What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

[PruePhillip]

A few years ago I decided to do some Bible investigation (study) into what the Bible say about the creation of our universe. I had just about enough on what Atheists and Muslims told me what they perceived the Bible said.

Genesis is from the perspective of
1 - and earth bound observer
2 - a Bronze Age observer

1 - God created the heavens
2 - God created the earth
3 - upon the earth it was dark and oceanic - an oceanic cloud planet (ie Titan)
4 - light shone upon the earth for the first time with the opening of the atmosphere
5 - the continents emerged from the oceans (subduction created the lighter granite)
6 - life emerged on the land (fresh water)
7 - life emerged in the sea
8 - finally man

So when Genesis says that God commanded the seas to bring forth life, and birds
emerged from the seas we should understand how it happened. Back then, they didn't.
Back then people ridiculed the bible, too.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I’ve already explained, the Biblical text isn’t anything like detailed or consistent enough to answer that question. Also, given the entire process is described as being performed by God using his unlimited divine powers, it could have looked like literally anything he would have wanted it to at any point. It is impossible to determine a specific definitive description of the world during the described process, you can only interpret and extrapolate what you think it might have looked like. The problem is that you know what the natural processes that led to Earth are believe to be and so that will unavoidably influence your interpretation and impression of the Biblical story if you’re trying to read it as any kind of valid representation of the real process. That’s just how the human brain works.

This would only work if you had someone with no idea of that natural process so they could independently interpret the Biblical text and see how consistent their impression matched reality. That would be difficult to achieve today but it’s kind of happened in the past given that people have been interpreting the Bible ever since it was written. That led to the development of things like flat-earth theories and geocentricism of course so maybe your interpretation isn’t as definitive as you’d like to believe it is.

so you are unaware that if you mix soil and water, you get mud.

 

[SA Huguenot]

My answer is above: it was a water surface on top of mud. The mud had to be raised up and dried. Of course, there is a LOT wrong with that scenario, from violations of gravity, to ignorance of what stars are, etc.

Remember that the Canaanites (and early Israelites) considered the earth to be a flat, circular disk amidst water with a solid dome for the sky above.


Except that date completely ignores the presence of Egypt throughout Canaan in the 1200's BC. It also is wrong in the details. The Biblical account was written during the late monarchy with propaganda to support that monarchy. It describes a political situation more appropriate for that late monarchy than the earlier dates of 1400.

The Biblical dates are reasonable for anything after about 800BC, but rather poor prior to that. They also ignore some of the HUGE events of earlier times, even ones that would have influenced the lands where the Israelites are supposed to have been (Egyptian battles, for example).

and again. totally foo the point of discussion.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What did the Earth look on the morning of day 3?

The 3rd day of what? The beginning of the universe, since it can certainly be argued that the formation of the Earth actually began billions of years before with the creation of the universe. Or do you mean the 3rd day after the formation of our sun, which directly resulted in the formation of our planet?

What you mean by 'day 3' needs to be clarified.

perhaps you got stuck in your thinking that I am already discussing the scientific description.
Nope, I asked in relation to the Biblical description on IT"s 3 rd day.
We will come to your info a bit later on
Remember. I said I want to see what the Bible say about the origins of the Earth, then I want to see what science says.
I am doing this because the Atheists say the Bible creation story does not corr4espond to what science says.

Then I decided I want to see what the Bible says.
Now you dont want me to do that, and keep on with derailment tactics.
Come on, give it some time and leave the Bible derangement syndrome out of it for a while.
How can I compare the Biblical description with the scientific one, if you done even allow my observation on what the Bible say?

 

[SA Huguenot]

What? You have no evidence of any 'god' creating anything, that's what puzzles me, why you think such an event occurred.....

Oh, but you will be surprised once I am done on this forum.
Remember your words, for I will show you that what we are discussing is actually evidence that the Author of Genesis is God.

 

[SA Huguenot]

• Please post where the Bible teaches the Sun was created ' after ' the Earth ____________________
• Please post where the Bible teaches the Universe is only about 6,000 years old _________________
• There is Nothing I find in Scripture that tells us how long each creative day was.
• We don't know if each creative day was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
  
• So, it is Not God, but man who does Not synchronize with what the Bible really teaches.
• What we can Learn from the Bible is Heaven first ( includes the Sun ) at Genesis 1:1.
• Please notice the word ' create ' at Genesis 1:1
• Now please notice at Genesis 1:16 is Not the word ' create ' but the word ' made '
• There is a BIG difference between create and made.
• Kind of like a parent can pro-create a child and then make the existing child do something.
• Do something like have the existing child be ' made ' to sit in a chair.

