Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

When did God become part of Homo's life?

When did God become part of Homo's life?  In the sense that we had a soul? a spirit?  communicated with God? a relationship with God? became accountable for sin?

I will use science and history and the Bible. Genesis 1 and 2 are sooooo complex, layered and layered with meaning. The more you study you realize it could take a lifetime to fully comprehend the richness that is there...and I'd say evolution is likewise as complicated.

But we will just address some points here. -phew- 

I want to clarify as well that while my views are similar to some of the links below, I arrived to my conclusions independently a long time ago through my own studies (which can be found in my book Ancient Genesis). It just so happens that others agree with me. 

Only humankind has three verbs for their creation:
Asah- common verb for fashioning and utilizing the parts (natural process)
Bara- of the spirit or a divine act (Spiritual process)
Yetsar- with a purpose of relationship

It is yetsar that may be most relevant to the question or perhaps bara.......

I'm going to get to the question in all those facets...but we need some back up info first:

My point of view is such that The Soul came to be upon the fifth day of creation -BARA- in Hebrew was used here which in English is translated as Created

"Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the Earth in the open dome of the sky"

God created the sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the waters swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird (this word should probably be translated insect), and God saw that it was good (not perfect -good.)

This period of time (Day 5) for myself reflects 750,000 years ago to 250,000 years ago. Cambrian period took place here. 

God then commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (in nature we see this manifest as every living thing persists to survive and reproduce). They do this because they now have a consciousness -a stream of memories allowing them to chose better. (This is seen more in Theory of consciousness with Hameroff and Penrose)

But wait, what happened first? Did God directly produce the animals or did the water? 

Why did this take place, because God says "Let the waters swarm with swarms ..." How did they come? from the WATER. Why? because God spoke and allowed this.

(Science shows us animal life likely began from the waters) 

Before we talk more about created let us look at the plants....

In day three (for myself this covers the time period of 4 billion yeas ago to about 1.750.000.000 years ago.

We see God said "Let the Earth put forth grass, seed producing plants, and fruit trees.....the Earth brought forth grass and....etc..." 

But wait! 
Why don't we see the word made or created in Day 3.

Simply, God said Let the Earth... and the Earth did. How did plants come then if not from made or created? from the Earth, a natural process. Why? because God spoke. Why not use bara -created or asha-made. That is interesting to me. Before just the command to do and the Earth did. That is all that is needed. 

Earth in Hebrew means-erets ---to be firm or the land

So then why do Day five and Day six use created and made when we see in day three all God has to do is speak and the natural process will occur?  

We see from Day three with plants God just speaks and nature does. That is what we see in Day five too --at first--  "Let the Earth bring forth each kind of living creature..." (what is bringing forth the creatures? the EARTH-a natural thing. "Each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast; and that is how it was." The ending shows us this took place. And that it how it was. 

But now something new is added!

Looking at Day five --again-- we see God spoke and the waters did (a natural process)...but God also created (bara) and this is  -the creation of something from nothing -not a natural process as far as our natural laws- this is the soul- because bara is always a spiritual process, even in Genesis 1:1. The first act of creation is spiritual. And it is the spiritual acts that science cannot see. They can see everything natural up to the first line of Genesis. But the first line is just spiritual. So, before the void, they can't see.  

The soul of animal life to me exists in all animal life. This continues in all life through out the entire evolution processes. Every living animal having a soul.

To me Day 6 marks the period of time 250,000 years ago to present. A lot happened during that period of Day 6. "Let the Earth bring forth each kind of living creature..." (what is bringing forth the creatures? the EARTH-a natural thing. "Each kind of livestock, crawling animal and wild beast; and that is how it was." How did the Earth do this? God spoke and allowed it. 

Later this process is emphasized using made. Why the change? In Day five we see God Created follows after "Let the waters bring forth." In day six we see God Made follows after "Let the Earth bring forth."

ASAH is used for life that went from water to land, not for water life. This is curious!

