Missing sea creatures

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen 1:26This quote was written in reply to me in another thread (Gods gender), and a question occurred to me as I read it. God talks of the fish of the sea. A fish is a specific type of life form, and there are several other things that live in the sea besides fish. Why no mention of the mammals, crustaceans, molluscs, etc that also share the seas with the fish?A fish is a fish, whereas whales, prawns, squid, sea snails, dolphins, or crabs for example, are NOT fish. Was it God’s intention that we were only meant to specifically rule over the fish, and not these other forms of life?If God is the all-powerful creator of all life, then He must have been intimately familiar with the various other aquatic creatures besides fish. If the bible is His word, why does it only mention fish? He could have been less specific and said creatures of the sea or something like that.However if, as I believe, the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men inspired by nothing more divine than their own exceptional imagination (possibly enhanced by smoking some serious ganja), then forgetting so many creatures is understandable.It makes the bible appear somewhat fishy to me ( sorry).I am interested in how others may view and/or explain this omission.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Man has absolutely no rule over barnicles.So it is written. So let it be done.Hmmmmm, we don't have dominion over flies either (it only states birds of the air..not insects of the air). I guess if Noah would have truly been wise, he would have killed those 2 flies.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I would say that this is nitpicking on a new low level.A possible answer that I could see is that God did not want to spoon feed us everything. It was also written for the people of the past. Imagine if the writer of Genesis had write the book and kept having to ask God, "what was that... tec-to-nic... plates... again, God?"This is like asking why didn't God give us the speed of light or the exact rate of acceleration by any object toward Earth, otherwise known as g.I could very easily ask you why Darwin never mentioned anything about genetics, a very vital part of the theory of evolution today, but that would be committing a logical fallacy.One of the few facts that creos and evos agree on is that the bible ain't a science textbook.

Yeah I guess it's nitpicking, but that's what I do, I am a pedant. And to a new low level, cool! Good to push the boundaries sometimes.Yes, true that God may have 'dumbed it down' a bit for the ordinary people of the time, I thought somebody would probably make that point. But it seems to me to be a really basic thing to leave out. God creates all life, then when He dictates His word to man, He raves on about all the creatures on the earth, livestock and birds, but then only the fish in the sea. Just seems like a rather silly mistake to me and definitely not one I would attribute to an all-powerful God.Saying "creatures of the sea" rather than "fish of the sea" is not what I would call "spoon feeding" us the secrets of science.

You also have to remember that Genesis was translated at least 4 times before the English version we have today. Ancient Hebrew was very primitive. The writing language itself had no vows, spaces in between the words, and punctuations.We really have no idea how the ancient people used the word that eventually got translated to "fish" for. It is entirely possible that they used the Ancient Hebrew word to describe "fish" as well as other sea creatures.To use modern way of thinking on something as ancient as Genesis is simply silly, oh great god of the Norse.

Thor: However if, as I believe, the Bible is nothing more than the writings of men inspired by nothing more divine than their own exceptional imagination (possibly enhanced by smoking some serious ganja), then forgetting so many creatures is understandable.A third explanation would be that as the Biblical authors were men, regardless of their divine inspiration, their understanding was limited by their individual knowledge, wisdom, and cultural mores & biases.Lam: One of the few facts that creos and evos agree on is that the bible ain't a science textbook.I wish that were so generally speaking. Many creationists seem to think it is and offer reams of biblical quotes as proof of that.In fact, some even go so far as to say that if any scientific fact contradicts the Bible, then science must be wrong!Lam: To use modern way of thinking on something as ancient as Genesis is simply silly, oh great god of the Norse.I would agree with you there.That's precisely why 'creation science' in its many forms does not belong in either the lab or classroom, based as it is on the ancient creation myths of a pre-scientific culture.Cheers

there's an underlying mythology to genesis, and a good deal of the old testament.man is made from the dust of the earth. when he is banished, he banished to the desert, to futily till the dust. the israelites are lagrely associated with the land, and desert.water, on the other hand, is primordial chaos in the text. it's unexplored and dangerous, and the substance of creation. one of the sea creatures in genesis that *IS* mentioned are the tanniyn: dragons. the ocean is associated with these great water serpents, such as the leviathan. there's also hints to mythology of el conquering these serpents. (see psalm 74. something similar appears in ugaritic myths)so it would make sense for fish to be the only thing man is given control over in the water. the authors were probably scared by it, somewhat. but they did go out in boats and fish, and they did have to justify the fact that they ate something from the water. god must have given them that.also, god hates shrimp.

You will understand then why the word "mental" is included in that word. Fundamentalist women are experts in hiding their true intentions during the early dating process. But their sole purpose is 2 fold: 1) Keep you occupied so you can't have sex anywhere and 2) She intends to save your soul whether you wish it or not.

It seems that if you took this literally whenever you got skunked on a fishing trip you have just proved the Bible to be in error.nit-picking is a fine art.

Just to let you know back in those times they considered fish to be whales and sharks and pretty much all kinds of sealife.

Really? Interesting. Umm, I hesitate to ask, but: you know this how, exactly?

Right, but presumably God knows the difference, and its his book, isn't it?

Yes, but it was man that wrote them down.I don't know about you, but when I tell people what I learn in my physics classes (quantum, electrodynamics, etc...), I often find myself having to use lots and lots of layman's terms just so they could understand.Perhaps when God inspired people of the accounts of Genesis people were primitive enough not to see a difference between fish and everything else in water. After all, they were all water dwelling creatures, and their name was "fish".

Does this include bacteria? Creatures moving along the ground? How about viruses? Or hadn`t they been 'created' yet?