There are many differing interpretations of the story of creation and more specifically the book of Genesis.  I have tried to base my own interpretation of the book of Genesis that is going to be reflected within my book.  However the number of different interpretations often vary because they are based on a number of factors whether it be differing religions, differing times and various other factors.  In this blog post my aim is to highlight these and compare them to my own interpretation as a young Christian with very little life experience on the book of Genesis.

Cosmology is the study of the universe, and humanity’s place in it.  Cosmologists are people who argue for the Big bang’s existence which occurred around 15 billion years ago.  At this point, is where the universe, space and time began which eventually bred human and plant life.  This theory is accepted by many as to the origins of the universe, whereby it justifies the concept how the Earth just happened accidentally.  However for some, it is used as a focal point to argue as a basis that this goes hand in hand with Genesis rather than in contradiction to it.  Marcus Aurelius, someone who explores the metaphysical cosmology (the placing of man in the universe in relationship to all other entities) observes that a man’s place in that relationship: “He who does not know what the world is does not know where he is, and he who does not know for what purpose the world exists, does not know who he is, nor what the world is.”  However, in modern use metaphysical cosmology addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science.  Physical cosmology is the branch of physics that deals with the study of the physical origins and evolution of the Universe. It also includes the study of the nature of the Universe on a large scale.  By exploring the origins from a standpoint that goes further than science, and by linking spiritual relationships with the world, cosmology clearly references creation within this subject however from a potentially further viewpoint than other theories.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

Religious) There are many interpretations from a religious pint of view that is inclusive to Jews and Muslims as well as Christians.  Although I have fixed my journey on the Christian viewpoint, Islam and Jews share links to the story as told in Genesis.  For example, the Quran, Torah and Bible all reference the first man on Earth as a man called Adam, and all have similer steps of process to the creation of world, element by element.  Because of these striking similarities on the interpretations of Genesis from all three religions, there are also differences.  For example Islam doesn’t mention the early of creation of women (Eve), and unlike Christian traditions, which sees Satan as a rebelling angel, Islamic tradition identifies Shaitan’s disobedience as an result of his superior nature out of fire, in contrast to the nature of humans, since angels in Islam do not rebel against God.  In Judaism also, there are differences as to the interpretation of creation such as the age of the Earth and also how the Torah came into existence at the beginning of time.  These beliefs will impact each Jew, Muslim and Christian’s viewpoint from an individual point from the doctrine of their religious views, but also collectively among each group.  Whilst these have been established, the current attitudes to these beliefs are impacted by the main beliefs of the specific religion.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology#Islamic_creation_narrative

Allegorical interpretations of thr book of Genesis are ones that believe that the the story of creationism is symbolic.  For example, Allegorists hold that the purpose for Genesis is to describe humanity’s relationship to creation and God – that creation wasn’t a single event but rather creation represents a long period of time.  For example this includes the idea that the Serpeant tempting Eve is Satan in disguise, – and that the purpose for creation was to be at one with God – focusing mre on the why than most Christians who also consider possible explanations as to the how in contrast  to science and evolution.  Rowan Williams said “[For] most of the history of Christianity there’s been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time.”  This quote is instigating the fact that for centuries Christians haven’t examined the how of creation, but only done so really in response to the growth of science.

Bible Literalists believe that the word of creation should be taken literally, as as told and nothing more and nothing less.  A 2011 survey by Gallup found that 3/10 Americans interpret the bible literally.  Literalists unlike Allegorists refer to the teachings of the bible, focusing on it as more of an explanation of how we got here as oppose to the process of interpretation in itslef.  However the only allegory that is taken note of, is when the writer clealry intended for the story to be allegorical.  In saying this, there is much dispute as to whether the story of creation is allegorical or is meant to be taken literally.    Literalism doesn’t deny metaphors and intended allegories but sees biblical and creationist events as history.  As part of the Chicago on Biblical Inerrancy, conservative Christian scholarship the following: “We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense.  The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sesne, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed.  Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in text.  We deny the legitimacy of any approach to scripture that attributes to it meaning which the liberal sense does not support”

Overall my interpretation, from a visual point of view I believe is clearly outlined within my book.  However from an academic point of view, my interpretaion of the book of Genesis is one which highlights the very real presence of God, however it is also one that is inclusive to science and recognizes the role science has in further uncovering the mysterious of the complexities of God’s creation.  However this interpretaion is influenced by the influences that have existed around me throughout my life.  In this blog post I have not only compared the differing interpretations of Genesis, but have looked at how the general conception of this creationist story has changed and evolved through the years so that one day we would hold the view that we hold today.  Interestingly, the fact that our views and opinions change and evolve are symbolically similar to the very scientific process of evolution that examines how we change.  For change and process, I believe the reason for us to exist and created for is to acknowledge the spiritual presences within this world, and although the real for existence isn’t something that man is meant to know otherwise life wouldn’t be worth living.  Evolution is simply the process that takes us to wherever our creator has destined for us and for that reason I believe that although I agree with literalists that the earth was created within 6 days, I believe constant updates are existent to this very moment.