I wasn't exactly sure why ASAH was used for animal life on land, but not water life or plant life...but after studying consciousness...I think I have a pretty good reason. 

"So God made-asah- each kind of (land animal)....." THEN God said  "Let us make humankind"

Made/Make refers to the Hebrew word ASAH. Why not just let the water bring froth animals to land? Asah is such a strong word. It is used when the planets are formed (Day 3 for the firmament) and the stars (Day four) and then for land animals and humans. Only these four things.

(I'd say it was used for planets and then stars because these are the dominate /significant parts of the universe). Everything is either part of a planet or star, or empty space, or a fundamental particle. Empty space and the particles were already addressed in Genesis 1:1. 

If God must -make -Asah- to produce life than why not -make-asah- in day three with the plants? And why not in Day five with the water life?

The reason Bara is not used for land animals, is because it is not needed to form animal life. The waters brought forth and the Earth brought forth (naturally), based on God's word. So why use Bara at all in Day five and six? Why use Asha at all in day six -but not in five or three?

Because Bara in day 5 is showing us the creation of the soul in Day five for ALL animals, that includes us! Later in Day six it denotes the spirit of mankind. Man gets a spirit too. 

But Asah in day 6 is denoting not a spiritual is emphasizing a natural process. 

From the waters (includes insects) life swarms and then makes its way to the land. There is a transition from water to earth. The animals of land have something the animals of the waters do not have (exception to the animals that once lived on land like whales and dolphins). They have emotions. Emotions makes consciousness so much more complex. I think this is why Asah is used for land animals.

This doesn't mean water life does not feel physical pain (see my theory of consciousness tab, but they do not have a biological part of the brain required for emotional processes, and they do not form emotional bonds with friends and family. They do not show emotional responses and attachments. They do show physical pain! 

THEN...after all of these natural processes of water animals and now earth animals (all still with a soul) something new happens!

Mankind is both asah and bara. So something else is added naturally and something else is added spiritually.

For myself, I see the next physical addition in our mental/intellectual processes. Everything was made and experienced physical pain, and then when animals reached land they now experienced emotional pain (asah) and when animals become homo sapiens they now experience mental pains (asah). It is because of our frontal brain, which other apes do not have, that we are able to suffer mentally/intellectually in such large capacity, in my opinion. Each level of suffering and joy added in each additional use of Asah.  

....The Spirit came to humankind in Day 6 -with the use of Bara- "So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them: male and female he created them."

 Is God creating a body because this body looks like him? Really? God is a male and female body? To me, God is a spirit. And it is this spirit that is created -which is why Bara is used. 

Also-Create (Strong's #1254)
The Hebrew word behind created is the Hebrew verb ברא (bara). The idea of "creating" is an abstract thought that is foreign to Hebrew thought. The concrete understanding behind this word can be seen in 1 Samuel 2:29, "Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?" In this passage is the word "fattening" which is the same Hebrew verb ברא (bara). By extension this word also means to "fill up."

Bara is also used to FILL UP- So God is filling up our bodies with a soul and spirit. In Genesis 1:1 God is filling up the empty space with his creation. 

When we read "And God created man in his own image" our minds form a mental picture of what we look like and then attribute this picture to God himself. In the Hebrews mind it is not the appearance of something that they concentrate on but its function. This passage is not implying a picture of man or God but their function. Through the Hebrew words of this text we see that God had placed within man a shadow or representation of his own function - goal, purpose, thought, etc. 

Gen 2:3 He rested from all His work which God in creating [bara] had made –[‘a-sah]
Interesting to me to phrase it this way. In English we have to rest from all he has created, but in the Hebrew which is often omitted....we see which God in creating had made...both the verbs used here. Because God by using Bara (everything in the beginning from nothing) had asah. 

We see here as well that the spiritual act-bara- is first, then the natural act -asah. 

