Genesis 1:1 - 2:1

Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
12 DEC 2013. Revised 10 FEB 2014

Below is my basic archived article on my strict interpretation of Genesis 1, the Flood and the like. I have not presented in that article certain very basic necessities one needs to consider when interpreting Scripture.

That article is addressed to a specific audience and has not been expanded for other audiences. Rather than revise that article, the following "obvious" facts are added to another article "The GGU-model and Human Corporeal and Incorporeal Experiences."

When one writes or speaks, it is to a specific audience. In so doing, not all hypotheses used for a logical discussion are mentioned. The ones not so mentioned are termed as "common knowledge." This knowledge is that which is "understood" by the audience. Relative to Genesis 1, can we determine some aspects of the common 1300 BC knowledge Moses expected of his audience?

During that approximate time period, Moses twice states that the Hebrews are forbidden from associating with "wizards" (KJV). Thus, wizards existed at the time Moses presented his portion of Scriptures. Biblically, seven more times such warnings are given. Isaiah 8:19 tells us one aspect of how wizards behave. It was common knowledge how they behaved. They "peep," like a bird, and "mutter." Most likely, for the common knowledge, this includes making "nonsensical" incantations, "speaking words" that they claim lead to real physical realizations, exactly like magicians claim. Today, we "know" that these are but "tricks." Of course, wizards also claim special knowledge.

When Moses states that "God said" (âmar) such and such and aspects of the physical universe appear, he later warns that this certainly is not intended to imply that God is a wizard. This Hebrew term is used elsewhere in the KJV, as it was also understood in Biblical times, as a special Hebrew idiom for "thinking" or for "thinking within oneself." Since this is a stated characteristic of God, then a phrase relative to how God presents instructions, guidelines, orders, and information, when not otherwise qualified, is via the "thinking" notion. We are told, at least, fifteen times in the Old Testament and specifically relative to the Holy Ghost by Jesus, Paul and John that God communicates "mentally" with individuals. A mathematical model exists (Herrmann 2004, 2006) that, via interpretation, shows rationally how this can be accomplished relative to Noble Laurent Eccles' (1984) concept of an immaterial aspect of human thought.

I and others have stated what was common knowledge but what was purposely, I think, suppressed after about 130 AD, when individuals were told that they need "special knowledge," accorded to but a chosen few, to interpret "properly" the Bible. This erroneous notion was not completely dispelled until the early 1900s. An understanding of various aspects of God's behavior comes from associating such behavior with common knowledge "mental" concepts and corresponding descriptive terms. To understand the GGU-model in its most basic intuitive sense, the terms used are stated relative to the mental notions of language, deduction and, today, are analogue modeled by processes that are generalizations of how human activity is first mentally consider and then how the processes physically produce our human made universe.

This is the Genesis vixra.org archived article.

Vixra: Genesis 1:1 - 2:1 (or Genesis 1:1 - 2:1)

References

Eccles, J. and D. N. Robinson, (1984). "The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind," The Free Press, New York.

Herrmann, R. A., (2004). "Nonstandard Consequence Operator Generated by Mixed Logic-systems." http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0412562

Herrmann, R. A., (2006). The rationality of hypothesized immaterial mental processes, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 43(2):127-129.


Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.