• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Nah. I am entitled to my opinion.
Of course you are.

However, I haven't seen any better opinions to explain the two different versions.

OK, you want some more opinion...
Because the writers/compilers couldn't agree on a compromised version.
Because the writers/compilers finally said "Screw It - We'll just put both in and let history decide who/which is correct.
Because the writers/compilers finally said "Hey let's put both in so that 3000 years from now Isreal Khan can make some really serious-sounding comments.

Possible! We could also add that it was compiled after Babylon and and all the text was already considered holy so they couldn't change it without people getting upset because the people memorised their religious text so well.

So, no comment on the reason and method behind unifying different religions by using gods?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I'm curious to know where you're getting the dates for these events... Maybe you could post some sources?
These dates are archaeological and historical common knowledge.
A quick search on timelines of the OT will give you many sites to confirm its authenticity.
If you dont get helped, let me know in a mail, and I will take time to assist.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
What does that even mean? Do you take everything in the Bible as Literal Truth? Do you believe that, ~4000 years ago, the entire earth was flooded to the tops of the tallest mountains?
I will get to your point at a later stage.
Yes I do believe in the Bible as a litteral recording of historical events.
As for the flood that covered the whole earth, to the tops of the tallest mountains, Yes, I do because the Bible says the earth was covered 12 el above the tallest mountain.
Is this somehow a problem?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I have read Genesis and reread parts many times by going to BibleHub to refresh my memory when in discussions with believers. That is certainly not being lazy. What is there to investigate? You use the term "explanations from the Bible". A more rational starting approach is to evaluate "explanations for the Bible". I briefly touched on that above.
Thats fine,
However, I believe in the explanations FROM the Bible.
The Bible explains itself, and God gave us humans intellect to understand what He said in it.
But, it is no problem to visit , say Bible hub etc, to elaborate, or to do a quick overview of what other people already investigated.
All I say is, I will not accept what anyone says if I do not find the Biblical description supports those claims.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Your atheism? Really? A brief period of time reflecting on and questioning beliefs held from an early childhood do no constitute atheism. Do you think your arguments are stronger because you claim that you were once an atheist, but now you have seen the light - again?
No, I claim that as an Atheist, I thought I could use the arguments set out by other Atheists and used by Muslims to destroy any doubt that there is no Creator, and I then found some very interesting facts which I learned was a falicy proposed by "Bible haters" as I like to call those accusers of God.
I myself was one, but I am gratefull that there was this pessimism in my character to not believe anyone or anything I did not see for myself.
This was not some "light" I saw, or God speaking to me in person, but serious common sense supported by facts, Archaeological and scientific, that changed my mind.
Some Christians, and non believers, might think I became a Christian on blind faith, yet I did not.
I found a written record which as Newton said was not in error with science after he tested it for years.
I tested the Biblical explanations, and I found the same.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
First of all you are a human.

You are thinking just as a human.

Before you read the Bible you own a human pre conceived idea about form existing.

As that human.

Yet constantly use rhetoric as if some other body gave or advised you making you as a human thinker proven correct.

A medical human science self appraisal is correct first. Which includes mind status.

A human today in science is only the bio age of their self presence.

Totally ignored.

Yet science said age is self owned only.

Knowing how old you are personally advises science that it's conscious thesis preaching is fake. As a human age.

Basic human science advice exists first.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Actually what you found were several verses that could be interpreted to contradict the narration in Genesis.
Might be, but then again, once I discovered this interperetation, as ypou say, I could not find anyother that could dismantle this one.
But we will come to that point soon
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
My answer to how the Earth would look on Genesis morning, day 3, would be that it was a "formless" mass of water with some sort of sky above it, within which would be a light of some sort (not the sun, apparently) shining during what was called "day" and apparently not shining during what was called "night."
Almost true.
But allow the next post to show you what I missed out about the Morning of day 3.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
The Morning of Day 3.

As I drove from work, and my conscious mind proposed in an audible voice, “How did the Earth look like on the morning of the third day?” I realised in a flash what I had a total misunderstanding of the Genesis creation story.

I was unconsciously perceiving the description from a modern time point of view, and not from one where there was nothing and step by step the earth and solar system took shape.

Well, the terminology, “Morning of the third day” became a key to unlocking what the bible actually says.

As I thought about this question, I realised, If the Earth, during day 3 formed Land and Sea, due to water and particles separating from each other, …then the Earth was a collection of Water and Solids in the morning to start off with. A “Mud Ball Earth”. (Even a child will realise this description.

There is just no other interpretation on this description, period.

It actually says the Earth was mud, and the water and solids separated from each other.

(And this “Mud ball Earth” had an atmosphere hich we will see its origins with a follow up post.)

Is there any other explanation so far but that the Earth was a “Mud Ball” on the morning of day 3?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If I, as a Bible believing Christian, listen to the Bible hating, atheist, and non-Christian speaker, I find that they usually take some very silly, superficial, and even made-up opinions on what Genesis says concerning the creation of the Universe, and push it as the true and correct narrative. These people are really either, too comfortable and lazy to go and read the Bible for themselves, or due to their poor investigative methods, unable to grasp the simplest of explanations from the Bible.

