The Genesis Account and Science

S

Saquist

Banned
Banned
Note that this tread is not purely astronomical but will illistrate biological progress of life on Earth by a full review of the Genesis Account

As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, ther first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theorectical framework. Aslo to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation. RAther, it covers major events in a progressive way, desccribing what things were formed the order in which they were formed and the time interval, or "day," which each first appeared.

When examining the Genesis acount, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on the earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had been present.

This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparision to stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer.

Genesis 1 :14-18
''greater light that rules the day' and the moon a lesser light that dominates the night.'
Click to expand...

The first part of Genesis indicates that the earth could have existed for billions of years before the first Genesis "day,", though it does not say for how long. However, it does describe what earth's condition was just before the first "day" began.

Genesis 1:2.

"How the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkenss upon the surface of the watery deep; and Go'd active force was moving to and from over the surface of the waters,"
Click to expand...

I will entertain some theory but as I've said it is not necessary to fit Genesis into accepted thoeries however likely or unlikely they are.

Also consider before continuing:

Geologist Wallace Pratt:

"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much the language of the first chapter of Genesis"

"The Lamp, The Words of Wallace Pratt" by W.L Copithorne p.14
 
Last edited:
Geologist Ophiolite:

"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I would most definitely not follow closely the language. structure, or implications of the first chapter of Genesis. I might mention this work as an honourable attempt by the ignorant to explain the then unknowable. I should certainly praise the richness of the King James translation. I would explain, however, that there was only the grossest match bewtween what we believe happened and the Genesis account."
 
Saquist said:
When examining the Genesis acount, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters from the standpoint of people on the earth. So it describes events as they would have been seen by human observers had been present.
Click to expand...

If it was inspired by God why would it be from the standpoint of being on earth?
The very fact that it is told from the standpoint of someone on earth tells me it was not, in fact, inspired by God, rather it was a human's interpretation of events.
Why assume God would want to "dumb down" the events and some of them describe completely incorrectly?

If it is not inspired by God, then what difference what does it matter, other than from a simple Anthropological point of view?

It sounds like a simplistic, meritless apology to me.
 
The Genesis account lists grass and plants being formed before creatures of the sea. That was not the case. In fact it specifically mentions trees producing fruit. It's well know that flowering plants did not exist for some great time after animals were established on land.

Later on, it mentions talking snakes.
 
For the sake of form I'll hold that off untill I get to the appropriate section, Spidergoat. My intention is for the Thread to reflect a propper progression from one scripture to another, so hang on to that.

Would you say that the "Earth was formless and rocky, watery and dark in the begining?
 
Saquist said:
which ones?
Click to expand...

Frank, Tony and Lucinda.

What are you asking?

I am referring to the originators of the Creation story, be they the early Hebrews, the Sumerians or someone else.

I am referring to an early, uneducated, man nomadic or in the beginning stages of agrarian experimentation, who knew little about the origins of the world and heavens.
 
Which African tribes creation tale describes the early Earth as formless, dark, watery, and rocky?


As this Early Earth model depicts.

t371480_wwr64.gif
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Last edited:
Saquist said:
Which African tribes creation tale describes the early Earth as formless, dark, watery, and rocky?
Click to expand...

First of all, it does not really matter.
My question was "would" they?
What matters is that it is reasonable that it very well could have been made up by an early curious people (and all people came from Africa) who wondered where they and everything else came from.

Secondly, the Sumerians, who settled along two of the rivers mentioned in Genesis (and were nomads out of Africa) are the earliest known recorded source of that account of creation, which strongly implies it was a myth spoken amongst the Sumerians before then, and there is no telling when it actually originated, nor with what peoples.
Given the location of the Sumerian settlement, and given that they were among the first civilizations on earth, it is more than reasonable that their creation story stems directly from the first stories told by the earliest African nomads.

Two things that make it so reasonable that this is a story told by people, not God, is what I said in my first post, which you ignored: It was told from the perspective of a being on earth, and the fact that it was innacurate.
 
You know I'm always intrested when other cultures up hold bible accounts, it happens more often than not, I thought you were prepared to cite another such example.

Please feel free to theorize either which way summarian first or Hebrew first...It is gratifiying to see another culture had these understandings. If the bible account is right It can be conclude that the story spread in many directions.

Intresting...So you concur that the Summarians and Hebrews got this part correctly for even being set apart from the actual event? I'd have to agree...
 
Saquist said:
Intresting...So you concur that the Summarians and Hebrews got this part correctly for even being set apart from the actual event? I'd have to agree...
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a people who depend on crops to survive (early nomads and early agrarian settlers) when describing "the beginning" would look at the world around them and come to that sensible conclusion.
 
Saquist said:
Would you say that the "Earth was formless and rocky, watery and dark in the begining?
Click to expand...
Definitively not:

formless Clearly not formless. A very definite form; almost spherical, but somewhat oblate because of the rapid rotation - a day lasted around six hours or less.
Rocky: I'll give you that one.
Watery: Decidedly not. The water we enjoy today is the result of later cometary impact and degassing of the interior.
Dark: Decidedly not. The sun was past its T-Tauri stage. The dust cloud was blown away. The surface was glowing with the heat of formation and short lived radioactive elements.

So on three out of four characteristics, the Genesis account gets it completely wrong. How do you explain that?
 
I don't think the world was dark as it was being formed. I think the sun was already there. Also, strictly speaking, the moon isn't self-luminous, it only reflects the sun's light. But then again, ancient Jews wouldn't have known that.
 
Excellent...to continue.

The next most obvious Question is How Long is a Genesis Day?

Many consider the word "day" used in Genesis chapter 1 mean 24 hours. However, Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day." In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one "day": "This is history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created in the day [all six creative periods] that God made earth and heaven.

Also consider the Hebrew word yohm, translated "day, can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following:

"A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration...Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordianry event happens."

for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

As a result of this reasoning the Bible harmonizes with the scientific communities thoughts that the Earth's formation took longer than 6 24 hour periods.

They're are even more occurences in the bible and literature and society that the term 'day' is used quite liberally.

"The Apprentice"
At the end of the 'day' the Project Manager failed to direct the web-a-sode propperly leading to a poor audio production.
 
Many things actually...and the problems are usually with our current day translators that can sometimes fail to put the propper significance on words that are translated..

Translation is a science of Grammer and it's violated many times in the bible. Fortuantly there is the original or as close to orginal scrolls to retranslate propperly and thankfully neither language is truely dead in meaning. It alows us to go back and correct some oversites and misunderstandings.

Corrections:

Formless:
2. Lacking order.

The second definition fits.

Rocky is a given.

Watery: We don't know when this occured for a factual basis. No it doesn't fit the theorectical model but it does fit the facts.

Dark: even in the present of ambient light there can still be darkness. Once again the when is not established but lets assume at this phase in the bible chronology the Sun han'd ignited yet and the accretion disk was present offering light and day an not but to describe the sky as opaque and the Earth as Dark is still accurate and reasonable. Nothing thus far has exceeded fact...only proposed theories.
 
Last edited:
Intrestingly enough if we take the bible account into consideration we depart from the theory that suggest that the Earth was struck by the moon or other object later in the Earth moon devolopment and that the Earth gain some water from an Earlier formation of the solarsystem...Likely then the bible description of the Earth with water and yet a dark surface may reveal that the sun in this period had indeed not ignited yet it was warm enough at 93 million miles give or take to have a watery surface....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top