Science AND Genesis

[DaveD49]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Slowly forming Earth

Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.

(Gen1:2-3)

Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)

Super-Continents

God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'

(Gen1:9-10)

As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.

Abiogenesis

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...

(Gen 1:11)

God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.

(Gen 1:20)

God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.

Gen 1:24

Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states

Evolution

Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.

[DaveD49]

Of course; this is just part of the flip -flop excusing of Genesis. Some deny the science (and call that "Science"), some try to fit it to the science (divide the age of the universe into 7 and call that 'days', or take the 'circle of the earth' and claim that means 'sphere') or accept that it isn't factual or scientific at all, but then try to argue that we should still take it seriously ("Metaphorically true") or learn some life lessons from it.

The only lesson is that even today people believe ancient myths.

Transponder, I presented how Genesis can actually be seen to agree with modern scientific theories. Where you see a "flip-flop" in that please let me know. But you, like others, have chosen to rather than deal with the points I presented to go off on a tangent and bring up other things not mentioned in my statement. The other thing you fail to see is that just because something is "ancient" does not make it a "myth". The ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese had realized that the Earth was a sphere long before anyone else did. They did this by realizing that with every horizon when reached had a new horizon. They both were able to calculate a close approximation to the actual circumference of the Earth. Have you ever seen a model of what could only be called a simple working steam engine that was created by first century Greeks? Can you imagine what our world would be like had that invention been perfected back then rather than more that 1600 years later? Because these were done in ancient times does this mean it is a "myth"? The fact is that myths that end up being true are no longer myths.

[DaveD49]

For the record, I think we should stick to what you suggest here and dissociate Genesis from science. Otherwise we're going to have to squint real hard to make them look the same on points, and it's just going to open up attacks if we insist on any agreement.

That said, I would suggest one point of agreement, and that at a very high level, but it requires turning the conventional view on its head. That is, in the beginning, per Genesis 1:2, what we see is that the physical world already exists. God is hovering over the deep / waters, which are never created in Genesis 1 but which are rather the vast cosmic ocean within which the heavens and the earth are subsequently made.

This means that Genesis 1 is not about the creation from nothing of the universe and all that is, but is rather about the creation within a pre-existing physical world a contained space that can harbor life... (Genesis 1 is more a matter of terraforming than anything else.)

So the interesting point here, aside from turning the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo on its head and all the implications of that, is the fundamental nature of the physical world, i.e., it being a vast cosmic ocean according to Genesis 1, or a physical world in flux (as indicated by the fluid / watery nature of its contents).

I think that agrees pretty well (if at a highly simplified level) with what science would say. i.e., we do indeed find ourselves in a vast cosmic ocean, with contents that are fluid, and prone to escape our grasp or whatever form we put them in. Just look at quantum mechanics for instance, where at our lowest level of understanding we can't know anything for certain because of how fluid it is. Where the most fundamental particles have wave-like (/water-like) qualities and escape any definitive grasp..

That, IMO, is probably the strongest agreement we'll find between them.

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it. That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald). Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

[POI]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it.

If that were the case, I could get on board. But, having been brought up with the Bible, and reading the Bible myself, I have to intervene here. I state the Bible is an OPEN ENDED book. Meaning, believers, of all flavors, have to fill in the blanks because the description is undefined. Hence, it's not so much a problem of reading comprehension, but instead a problem of not enough information to assess what the author is actually trying to convey.

Some will say, "the Bible is not a science book." Meaning, it is not written to tell us exactly how he did this or that. If this is the case, then you cannot really know what the author intended.

In conclusion, the lack of understanding may be due to the lack in given description.

Is it possible the author wrote down everything he thought he knew, which lacks the more in depth description we now have knowledge about today? If so, is that because God's intent was not to give us specifics about how it happened, or, maybe the author's description was not 'god inspired' at all? Or maybe there exists other options?

That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald).

Abiogenesis is impossible? How so?

Further, if some rando scientist thinks exactly like you stated, in such presented false dichotomies (abiogenesis <or> the Christian god), then maybe they are not a very good scientist? Science seems to be about experimentation, getting results, retesting, and following those results where ever they lead. And then, having peers perform the same experiments, etc.... I don't think the objective is to try and prove or disprove any god(s).

Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

Whatever you say

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form, then maybe there exists no need to invent any (universe-creating-god)? Unless your definition of this universe-creating-god merely acts as a change agent?

[theophile]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it. That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald). Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

I'm not ignoring new ways of thinking about scripture (if anything, I think about the bible in highly unconventional ways). Rather, I think it's naïve to think that the writers had any notion of modern science, and that to look for scientific agreement in the pages of Genesis 1 is, at best, a side-bar activity, or an intellectual curiosity. It is not a discussion we should take seriously in any shape or form. (i.e., Either holding the lack of scientific agreement against the bible, as many do, or trying to force-fit what science says into biblical constraints, as many others do.)