But fight for their narrative, they will. I will prove this statement in this thread, because when I will be done, you will see many Bible attackers continue to fight with hair-splitting semantics.

I will put it in one question (as it was framed by Zakir Naik in 2000)

“If the God of the Bible was unable to explain how He created the Universe, how can we trust anything else He said?”

And this was what drove me to investigate for myself when I wanted to make fools of the Christian, their God, and their Bible.

The questions posed by the Atheist, and copied by the Muslim in their vigorous proselyting, was:

1. How was it possible that God created the Earth before the Sun, Moon and stars if the Bible say they were created on the 4th day, when science today knows that the Sun and Stars are part of the Universe and was created before the Earth.

2. Why does the Bible say everything was created in 6 days (6 000 years ago), when science today knows that the universe took billions of years to take its’ current shape?

3. If Christians believe these ‘Days” in Genesis to be thousands of years each, they will have to explain how plant life survived from day 3 to day 4 without any sunlight?

I loved these questions, and I was so sure this will be my evidence to proving the Biblical God as erroneous in science, and a mythological idea.

Every time I see a new thread opened by the atheist on this topic, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Not to the person who posts these allegations, but to myself for the reasons to why I needed to know what the atheist wanted me to belief. I soooo much needed their observations to be true!!!

I needed their evidence that the Bible was at fault…

So that I could soothe my conscience with “evidence” that my atheism was solidly on a foundation of “Science”.

Well, it took me about 3 weeks to lose that fight!

So, Lets see what I found!

The Bible say:

1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth.

2. The Earth was without shape, empty, and it was a dark and wet collection where the Spirit of God hovered above.

3. Then God said “Let there be Light!”, and it was evening and morning. Day 1.

4. Then God divided waters above a “Firmament”, from waters below this firmament. Day 2.

5. God then separated Land and Sea and made plant life. Day 3.

6. God made the great and lesser light to be signs of time, seasons etc. Day 4.

7. God made animals in the ocean and Birds that could fly. Day 5.

8. God made Land animals, and Man. Day 6.

Now, before we look at this description on what Genesis says God did, it is important to agree that the above summary is correct.

I will give a few hours to allow anyone to correct me if they disagree.

What is your contention? God created light after creating the sun or before?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
What is your contention? God created light after creating the sun or before?
I will come to that later.
For now I am busy on the events of the morning of the 3rd day.
It is clear that the Bible say that the Earth was a mud ball and it developed into a collection of Landmass and water as the water seperated from the solids.
later today i will go to Day 2.
Step by step, as the author of Genesis intended.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I will come to that later.
For now I am busy on the events of the morning of the 3rd day.
It is clear that the Bible say that the Earth was a mud ball and it developed into a collection of Landmass and water as the water seperated from the solids.
later today i will go to Day 2.
Step by step, as the author of Genesis intended.

Nah. The verses clearly says God created light. So the question is current.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You seem to be under the impression that atheists have never bothered to see if there is such a thing as spiritual truth/wisdom. That's patently wrong. Most atheists were raised in religious homes and were taught about God. It was only later on that most came to realize that "spiritual truth/wisdom" is an oxymoron. Truth and wisdom are found in rational thinking, not in wishful wishing.
No, I am not under that impression at all (that they did not investigate and tried hard; on the contrary, I think the opposite, they tried hard)

But I replied to @SA Huguenot his post(quote below), so I was specifically talking about those Atheists who make accusations and belittle etc. In that context I replied, that they better study more instead of asking/belittling/debating others, if they want to gain Spiritual Wisdom
I hate the accusations that Atheists uses to think I am gullable in believing theis silly arguments, such as saying I believe in Santa etc.
Nothing on the person, all in the vicious spirit they spread to demean the Christian God.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Speaking for myself, I do have a real interest in finding truth and wisdom.
I never doubted that, nor said that, nor implied that, if you read my words
That's why I came to realize that gods are the creation of man's imaginings.
Wrong. You can only speak for yourself here. You maybe could say that you came to realize that if you would believe, "it would be the creation of your imagination".
You can never come to a realization about other men's mind/thoughts and/or beliefs. Claiming such only shows arrogance and/or ignorance, definitely nothing to do with realizing something about Spiritualit
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
But you will never understand this. As you wrote, you "don't have interest to know other things". So, who is being closed-minded?
You belittle due to misunderstanding and therefore you are just jumping to false conclusions; this I can assure you. That is not scientific-minded, nor open-minded
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
The Earth’s appearance on the Second Day of Genesis.

I will be off the forum for the weekend, due to family responsibilities etc.
But I think it will be good to demonstrate the next steps of the Creation narrative as per Genesis chapter 1.

