Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

[SA Huguenot]

orrect as in: that is indeed what the bible says?
Or correct as in: it accurately reflects the evidence of reality?

Because in the latter case, it doesn't.

OK, I intended to ask if the summary was correct, and it was quite obvious that I was going to discuss the points as time progresses.
But I simply love how the Atheists NEEDS everything to be soooo surgically correct.
To stay on the vanguard, in case some slight of hand from the Christian will damage the facevalue of Atheism.
Calm down, give me time and see what I say.
it wont hurt, I promise!
All that might happen with you, is you will learn that there are some arguments the Christian has, which will prohibit you from making superficial claims.
No blood spilled there.

 

[Thief]

and Genesis 2 explains finer details.

ahem......Chapter Two.....is NOT a retelling of Chapter One

 

[SA Huguenot]

That is an interesting point I have never come across. All I know of is that it seems like there is a discrepancy in the sequence of creation events in the two accounts. My own view is that Genesis 1 is a rough overview, and Genesis 2 explains finer details. This is because I don't think that the writer or compiler would place two obviously contradictory accounts next to each other. It doesn't make sense to me.

And this is why you know what you said...
You went and read it yourself.
I am a collector of different Bibles, and posesses about 200.
One is the Scoffield, and the other the Dakes.
Both has these elaborate explanations, and footnotes that interweave all these viewpoints of their religious beliefs.
I reject both, only because I went and investigated their claims.
Anyhow, I applaud you for not being a gullable student of reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I simply love how the Atheists NEEDS everything to be soooo surgically correct.

Why would I leave ambiguity unchecked?
I like things to be clear.

Suppose I didn't ask clarification and just went on assuming one thing while you really meant another thing.
We'ld go into a whole discussion and waste both our time only to realise we were talking past eachother.

How's it a bad thing then, to clarify things or to ask for clarification when something isn't clear?

Funny though, your statement reminds me of an experiment I saw a docu about once... Don't remember the exact details, but it concerned some type of test, a series of questions, that were put to both theists and atheists.

In the way it was scored (which wasn't just about getting things "correct", but also about speed and such), the theists won. The reason for the result was quite hilarious... the conclusion of the experiment was that the theists scored better on the test, because they were less worried about getting answers wrong.

Maybe I'll try and dig that docu up again on youtube. Might make up for a nice discussion topic in its own thread.

To stay on the vanguard, in case some slight of hand from the Christian will damage the facevalue of Atheism.

No, that's not the reason why.
It's just to be sure I understand what you are saying correctly. That is all.

Why is that a bad thing?
You talk about it as if it is a bad thing at least....

All that might happen with you, is you will learn that there are some arguments the Christian has, which will prohibit you from making superficial claims.

There's no need for you to take up all this time to walk us through it while holding our hand as if we are toddlers.


You could have just given these arguments in the OP.
What's with the hold up?

 

[Samael_Khan]

ahem......Chapter Two.....is NOT a retelling of Chapter One

What sense then does it make for chapter 2 to be included?

 

[Samael_Khan]

And this is why you know what you said...
You went and read it yourself.
I am a collector of different Bibles, and posesses about 200.
One is the Scoffield, and the other the Dakes.
Both has these elaborate explanations, and footnotes that interweave all these viewpoints of their religious beliefs.
I reject both, only because I went and investigated their claims.
Anyhow, I applaud you for not being a gullable student of reality.

Jeesh that is a lot of Bibles! I have the Word software. It has many bibles and many commentaries:

Bible Software theWord!

My favourite though is the three 1611 KJV versions.

I have read many explanations of the Genesis issue but it really seems like everybody is picking at straws. Nobody really knows why they have their differences.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Genesis probably isn't what you say its about @SA Huguenot . First, you don't have any claim to say what it is for, as it is part of the Pentateuch. To pretend authority is pretense. Secondly the various created items in the first chapter of Genesis are not treated literally by scripture though you insist they are literal and atheists don't take them literally out of some imagined spite that you propose, but then why don't scriptures take them literally?

Do you think that scripture does this out of spite and out of atheism? For example Genesis 1:17-18 says that the Sun, moon and stars are set in the vault of heave to rule the day and night; but we read later in Genesis that when Joseph dreams of the stars bowing to himself his brothers instantly know it means they would be bowing to himself. They aren't puzzled by the dream and instantly recognize the symbols. They could not have done that if they did not have a symbolic understanding of the Sun, moon and stars, one which you reject in order to accuse atheists of spite.

You reject it and criticize atheists and call them bible haters, so what are you? To me it appears you have rejected the real purpose of Genesis and demonstrated you don't care for its meaning, plus you have insulted anyone who doesn't accept your authority over its content.

 

[Thief]

What sense then does it make for chapter 2 to be included?