The lack of conflict between science and faith that you suggest here should be through properly identifying the domains of each, and dissociating one from the other in the process. i.e., The domain of science is the physical world, so render unto science what is proper to science. The domain of scripture is more about how we should shape our lives and the physical world around us... That is what we see happening in Genesis 1 for instance, and everything that follows.

[Diogenes]

The myths of Genesis, and particularly the creation myth, bear no resemblance to reality. Genesis gets off to a bad start in just the first two verses. Theophile remarked on this when he mentioned "the waters" preexisted the creation of the world:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The Hebrew for "water" or "of the waters" (הַמָּֽיִם׃ (ham·ma·yim)) translates as just that, "water," not "cosmic ocean" or anything other distortion to try to make sense of what does not make sense.

The Genesis creation myth makes exactly as much sense as other religious myths; e.g. Greek gods living above the clouds on a mythic Mt. Olympus. This thread is yet another among hundreds to fit the square peg of ancient myth into the round hole of reality. The same techniques are used:
Distort scripture
Deny science
... or both.

We should not expect Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Sumerian, Norse, or any ancient myth recorded thousands of years ago to comport with scientific reality. Each religion wants to carve out an exception for its own story, but they all reflect the understanding or guesses of the times in which they were recorded.
Raven did not create the world and neither did anyone's 'god' hover over the waters while the Earth was without form and void.*


________________
"Void:" וָבֹ֔הוּ (va·vo·hu), emptiness

[DaveD49]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it.

If that were the case, I could get on board. But, having been brought up with the Bible, and reading the Bible myself, I have to intervene here. I state the Bible is an OPEN ENDED book. Meaning, believers, of all flavors, have to fill in the blanks because the description is undefined. Hence, it's not so much a problem of reading comprehension, but instead a problem of not enough information to assess what the author is actually trying to convey.

Some will say, "the Bible is not a science book." Meaning, it is not written to tell us exactly how he did this or that. If this is the case, then you cannot really know what the author intended.

In conclusion, the lack of understanding may be due to the lack in given description.

Is it possible the author wrote down everything he thought he knew, which lacks the more in depth description we now have knowledge about today? If so, is that because God's intent was not to give us specifics about how it happened, or, maybe the author's description was not 'god inspired' at all? Or maybe there exists other options?

That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald).

Abiogenesis is impossible? How so?

Further, if some rando scientist thinks exactly like you stated, in such presented false dichotomies (abiogenesis <or> the Christian god), then maybe they are not a very good scientist? Science seems to be about experimentation, getting results, retesting, and following those results where ever they lead. And then, having peers perform the same experiments, etc.... I don't think the objective is to try and prove or disprove any god(s).

Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

Whatever you say

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form, then maybe there exists no need to invent any (universe-creating-god)? Unless your definition of this universe-creating-god merely acts as a change agent?

I agree that the Bible is an open-ended book (or rather library of books). A person can read the exact same passage 50 times and get one perspective from it, but then the 51st time he can get blown away with an entirely different view. That is what happened to me with the story of A&E. I had always dismissed it as a simple prehistoric story of story of creation, but actually somewhat fairly recently I saw the connection between the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" and the gaining of a conscience it was a Wow moment. Then thinking on it saw the conscience as being the reason for all of man's advancements which led me to what I see as what could be the Divine reason for the entire creation including the reason for pain and suffering .... I was flabbergasted! I now view the story as one of the most important ones in the Bible. In as trying to assess what the author meant this is where understanding of the multiple meanings of different words of Hebrew or Greek become important or the genre of the writing of a particular section. As I mentioned the Hebrew word for "day" can also mean an "age" or an "eon". Likewise Genesis Chapter 1 was written in a poetic style. To try to read it as a strict history is just wrong.

You said "Some will say, "the Bible is not a science book." Meaning, it is not written to tell us exactly how he did this or that. If this is the case, then you cannot really know what the author intended."

True, it is not a science book, nor a history book, nor a poetic book, nor a song book. But it contains all of those things. It is also important to recognize for instance that where it is written like a history book that the method of keeping "history" back then was very different than it is now, and unless that is taken into account you will get a distorted view of what actually happened.

You said: "Is it possible the author wrote down everything he thought he knew, which lacks the more in depth description we now have knowledge about today? If so, is that because God's intent was not to give us specifics about how it happened, or, maybe the author's description was not 'god inspired' at all? Or maybe there exists other options?"