I realised that for the Earth to have formed into Land and Sea, it must have been a “Mud Ball Earth” to do just that.
Once I realised this small, but significant fact, I also realised that the Earth sort of underwent a “Metamorphosis” in its formation to what we see today.

I then looked at the description of the appearance of the Earth on the second day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


OK, this was where I initially had a problem in understanding what this “Firmament” with waters “above” and “below” this firmament was.
Now things started to take the proverbial SHAPE and I realised that when the Bible speak of the waters above this firmament, and called it “Heaven”, it said the following.

On the morning of the Third day, the Earth, as we saw, was a “Mud Ball Earth, and this surface of the Mud ball was the “Firmament” of the Earth and the waters “below” the firmament, was the exact same mud ball Earth!
Obviously, the water above the firmament was the Atmosphere, and it must have had a lot of water mist to be called “Water”. I then remembered 2 other factors which strengthened my thinking that the early atmosphere was very moist.

The first mention of a wet atmosphere.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


The second mention of a wet atmosphere

Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:


In conclusion, the Biblical description of an atmosphere that was wet is strengthened with its description that before the Flood of Noah, there was no rain, therefore no Rainbow. In an Atmosphere filled with Mist, one does not see a Rainbow. If we also take into consideration that Genesis said it never rained, but a mist rose from the Earth to wet everything, the Bible is clear: The original Atmosphere was one of water and gasses.

We will comeback to this very same atmosphere when we discuss the age of humans before the flood.
But for now, the Bible gave me the description on how the Earth looked on day 3, and how it looked on the evening of day 2.

I then also had to conclude that the Earth, on the morning of Day 2 was a collection of Gas, Liquid, and solids. As Gravity did its job during day 2, the gasses escaped from this collection, leaving this Mud Ball behind, which it’s surface was the Firmament, and no better explanation is available than, “Waters Above and Below” this firmament.

Ok, I thought to myself.

If the Earth was a collection of Liquid, Gas and Solids with no surface, and no atmosphere, what was it's appearance on the morning of the second day?

I Realsed that if I understand how the Earth's appearance was on the first day, I will be tracing these steps back to this earth that was without shape, with deep dark waters.
Well, it was not difficuilt to understand that God said, let there be Light, and there was Evening and Morning, the first day.
It means, this Earth that was a collection of liquid, Gas and Solids on the morning of day 2, was turning around an axis on day one of God created light to shine on it.

I was quite surprised that I never thought of the Earth being this huge sphere of the 3 forms of matter turning on an axis, was a loose collection of this gaseous wet sphere before the first day!

I finally understood what Genesis said about the formation of the Earth.
It was a huge collection of liquid, gas, and solids in space and had no recognisable shape. something like a huge blob, or a pancake shape with tentacles like an Eddy, out into near space or something.
...and Gravity played its role by collecting all this matter to its center, which eventually formed a sphere and due to conservation of ennergy, turned on its axis.
This was the first time that "Time started to count down, as God let light shine on this Earth.
But we will come back to how Time is measured.
After this big sphere ended the first day, the gravity of this heavenly body continued to pull heavier particles to its surface, resulting in Gasses escaping, and water evaporating, shaping a "MBE with a wet atmosphere.
Then on day 3, aqs heavier particles were pulled deeper in this sphere, Water seperated from higher layers of solids, creating a Land and sea.
OK, Enough for now.
I will continue with what I found Genesis said about the Sun, Gravity, Time and so on next week.

Oh, and I realised, even though I might have my very own interperetation of the Creation epoch from Genesis, it is also totally impossible to find another interperetation for one simple reason.

This is a step by step analysis written not to allow any other method of explanation.
Whoever wrote the Biblical events of Creation, did an unbelievable job in ensuring that whoever reads it in the modern scientific era, say guys like Newton and Kant, will have scientific observations to confirm its value.
It is not possible to form a scientific model, and to then try to shape the Biblical explanation into that.
There are numerous scientific models of how the universe formed and shaped, but only one which I will show that science still returns to in their explanation.
But this for later.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
I am no artist, and this is the best I could do to give a graphic impression of what I found Genesis chapter 1 said.
Slide3.JPG
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I am no artist, and this is the best I could do to give a graphic impression of what I found Genesis chapter 1 said.
View attachment 49343
There was no water before the stars, for instance. Nor heavy elements to make planets. And the sun is a second generation star.

The 6000 years/Old earth/evolution controversy is peanuts when compared with the amount of other mistakes present in the first page of that Holy Book.

Ciao

- viole
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
These dates are archaeological and historical common knowledge.
A quick search on timelines of the OT will give you many sites to confirm its authenticity.
If you dont get helped, let me know in a mail, and I will take time to assist.

There are many different sources that give many different dates. Some sources are more reputable than others.

As for the date of Moses... We can't even be sure that he was a real person that actually existed, but we can have a general idea of when the Torah might have been written (600-500 BCE). We also know that those stories come from oral tradition, but I'm not sure when that oral tradition began.
 
Top