Gen 2:4 The generations [toledot] of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [bara] in the day that the LORD God made [bara] earth and heaven (2:4)

Again another interesting look at both words used in this phrase.....heavens and earth created -part one- and part two is -- in the day they were made. For me, I see everything created in day 1 (energy) and the day they were made (evolved) followed later. 

So when did God become part of Homo's life? 

In the sense that we had a soul? Yes from the first animal life!

In the sense of the spirit? Yes, from humankind (then your question is when is humankind?)

Or communicated with God? I would say various hominids, even unrecorded have communicated with God or tried. Biblically speaking that would be with Adam/Eve and then Abraham who had the most profound communication, but we can date homo sapiens having ideas of God back to 90,000- years ago and arguably to 300,000 years ago. 

Biblically from my POV -Day six- would range anywhere from 250,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. A lot takes place in each day and in this day as well. We see land animals develop and than hominids eventually diverge...

God is taking about the land animals and the population of hominid -
female and male in Day 6. 

So, does the divergence of hominids mark humankind? Well, let us go back to the Hebrew for more clues. 

Humankind means what in Genesis 1:27

Man (Strong's #120)
The Hebrew word for man is אדם (adam) and is also the name of the first man (that God talks about specifically in Genesis 2)

This shows us that the man of Genesis 2:7 is similar to the man of Genesis 1:27. 

It looks like this Hebrew word was used for Genesis 1:27 as well as Genesis 2:7 .

So what makes a hominid an ADAM-man spoken of in Day 6 and specifically in Genesis 2 ? because it is this ADAM-man that was given the spirit. 

1---Is it just the giving of the spirit that denotes the ADAM-man, then the question becomes one of WHEN? So, we could see it on the science time line. 

2----OR is a matter of hominids evolving to a certain level and then God gives the spirit? But again WHEN? or does the spirit evolve out of consciousness itself? but when?

3----OR-- is the spirit correlated to the relationship...meaning God gave the spirit when man could have a relationship with him? In science we see ideas of religion dating as far back as 90,000 years ago for sure, possibly even 300,000 years ago. 


Hominids diverged/speciated from chimps about 7 million years ago. You can see the development of our intellectual abilities. Mind you -ALL Apes are shown to have the multiple intelligence's that humans posses: visual, verbal, logic, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, interpersonal, naturalist, pedagogue, moral. (he has suggested adding spiritual/existential in relation to dealing with ultimate religious issues). But on a different level. 

Hard to say for sure when the spirit was given- sometime after 7 million years ago would be my guess.

 I don't think that the Adam story marks the only relationship with God at the time or the First necessarily. What it does, for me, is to the mark the point where mankind becomes accountable before God. 

But we can get clues about what this humankind means in Genesis 1:27 by understanding the word used in the Adam story. 

GENESIS 2 is a story about one particular hominid -Adam.


(Now this first sentence to me is describing more of the HOW in the humankind creation process and so this is not chronological in the sense that this happens after Day 7) 

Since we are talking about man being formed we can determine this is in reference to Day 6. So, more clues about what happened. 

And what does the word FORMED mean in Genesis 2 when God formed a person (Adam) from the dust of the ground? And what does the word GROUND mean? why not use Earth like in the rest of the creation story? 

Ground is Adamah in Hebrew here. 
Adamah appears to be related to productivity, not necessarily geography.

This website is very good in understanding why Ground is used here and not Earth:

From this we can now see a relationship also that man has to the ground and has to God. Not necessarily the only or first...

Formed=== yatsar= fashioned with a purpose/relationship

Dust of ground====tells us that from the simplest of things and from something natural and humbling came humankind. This shows us that physically man is nothing special- nothing unique. 

Could it also mean that the same material used to make the animals also makes the man? Is there a biblical reference for the materials used to make animals? 

After reading more Genesis 2:19 uses the same verbiage "So from the Ground God formed every wild animal and every bird that flies..."  

So we have a link between animal and man in that they are both formed of the same stuff...of the ground and ground is used to denote relationship with the earth. 