[/QUOTE]
On the fourth day God made 2 lights, the greater and lesser to be signs of times, seasons, etc.
I never said the Bible says the Universe is 6000 years old.
I said the Bible gives a chronology of life being 6 000 years old.
Now, let me play the Muslim devils advocate.
If you say the creation daus were billions of years old, and plants was created on the 3rd day, and the Sun on the 4th day, how did plants survive this long period of time.
Even if you make the creation days 1 000 years, plants will die of in a week without sunlight.

Anyhow, give me time to continue, and you will see what I learned from the Bible.
Not my prior pre conceived ideas I used to think the Bible said.

 

[SA Huguenot]

But to say that God has various manifestations eg the Tanakh's ruach (arguably the psychological ancestor of the Ghost), or to say that God theologically has various attributes which can be imagined as personifications, such as Word or Wisdom, is a completely different concept to the 'triune' God of the 4th century's Trinity doctrine, formed from politics. And they make a kind of sense while the official triune line is incoherent.

When I am done with the Origins of the Universe, I will open a thread on the Trinity.
I was also quite surprised that Christians have great difficuilty to explain what it is.
After reading the Bible about 15 times, i could not believe it is so simple, and everything the Apostles wrote fits in with a Trinity.
Anyhow, this will come later.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I'd call it a stupid book used in an attempt to control people.......

And you are welcone to call it whatever you want.
But dont you think you should call it that after you read it youraself?
or perhaps critisize my theory after I explained it?
Do you realise how bias you are?

 

[SA Huguenot]

A

The Bible offers us two creation myths. Myths are not literal, historical, or scientific, but they tell us deep eternal truths about our nature. The creation myths of the Bible tell us that God is the creator, that creation is good, that man is in the image of the Creator, that we have an inclination to sin (we are no longer in the condition we were in when created), etc.

What the creation stories do NOT tell us is the scientific or historical "how" or "when" of creation. For that we must look to scientific discovery.

And you will be surprised to learn that the Bible ans science does correspond.

 

[SA Huguenot]

OK so today I will go one step further.
Time!
If the Bible say, the creation of life was initiated 6000 years ago, does this mean that the Heaven and Earth was created 6000 years + 6 days ago?
Not at all. It says time started to count down 6000+6 days ago.
Before this the Bible say the Heavens and Earth was created "IN THE BEGINNING"!
In the Begining before the first day.
How do we measure time?
1. we need a Sun and an Earth that turns on its axis around the Sun.
2. one revolution of the Earth is about 24 hours, and one revolution around the Sun is 4 seasons or one year.

Note, if onlu one of these entities are abscent, such as an Earth that are not turning on its axis, or a Sun that does not shine, it is impossible to measure time.
Now, lets see what science says, the Universe is 12.5 to 18 billion years ols, but the Solar system perhaps 6 billion years.

Think about this:
How is it possible to measure the time of a Universe for at least 8 billion years with the absence of our solar system?
The clockwork was not even there yet.
Therefore, they are using what is called "Imaginary Time."
I am fine with that. Just as I am fine with the Bible calling it "In the beginning" which is scientiffically "ZERO TIME!"
if science calls it Billions of years, and the Bible say in the begining, which was before time begins, they are welcome to do so, it does not contradict with each other.
After in the Beginning, we got the "First Day.
OK, so now we know the Bible does not say the Universe is 6000 years old, but 6000 years plus time before the first day up to "In the beginning"!

 

[Subduction Zone]

perhaps you got stuck in your thinking that I am already discussing the scientific description.
Nope, I asked in relation to the Biblical description on IT"s 3 rd day.
We will come to your info a bit later on
Remember. I said I want to see what the Bible say about the origins of the Earth, then I want to see what science says.
I am doing this because the Atheists say the Bible creation story does not corr4espond to what science says.

Then I decided I want to see what the Bible says.
Now you dont want me to do that, and keep on with derailment tactics.
Come on, give it some time and leave the Bible derangement syndrome out of it for a while.
How can I compare the Biblical description with the scientific one, if you done even allow my observation on what the Bible say?

The obvious answer is that the question is meaningless. There was no "third day" in the biblical sense.

 

[SA Huguenot]

uuuhhhmmmmm?
WHARRISTHIS?
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Bible derangement syndrome?

