Bible: Genesis (Part 1)

Reference: Religion


Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This first verse of the Bible introduces, acknowledges and celebrates the fact of CREATION. Creation is “bringing into existence,” or “manifesting that, which was not manifested.”

In creation there is always a manifestation that was not there before. In a light bulb, we have a form that didn’t exist before the light bulb was invented; therefore, the light bulb was a creation. But the light bulb was created out of existing materials.

That there are the manifestations we call heavens and earth is self-evident. So they must have been created out of something that existed earlier. This is confirmed by the law of conservation of matter and energy in Physics. Something that existed earlier is identified in Genesis 1:1 as God. It is, therefore, a natural conclusion that the concept of “God” implies the causative principle as well as the materials from which heavens and earth were created. Therefore, heavens and earth are simply an extension of God.

We may, therefore, say that God created the light bulb, even though that is an event much smaller in scale than the creation of heavens and earth. In this case, God is much more than the inventor, Thomas Edison. He wasn’t the only one who contributed to the development of this revolutionary technology. Many other notable figures are also remembered for their work with electric batteries, lamps and the creation of the first incandescent bulbs. Besides, we are looking at bodies and minds, which themselves are manifestations.

We may, therefore, conclude the following about God of Genesis 1:1.

  1. Heaven and earth are an extension of God because creator and creation cannot be separated from each other.
  2. God is not a human like beingness. It is rather a deep abstract principle describing order precipitating from chaos.

This nature of God is beautifully expressed in the Vedic Hymn of Creation. To think of God to be otherwise is to operate from a viewpoint of mystery. Bible need not be interpreted from this viewpoint of mystery.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On April 8, 2011 at 8:30 AM

    Religions generally teach that creation had both a beginning and a creator(s) and that “before any beginning” was “without form and void.” I have never been taught that “god as formless” was a new concept nor that it came from Islam.

    Man has considered himself and his relationship to the universe for tens of thousands of years. Almost all of human history is either unrecorded or destroyed and buried. The destroying and burying has been routinely been done in the name of a religion.

    The muslim prostrates himself before his visualization of the creator entity, whom he creates as both anthropomorphic and male. Whether “formless” is Islamic in origin can be your opinion. Whether this concept is an “advance” is your consideration. Maybe your bias is showing?


  • vinaire  On April 8, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    Vedas state that gods came after the creation (see HYMN OF CREATION on Internet). Buddhism does not even acknowledge a creator. A creator is emphasized in Judaism. Christianity gives it a more solid identity by making it more personal. Islam seems to de-emphasize that identity. However, you are right that we don’t see it practiced at the mass level.

    As Hinduism says, “The root cause of all misery is ignorance.” There may be knowledge out there; but how much it is understood and practiced is another story.



    • fredwx  On June 12, 2012 at 7:30 PM

      Genesis 1 may have been written during the Hebrew captivity in Babylon and may have been influenced by the Babylonian creation account “Enuma Elish” where creation is accomplished in seven steps. The Enuma Elish, like the Creation Hymn of Rig Veda, starts with an original condition before there were even gods.

      Enuma Elish
      When the skies above were not yet named 
      Nor earth below pronounced by name, 
      Apsu, the first one, their begetter, 
      And maker Tiamat, who bore them all, 
      Had mixed their waters together, 
      But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds; 
      When yet no gods were manifest, 
      Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed, 
      Then gods were born within them.

      The Genesis 1 account seems to answer that question by offering an original cause.


    • vinaire  On June 13, 2012 at 8:20 AM

      Thanks for this information. The idea of gods is different from the idea of God, which Genesis 1 puts forth. You are right in saying that Genesis 1 account puts forth the idea of “an original cause” as God. This is the basis of Monotheism. The following is what I consider in this respect.


      Looking to the past for answers to creation is not absolutely necessary. The universe is being re-created at every moment of NOW, and that needs to be examined.



      • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM

        Yes, and the word is “iterated.”


        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM

          Within this word, iteration, you may find a new view to understanding the discreetness of the universe which you have been rejecting.


        • vinaire  On June 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM

          Moments may not necessarily occur in some finite unit. There may be a calculus of moments.



        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM

          based on?


        • vinaire  On June 14, 2012 at 5:10 AM

          Based on the mathematical notion of continuity.



  • vinaire  On April 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM

    It is interesting for me to observe that somebody gave a “very poor” rating to this essay without expressing his or her disagreement and be willing to discuss it.

    I am fully aware of the fact that people have beliefs that help them restrain their confusions in life. They feel very uncomfortable when their beliefs are closely examined.

    My view is that when beliefs are closely examined, there may be initial discomfort, but after such examination one always ends up with a higher and more satisfactory belief.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 9, 2011 at 7:58 AM

    I noticed this too, Vin. I agree with your statement and have come to “love” this uncomfortable feeling. Maybe love is too strong. “Appreciate” and “utilize” this feeling is closer. My personal belief is that my own spiritual “ideal scene” does not include these uncomfortable feelings. I take these uncomfortable feelings to indicate that I have spiritual weakness in these areas and use these discomforts as a gauge as “where to look.” These “somatics” point toward my service facsimiles, false data, and misunderstood words. I find this useful on my spiritual path.

    Vin, you are a good cyber friend and I hope you are encouraged to continue to write your truths as you see them. Often they are my own truths. Sometimes you just make me uncomfortable! Please continue.


  • Chris Thompson  On April 9, 2011 at 8:04 AM

    I want to share a funny story. As an adolescent, I was sitting in a Baptist church and listening to the preacher tell me that the Holy Spirit is referred to in the Bible as the “Great Comforter.”

    The preacher said, ” . . . and if’n you are already comfortable, he’ll make you uncomfortable so that he can comfort you!”

    Back then, I thought “how preposterous!” But looking back to that statement from where I am today I think maybe it can work that way! hahaha


  • vinaire  On April 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM

    Thanks for your observation, Chris, and the wonderful anecdote. You are a good cyber friend.



  • vinaire  On April 10, 2011 at 8:00 AM

    At this moment my belief is that the highest level of LOOKING is spotting the inconsistencies among the considerations one is subscribing to.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM

    Yes. Locating inconsistencies in one’s own considerations is an OT ability – I am sure of this.


  • vinaire  On April 15, 2011 at 6:50 AM

    Thanks, but is there such a thing as an OT (Operating Thetan)?

    Thetan was originally an algebraic symbol used in Scientology for “unknown” in the equation of “life”. I do not think that Hubbard fully solved that equation, looking at his own life.



  • vinaire  On January 27, 2020 at 9:05 AM

    I have revised this post as it referred to an old essay. This revision of that essay expresses my view more closely.


%d bloggers like this: