Well, I hope this little story I have retold serves to better understand what
that vision, that revelation might have been.
We now have a clearer idea about what could have happened, what he had actually
narrated and about one more thing: the reason for the days.
When I thought about writing the story of what the observer saw, I immediately
considered the dilemma of the seven days. I thought: what if the seven days were
not Godīs days but the observerīs? Or both? Again-what if ...?.
And yes, it would make sense. It is a lot of information to receive in one day
and also if it was given to the observer in seven sessions, we could consider
that the narrative was told in seven days. Maybe that was the case because God
probably desired to generate the need to divide the narrative by days, because
there is a reason for the seven days -from a religious point of view- which we
will discuss below.
Letīs see the religious side of the story.
The first thing the sacred author says is: "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth"; in this phrase he gives us the key that we must use to
understand the text, and in turn, he tries to express the synthesis of
everything that he is going to describe in detail. We have seen that by
integrating heavens and earth he attempts to cover everything, all that exist;
and that by mentioning heavens and earth again at the end, he draws our
attention to the purely human and earthly perspective of the narrator.
It is also possible that, due to the fact the word kosmos is of Greek origin;
and because in the Hebrew language there is no word that corresponds exactly to
that idea, he uses this redundancy of heavens and earth. For me, it is clear
that by bundling everything he is including the intangible, as the world of
ideas and the laws governing the systems.
It is assumed that the hagiographer, the sacred author, besides telling a
conceivable view, would intend to catechize, to give a lesson in theology in a
simple and direct way, in a language that may have been popular to simple-minded
people. Do not forget that this must have happened a thousand years before
Christ, and that the scientific knowledge of that time was extremely low.
At the same time there is something very important; he is transmitting that God
did this and God did that, God as singular, as one. This is not a minor issue,
on the contrary, because at that time polytheism prevailed in different cultures.
It didnīt occurred to anyone, or they found difficult to accept that everything
was the work of one God, for He creates animals, plants and man and nothing else,
not does He at any time make other gods or demigods, or anything of the sort.
The message and lesson left after reading it should be loud and clear: God is
one and, moreover, it is pre-existing; He existed before the origin of the world.
This teaching of "one God" continues throughout the Bible and leads to Jesus; it
is the theme of the story and the chosen peopleīs reason for being; but letīs
not stray.
Letīs carry on with the Genesis.
The next sentence is also very significant: "a wind of God hovered over the
waters." This gives us the feeling that God's presence is almost tangible; that
the author feels the spirit of God above the initial chaos, He cannot only see
but also feel, perceive the existing intention behind the work.
Then he begins the description of creation. Here it is important to emphasize
that the hagiographer possibly cared more for the doctrinal and religious
aspects of the narrative than for its scientific side, obviously. First, because
he may not have understood the scientific part; and second, because if he
understood it he could not tell anyone because no one would have understood.
To me it is obvious that the author is unable to fully understand what he is
seeing, because he believes in some basic concepts of his time, like that the
sky was solid, or that the stars, the sun and the moon were gods, etc.
Moreover, he remains still along the transformations and everything happens
around him. For him, the place in which he stands is the center of the universe
and the sun, the moon and the stars move around it. That was the general idea,
shared by scholars, to the point that the belief that the Earth was the center
of the universe prevailed beyond 1600 AD. If anyone doubts, we can ask Galileo
Galilei, who uttered the famous phrase Eppur si muove or E pur si muove ("And
yet it moves") after abjure the heliocentric view of the world to the court of
the Inquisition on June 22, 1633 in the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva,
which cost him house arrest.
The heliocentric vision (from the Greek: helios - sun, center) placed the sun at
the center of the system and the Earth as one of the planets revolving around
the star.
I find it interesting to note that we usually judge the Inquisition as totally
irrational and wild, but in this case -it struck me-the Church condemns him to "house
arrest", without even sending him to prison! This is not a minor issue; Galileo
was moving mankind from his place, the maximum creation of God, the center of
creation! And still, they only sentenced him to house arrest? ...!?
Well, let's continue.
Many times we find that Genesis commentators wonder why the author does not
speak of the creation of darkness but of the creation of light; and they try to
explain it, in general, arguing that darkness is associated with evil and light
with good; but in the text there is no reason to believe that darkness
represents evil; itīs simply that before the light it was dark and after the
light it was not.
I think we should remember that outer space is dark by nature because it lacks
atmosphere and the light has no way to spread and create that feeling of being
surrounded by light that is so familiar to us.
It is important-critical we might say- not to forget that when talking of
Genesis and, obviously, of the Bible, we are usually in the area of religion.
Therefore the text tries to leave -at all times-religious teachings to those who
read it, as that's the main reason of all these writingsī existence: to lead man
in his spiritual journey.
At last, when the time of the creation of man comes, he says: "Let us make man
in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the
sea ...". Behold the most accurate reference of man as Godīs representative
stand before what was created on earth; that he will command about animals and
plants, and that this allocation entails the enormous responsibility of caring
for them.
I happened to find people who, mistaking this paragraph, feel entitled to do
anything to animals and plants because "God sent them" ...!? The famous "power"
It is clear that we can misinterpret sacred texts and adapt them to our
interests or needs as we see fit, but we should not do so.
God is above all a merciful and loving father, and nowhere does He give the
mandate that we can mistreat animals or subjugate others; quite the opposite.
Just read the teachings of Jesus and His exhortations: "Love your neighbor as
yourself", "forgive seventy times seven." In fact, we should not overlook His
intention that sustenance should be vegetarian, as the hagiographer remarks: "Look,
to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth,
and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food. And to all
the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that
creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food ". In
this paragraph it is clear the intention to convey the idea, indication or
teaching that -as plants are there for sustenance- man must protect and respect
all animal life.
Undoubtedly man, being intelligent, can make that discrimination -discrimination
that animals are unable to perform. However, after the flood we feel that God is
resigned to the view that it is too much to ask, "Never again will I curse the
earth because of human beings, because their heart contrives evil from their
infancy. Never again will I strike down every living thing as I have done "(Genesis
8:21), and thereafter He allows them to eat animals (Genesis 9:1-5).
Well, beyond what we have for lunch, it is interesting to notice that God is
presented in the Bible as a loving, merciful father who gives up His designs or
renews them depending on the struggles with His children, with this Humanity,
with His obstinate chosen people, as we read throughout the Old Testament more
than once.