why done it, succesful, why presented it, how has my thoughts chasnged, how does link to freedom/limitations

Tanja Deman is an artist who creates art that is heavily influenced by her desire in exploring the “perception of space and her relationship to nature”.  This photography’s purpose through by examining built legacy or natural sites, is to highlight the development, structure, and functions of human society by exploring the idea of space.  In exploring space, Tanja Deman reflects “dynmamics hidden under the surface of both the built and natural environment”.  This theology is of great interest to me because I am personally looking at the idea of creationist values being apparent within nature, showing that despite, despite what man has made of nature, their are natural properties that were designed by a creator that still exist in coercion with their relationship with other forms of nature.  This links back to the theory of creationism vs the theory of evolution because it reverts back to the idea that nature operates as one movement through all the various forms and elements.  This also links back to the idea of freedoms and limitations in exploring creationism which explores why the elements are why they are and how the elements exist.  In doing this I am comparing and contrasting the relationship science has between spirituality.  Because Tanja Deman is exploring the features under the surface of natural environments, her work is also similar to mine in that she is suggesting that there is a reason and a cause for why change in nature occurs.  Observing how legacy has impacted modernism within the natural landscape, Tanja Deman’s images reflect also the idea of how humans have lost their connection with nature as people forget often that they are part of it. These images are a collection that Tanja Deman worked in whilst being Archisle International artist in residence called “Sunken Garden”.  These images reflect the hidden perceptions of underwater life, with the inclusion of landscapes offering a wide variety of different geomorphology, flora and fauna.  This alongside with the creative use of sunlight, illuminating up these elements brings a sense of spiritual intimacy that relates and connects with our own human spiritual senses.  However Tanja’s images depict a foreign and unfamiliar environment that really emphasises the idea of experience.  As she explores the idea of man’s impact on the land, arguably contributing as a major factor as to why so many humans have lost their connection with the spiritual world within nature, Timothy Morton who describes the idea of hyperobjects as an example of global warming within the environment, change our experience of reality and force us to reconsider our relationship with nature and why we have such a particular one.  Therefore Tanja Deman is visualizing the aesthetic experience whilst also highlighting how continued human activity causes us to be isolated from nature which isn’t what was necessarily intended for us.

I particularly like this image because of the light features but also as well how the composition has included an abundance and wealth of variety in terms of natural elements found within the sea.  In a sense Tanja Deman is photographing natural elements, in their natural environment, fulfilling their natural purposes that all work in cohesion as one movement of nature.  I particularly like the strong contrast levels that help distinguish and evoke the differing roles an importance of these individual roles in sustaining the whole habitat within the image.  From a scientific point Tanja Deman is clearly documenting these elements and their roles, however from a religious/creationist point of view, I believe Tanja Deman has documented the very process of life that is intangible and can’t necessarily be physically described.  For example I like how she has captured what appears to be looking like the depth of the environment is endless, symbolizing the power of nature but also posing the question of how we don’t specifically know the reason we are here.  Furthermore the lighting features, shining light on all areas I also find particularly interesting because it further displays a strong sense of spirituality in that life is engaging with other life forms within the environment.  Overall I believe this image is fascinating as it succesfully includes the how in nature, but also the why, which links heavily to my project of creationsim vs evolution as I am interested in why we are here vs how we got here.

I like this image a lot because because of how it represents the idea of the source of life.  For example this is represented in how the light source is a single, natural light source.  I like how elegantly simple this is as it invokes how everything is reliant of this but also how everthing and how it changes, can all trace back to the one same simple process.  This is interesting as it links to the idea that change can only occur if it is given the natural substance to do so which in turn is originally by some creator.  Furthermore, the significance of this light source is symbolic because as light is shining through the dark depths of the sea,  it reaches everything, emphasizing the idea that everything has been created by and for a creator.  I also particularly like how the photographer has included the surface of the water, appearing almost as if light is coming through a mirrorless surface, but we cannot necessarily see what is through it.  I believe this is successful because  it is further sombolic of the depths of the reaswons for change and how we don’t necessarily understand it – as a limitation, but as a freedom we are part of it as we are one with nature ourselves and likewise with the environment we dont have to understand it, but we can make use of nature and the spiritual relationships that coexist between each element.