation. No difference in form or intellect, but simply inserting a soul.

After all, when precisely does God insert a soul during our embryonic development? No one knows. Does it matter? No. What matters to you is that you have a soul, not exactly when and which humans got the first ones.

If nothing else, the generation that received Prevenient Grace (Adam and Eve) were a significant evolutionary step forward (How does one evolve to have a soul?)

1. That's not a significant evolutionary step forward. Evolution has to do with changes in genes. Soul isn't part of the genome, is it?

2. One doesn't evolve a soul. God gives one.

It wasn't until I learned to read the Bible critically, and start examining possible meanings of individual words ("day") and phrases ("turn the other cheek") that the contradictions melted away to insignificance.

In the creation stories, how do you get around the contradiction of a very different order of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

 

[Sinai]

Although I have no idea what any of this discussion has to do with "The Big Bang Theory" (which is supposedly the topic of this thread), I am enjoying reading what each of you have had to say. Let me add one additional element to the following discussion between CryptoKnight and lucaspa:

There had to be an "Adam" and "Eve" because there had to be a first person with a soul to go to Heaven. Theologically, you cannot have a race that "sorta has souls". Adam and Eve had to either be created as a simple Biblical reading states, or created though evolution but with a significant leap forward from the previous generations.

Adam means "dirt" in Hebrew. What actual person do you know that would be named "Dirt" Adam and Eve are archetypes.

What's more, transistional series of fossils are difficult to find. Therefore, don't you find it ironic that one of the best such series of individuals is in our own lineage such that we can trace our ancestry back 4 species to a species not even in our genus? It's as if God is shouting "I did it by evolution!"

OR, God simply inserted a soul into one generation during evolution. Into all the members of that generation. No difference in form or intellect, but simply inserting a soul.

After all, when precisely does God insert a soul during our embryonic development? No one knows. Does it matter? No. What matters to you is that you have a soul, not exactly when and which humans got the first ones.


1. That's not a significant evolutionary step forward. Evolution has to do with changes in genes. Soul isn't part of the genome, is it?

2. One doesn't evolve a soul. God gives one.

In the creation stories, how do you get around the contradiction of a very different order of creation between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every living creature,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of life--i.e., they are living creatures. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation that distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our human soul (or God's spirit or God's breath of life or the capacity to fellowship with God), our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).



The closing of Genesis 2:7 has a subtlety lost in the English: It is usually translated as: “…and [God] breathed into his nostrils the neshama of life and the adam became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Dr. Gerald Schroeder has noted that the Hebrew text actually states: “…and the adam became to a living soul.” Over 700 years ago, Nahmanides wrote that the “to” (the Hebrew letter lamed prefixed to the word “soul” in the verse) is superfluous from a grammatical stance and so must be there to teach something. Lamed, he noted, indicates a change in form and may have been placed there to describe mankind as progressing through stages of mineral, plant, fish, and animal. Finally, upon receiving the neshama, that creature which had already been formed became a human. He concludes his extensive commentary on the implications of this lamed by saying that “it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

 

[CryptoKnight]

“it may be that the verse is stating that [prior to receiving the neshama] it was a completely living being and [by the neshama] it was transformed into another man.”

(I fear I have been misunderstood, but I shall press on nonetheless)
I agree. I was not stating that God used evolution to create Man, I was stating that I can concede that *may* have happened...I do not deny the possibility of a creation miracle where Man was created from nothing.

However, this is exactly the point I was making. Even if evolution DID happen, there had to be a point where the first man (adam) was _capable_ of entering Heaven. Even if mankind evolved, there was a "first man" who had a soul, and therefore I believe that Adam and Eve are literal figures.

 

[lucaspa]

Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh (or nephesh) and neshama (or nishmath), and both come into play in the first two chapters of Genesis. When Genesis 1:21 tells us that “God created…every living creature,” it signifies that all animals (humans included) are infused with the nefesh or soul of life--i.e., they are living creatures. When humans are mentioned a few verses later (Genesis 1:27 and 2:7), the text tells of a further creation that distinguishes humans from lower animals: The third “creation” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis is of our human soul (or God's spirit or God's breath of life or the capacity to fellowship with God), our neshama (the first two “creations” were of the universe and of life).

Sinai, I have found Schroeder being erroneous in many areas that I can check. Therefore I do not take him as reliable in those areas that I am not knowledgable in. Can you find another Hebraic scholar (not Nahmanides) that has reached the same conclusions by the same route? IOW, is Schroeder's information and logic reproducible? Thanks.