Scientifically they are both made of the same stuff too...
Scientifically it is hypothesized that the first lifeforms and plants came from Eukaryotes which also are found in the dirt!

It is interesting to note in Genesis 2 that man is first and then animals and then woman. Which is a different order than 1. This tells me it is not chronological in meaning or perhaps even literal, like with Genesis 1 when you understand the words more fully  ---but that Genesis 2 is more metaphorical - 

Man isn’t made from nothing like the void or darkness that just shows up mysteriously in Genesis 1:1, as we clearly see in the next chapter.  Man isn’t called into being like light.  Man is fashioned from the dust  (from something already in existence.)

 First, the Hebrew verb used for the fashioning (I think this is formed in English) of both animals and humans is the same, yatsar, but when it is about animals (2:19), it is spelled yitser, when it is about Man (2:7), it is spelled yyitser.  This double yod is unique.  Secondly, the formation of Man includes both nephesh and neshama.  Animals have only nephesh.  But all of these clarifications come in the second chapter.  Finally, in Genesis 1:26, the verb is‘asa, “to do, to fashion.”  It is neither yatsar nor bara’, even though one verse later, in the same thought pattern, the verb is bara’.  None of these complications are seen in English.  All of these complications add richness to the text.  It may take a lifetime to actually understand what just these first two chapter really say.  I guess we better get going...

ONLY GOD can BARA. Man can even Asah, so Asah is a natural processes. 

SO- perhaps the same word for man used in Genesis 1:27 as in Genesis 2:7 because they both have a spirit? which would mean anytime after 7 million years ago.

Stone age was 3 million years ago and ended 6000 years ago. 

Or perhaps it is because they both have a relationship purpose to God? which we wouldn't really know for sure when just after 7 million years ago, but we have Yatsar used for the formation of man which I think references Day 6 in man's creation process. 

We have a record of Adam about 10,000-6,000 years ago. But I think that is for purposes of understanding our purpose, not so much in saying he was the first and only with a purpose of that time. 

Or because both are productive on the earth? which could mean earlier hominids or Adam.

If the spirit-bara and yatsar-purpose only came around Adam's time then that would mean at the very very end of DAY 6 God gave the spirit to hominids 10,000 years ago about and .....then the story progresses to talk about 1 hominid with the spirit in particular who we know as -ADAM. 

But this doesn't have agreement with me.  There is too much evidence in scripture and in science to show otherwise. 

Asah- common verb for fashioning and utilizing the parts
Bara- of the spirit or a divine act
Yetsar- with a purpose and a purpose

The Hebrew words, to me, are often constructed in the context of relationship. 

In conclusion I'd say the spirit -bara- and the relationship purpose-yatsar- began with the first population of hominids 7 million years ago, it evolved until humankind or homo sapiens was able to have ideas of a God and communicate with God. 

And Adam is a microscopic view of one particular hominid in which relates to us the importance of the spirit in a metaphorical journey and at which time perhaps the accountability of the spirit take place. 

This may be why different religions around the world may be that certain truths were revealed to certain peoples in various ways they could receive. Some truth then was taught...but always mixed with a a lot of confusions. 

Some people probably had no real communication with God, but just began following or others saw what others were doing...or the need inside to find "God" led to other beliefs, whether true or not. 

Some people in my view also had better intuition about nature and God and were more "enlightened" so to speak. 

But I'd say there is a definite evolutionary development needed for life to be able to conceive of such be at a level of understanding....

I think both God communicated with man and man communicated with God...I think the evolutionary process brought us to a point where we were able to conceive and wonder of such things and those interested sought our pray/etc...searching. In turn God sought out those receptive. He "Spoke" to them in a sense.

But I don't think God intervened, as in controlled or perhaps as some would say even guided. He speaks, his spirit moves and those who see it or feel it, choose its direction.

However, all of nature I'd say has a direction, an innate direction of "being". But this is not really provable to be from a conscious entity or with some purpose, it just is. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)