Yes, I agree that there is much that was based on the knowledge of the day. The passages referring to the "pillars of the earth" stem from the prevailing Babylonian concept of the universe where a flat earth was attached by pillars to the back of a giant turtle slowly walking through space. Obviously the author was not making the claim that this is the concept of the universe which we should have for all time. He was just writing about what he thought he supposed to be true. Divine Inspiration does not mean that every word of the Scripture is true. It is about the message which the stories were meant to convey was inspired. But sometimes that message is hidden.

You said: "Abiogenesis is impossible? How so?

Further, if some rando scientist thinks exactly like you stated, in such presented false dichotomies (abiogenesis <or> the Christian god), then maybe they are not a very good scientist? Science seems to be about experimentation, getting results, retesting, and following those results where ever they lead. And then, having peers perform the same experiments, etc.... I don't think the objective is to try and prove or disprove any god(s)."

George Wald was a brilliant Harvard professor, scientist and atheist. I have his actual quote from Scientific American: "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

Another brilliant NASA scientist, agnostic Robert Jastrow said: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” You should look up his other quotes. Till the day of his death he supposedly remained an agnostic but with the proving of the Big Bang he became convinced that their had to be a Creator.

You said: "If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only change form, then maybe there exists no need to invent any (universe-creating-god)?"

You are absolutely correct, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is a truism that applies to the existing universe. It does not account for the creation of the universe itself. The Big Bang which began the universe took a MASSIVE amount of power. The only possible source of that power is God. After the Big Bang the only thing that existed was the simplest element, hydrogen. This created suns who pressure created helium and whose explosion created all the other elements. But the unanswerable question is where did the first creative energy come from if not from God?

[theophile]

The myths of Genesis, and particularly the creation myth, bear no resemblance to reality. Genesis gets off to a bad start in just the first two verses. Theophile remarked on this when he mentioned "the waters" preexisted the creation of the world:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The Hebrew for "water" or "of the waters" (הַמָּֽיִם׃ (ham·ma·yim)) translates as just that, "water," not "cosmic ocean" or anything other distortion to try to make sense of what does not make sense.

The Genesis creation myth makes exactly as much sense as other religious myths; e.g. Greek gods living above the clouds on a mythic Mt. Olympus. This thread is yet another among hundreds to fit the square peg of ancient myth into the round hole of reality. The same techniques are used:
Distort scripture
Deny science
... or both.

We should not expect Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Sumerian, Norse, or any ancient myth recorded thousands of years ago to comport with scientific reality. Each religion wants to carve out an exception for its own story, but they all reflect the understanding or guesses of the times in which they were recorded.
Raven did not create the world and neither did anyone's 'god' hover over the waters while the Earth was without form and void.*


________________
"Void:" וָבֹ֔הוּ (va·vo·hu), emptiness

For the record, it is the combination of the deep / waters that leads me to the notion of a cosmic ocean. Which I don't think is too much (if at all) a distortion

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose you mean a cosmic ocean as a feature of ancient myth -makers' creation -stories, rather than an actual feature of the cosmos?

[theophile]

I suppose you mean a cosmic ocean as a feature of ancient myth -makers' creation -stories, rather than an actual feature of the cosmos?

Yes. I'm referring specifically to Genesis, which describes an uncreated sea / waters within which the heavens and the earth are created.

However my initial point was that, if we stretch the meaning of 'water' to something like 'fluid matter' (and I agree with Diogenes that this would be a distortion...), then it's not far off from reality.

The cosmos as we know it essentially is a vast ocean. i.e., a space 'filled' with fluid matter. (I know space is practically empty, but hopefully you get my drift.) And perhaps even stronger similarities emerge at the quantum level, given how fluid things are there and impossible to pin down.

[Diogenes]

I suppose you mean a cosmic ocean as a feature of ancient myth -makers' creation -stories, rather than an actual feature of the cosmos?

Yes. I'm referring specifically to Genesis, which describes an uncreated sea / waters within which the heavens and the earth are created.

However my initial point was that, if we stretch the meaning of 'water' to something like 'fluid matter' (and I agree with Diogenes that this would be a distortion...), then it's not far off from reality.

The cosmos as we know it essentially is a vast ocean. i.e., a space 'filled' with fluid matter. (I know space is practically empty, but hopefully you get my drift.) And perhaps even stronger similarities emerge at the quantum level, given how fluid things are there and impossible to pin down.

The author could have used the word for 'expanse' or simply stuck with 'void.' Instead 'water' is used + 'face' (surface), (פְּנֵ֥י(pe·nei)). This further reinforces the common sense or literal use of 'water,' rather than some "cosmic ocean," whatever that might be.