 

[HonestJoe]

so you are unaware that if you mix soil and water, you get mud.

Sure, but where does the Biblical text say anything about soil or mud? Given how soil is formed, how could it even exist before the “creation” of life?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Sure, but where does the Biblical text say anything about soil or mud? Given how soil is formed, how could it even exist before the “creation” of life?

Thechnical?
OK, Water and clean silca sand perhaps, mixed in with a lot of other minirals.
can I call it "Clean mud" then?

 

[SA Huguenot]

OK, so I showed that the Biblical notation of Time, is an entity of when the first day started to count down, and it obviously happened due to the Earth turning into a sphere which turned around it's axis. "Solar system clockwork".
But why did this then happen?
How does a shapeless wet collection of solids and gasses change into something as a Mud Ball Earth, and then into land and sea?
Gravity!

 

[Subduction Zone]

uuuhhhmmmmm?
WHARRISTHIS?
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Bible derangement syndrome?

It seems to be that way. How long have you had these symptoms?

 

[HonestJoe]

Thechnical?
OK, Water and clean silca sand perhaps, mixed in with a lot of other minirals.
can I call it "Clean mud" then?

You’re still missing the point. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it doesn’t actually reflect what is written in the Bible, it is your own extension of it. The term in the Bible is (at least in the English translations) “firmament” and that isn’t definitively defined or developed as a concept. You can come up with any kind of idea you want based upon that limited information, including one that conveniently maps to scientific understanding of the formation of Earth, but when you do that you can no longer be certain that you’re actually talking about what the Bible story was intended to mean at the time of writing (regardless of whether it was actually divinely inspired or not). Just like every interpreter of the Bible (and pretty much every other religious text) who has come before you, you can’t avoid projecting your personal opinions, preferences and beliefs upon it. The only distinction is whether you accept and acknowledge that fact or not.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Just like every interpreter of the Bible (and pretty much every other religious text) who has come before you, you can’t avoid projecting your personal opinions, preferences and beliefs upon it. The only distinction is whether you accept and acknowledge that fact or not.

Remember tese words.
When ge get to the scientific explanation.
I would love to hear from you once I came to my conclusion.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Great, Now that I understood the way the Bible described the formation of our Earth which was
1. a collection of gas liquid and solids...
2. that changed into a sphere turning around its axis...
3. that turned into Land and Sea...
it was obvious that this was all done by gravity, if we take the appearance of land and sea in mind.
Now, what happened to the Sun, Moon and other planets?
Well, they also underwent the same metamorphosys as did the Earth.

The Sun, due to its centre point in the middle of this collection of space dust (Water, gas and solids attached to each other, also collected all this matter in a shapeless form as the Earth.
today we know it was gigantic 99% of all matter in the solar system.
This ball of gas and whatever eventually kicked off to shine in the heaven, however, due to a lot of space dust, and the sun not being so dense as now, it would just give a dim glow untill it's full ignition of nuclear fusion occured due to this great mass falling into itself.
This was the light of "Let there be Light" when the first day began.
over the next 3 days, the Sun would increase its gravitational field, and in the 4th day only did full ignition occur, and this radiation blew most of the dust away in the solar system.
Now the Sun shined clearly onto the Earth, reflected light back fromn hte Moon, and the "Stars" or planets was also seen in the atmosphere.

This is the description of what I found in the Bible, if I take on gravitational effects on matter that was "Void, empty, without any recognisable shape, dark, deep and wet!"
In what ever way the Earth formed, must surely have happened to the Sun and planets in the solar system.

Here we now have a theory on what the Bible say.
Lets see what I found when I went to science on their explanation.

There are many theories, but they all are formulated fron the Nebular Theory where:

• matter was somehow throughout the Universe.
• gravitational points developed due to some regions being more dense than other places.
• these points pulled more neighbouring matter towards the centre, and eventually "Thissle balls of gas, liquid and matter", formed.
• eventually these "Thisle balls" started to cling to each other, and as their gravitational firld increated, ti collected more matter.
• these proto palnets eventually were dravn to the centre of the Sun, and as most of it were atrackted to the Sun, others were caught up in their orbit around the Sun.
• These planets developed more characteristic shapes, to what we see today.
• The Sun would start to give off a dim red glow, but eventually ignited to its full star status.

Now here we have it all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Holy mackrell, I can put this in the King James version and it would not contradict each other.