Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth

I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape. The order of creation is completely irrelevant to the flatearth debate.

Musk, Grok, and God

This morning, Elon Musk posted a short poem about one positive aspect of religion, in general:

 

Curious to see how Grok would respond to a question about the subjective nature of religion that attempts to connect with an objective God, I asked it:

"If there is a real creator god, does it make sense for individual people to define him in whatever way feels right to them?"

Grok's reply is interesting, but like all human-programmed AIs, it ultimately fails to give the logically inevitable answer because it is trying to be inoffensive:

The question of how individuals define or conceptualize a creator god touches on deep philosophical, theological, and psychological dimensions. Here's a breakdown of considerations: 1. **Subjectivity of Experience**: Human experience is inherently subjective. People's understanding of a creator god can be influenced by their culture, personal experiences, emotional needs, and intellectual frameworks. Given this, it might be argued that defining god in a way that feels right could be a natural and perhaps necessary process for individuals to connect with the divine in a meaningful way. 2. **Religious and Philosophical Traditions**: Many religious traditions offer specific doctrines about the nature of god, which might not align with personal definitions. However, within these traditions, there's often room for interpretation and personal relationship with the divine. Mystics, for instance, often describe experiences of god that transcend doctrinal definitions. 3. **Theological Perspectives**: - **Apophasis (Negative Theology)**: Some theological traditions suggest that god is beyond human comprehension, and thus, any definition we impose is inherently limited. From this viewpoint, personal definitions might be seen as valid attempts to grasp the ineffable. - **Panentheism and Pantheism**: These perspectives might argue that god is in everything or that everything is part of god, which could support a more flexible, personal definition. 4. **Psychological Impact**: Defining god in a way that resonates personally can have profound psychological benefits, providing comfort, purpose, and a moral framework. This personal connection might be more about fulfilling existential needs rather than achieving an objective truth. 5. **Philosophical Considerations**: - **Pluralism**: The idea that there might be multiple valid ways to understand or experience the divine suggests that individual definitions could coexist without one necessarily being more correct than another. - **Pragmatism**: If a belief in a certain kind of god helps an individual live a better, more ethical, or happier life, then from a pragmatic standpoint, that definition has value. 6. **Critiques and Challenges**: - **Relativism**: If everyone defines god differently, does this lead to a form of relativism where the concept of god loses any objective meaning or impact? - **Conflict**: Different personal definitions can lead to conflicts, especially when these definitions are seen as universally applicable or when they intersect with societal laws and norms. 7. **Ultimate Reality**: If there is a creator god, this entity might exist independently of human perception. Thus, while personal definitions might be psychologically or socially useful, they might not reflect the actual nature of this being, if such a being exists. In conclusion, while it might make sense from various human-centric perspectives for individuals to define a creator god in ways that resonate with them personally, this approach also raises questions about the nature of truth, the essence of divinity, and the implications for interfaith or philosophical dialogue. Whether or not this approach aligns with any objective reality of a creator god remains a matter of belief, speculation, or faith.

We have a genetic drive to worship a deity just as much as we have a genetic drive to procreate. The spiritual drive is just harder to identify and satisfy because it's not connected to a specific physical organ. People tend to satisfy both drives in the easiest--and therefore usually the worst--ways. If there is a real Creator God, he can't be whatever we want him to be. His existence and character doesn't depend on us. He is what he is, and the best connection we can have with him must conform to his design, not our desire.