Chapter One ends with the formation of Man
as a species

male and female.....go forth and multiply
no names
no garden
no law
domainate all things

and it was good.....until....
Man took up that snatch run attitude
and then turned that ability to dominate.....unto his fellow man
and Man was set to overrun this planet and it's resources
as the spirit of Man never had a chance to .....gel

So....after a day of rest......Chapter Two

a CHOSEN specimen
Ideal living conditions
and the effort to BREATHE a SPIRIT into that one fellow
Adam is a chosen son of God

to further the experiment...that the effort not fail to dust
Adam was laid to a deep sleep.....anesthesia
a rib removed...surgery
the rib increased to full stature.....
that form needed to be female.....genetic manipulation

and so...EVE....having no navel.....not born of woman
is given to Adam

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

how's THAT for science?

 

[SA Huguenot]

OK, so I made a small summary of what Genesis says in the first chapter on how God say He created the Universe.

But at the time I started to overturn all these atheist / Muslim claims that the Biblical creation narrative is in total contradiction with science, I found the Biblical description very confusing, to say the least. (keep in mind I was a total Atheist and wanted some evidence that the Bible is a joke).

For instance, what the heck does it mean that there was a “firmament” with waters above and below this thing?

An Earth without form and void?

Waters through to the deep?

OK, I will be honest with myself here.

I still did not like these verses, because to me they were saying NOTHING AT ALL.

It was some ancient gibberish to explain how some creator made everything.

The problem was, that I travelled 115 Km to work, and 115 Km back every day at that time, and eventually a radio gets irritable. And for the most part, I would turn it off, thinking of solutions to work-related problems and so on.

One day whilst travelling, I found myself thinking about Genesis. Obviously because I did read these first few verses, and it got stuck in my mind as a puzzle waiting to be unravelled. And for some reason, … My Mind said something to me. (yes, we all have a voice speaking to ourself, and it is not a psychological illness, but your consciousness replies to the environment. So do not even think of accusing me of hearing voices and denying you don’t!)

This was what I heard!

“How did the Earth look like on the morning of Day 3?”

I have to leave for home now.

But think of this question.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Genesis probably isn't what you say its about @SA Huguenot . First, you don't have any claim to say what it is for, as it is part of the Pentateuch. To pretend authority is pretense. Secondly the various created items in the first chapter of Genesis are not treated literally by scripture though you insist they are literal and atheists don't take them literally out of some imagined spite that you propose, but then why don't scriptures take them literally?

Do you think that scripture does this out of spite and out of atheism? For example Genesis 1:17-18 says that the Sun, moon and stars are set in the vault of heave to rule the day and night; but we read later in Genesis that when Joseph dreams of the stars bowing to himself his brothers instantly know it means they would be bowing to himself. They aren't puzzled by the dream and instantly recognize the symbols. They could not have done that if they did not have a symbolic understanding of the Sun, moon and stars, one which you reject in order to accuse atheists of spite.

You reject it and criticize atheists and call them bible haters, so what are you? To me it appears you have rejected the real purpose of Genesis and demonstrated you don't care for its meaning, plus you have insulted anyone who doesn't accept your authority over its content.

So, if the Bible say, ...In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth...
It should not be taken literally?
And if it says, Joseph DREAMED... THEN IT SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERRALY?
I tend to say, I have the capacity to understand when a written record needs me to take something as Litteral, and when to understand it as a "vision", "dream", and so on.
But, you will see that my observation taken literal, has value exceeding any expectations I had as an Atheist.
I dont hate Atheists at all.
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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, if the Bible say, ...In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth...
It should not be taken literally?
And if it says, Joseph DREAMED

That claim is so vague that it is worthless.

 

[SA Huguenot]

You reject it and criticize atheists and call them bible haters, so what are you? To me it appears you have rejected the real purpose of Genesis and demonstrated you don't care for its meaning, plus you have insulted anyone who doesn't accept your authority over its content.

If it is an insult to show Atheists who claim the Bible to be defficient in science, by showing them the error they are making, I am sorry.
Now, please advise how I can show the Atheist their accusations they are making is incorrect, without not showing them in my belief that the Bible is my authority, and I will change my wording as such.
Do you realise that saying I am insulting the atheist because I believe the Bible to be my authority, is an attempt to force me to discard the Bible as my argument under your pretence that its content is offensive to the Atheist?
I thought they dont care for the Biblical authority at all!
Why will they be offended about what the Bible say?
And Why do you expect me to allow these shallow arguments utilised by the Atheist against the contents of the Bible to reign superior to the Christian point of view?
There is a saying in this regard, which goes for me as well as the Atheist...
Your feelings does not matter, facts does...
The Truth is a double edged sword, hurting any one's deceit in its path!

 

[SA Huguenot]

That claim is so vague that it is worthless.

Or... Worth your while to place this post?

 

[SA Huguenot]

“How did the Earth look like on the morning of Day 3?”

 

[SigurdReginson]

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.

I'm curious to know what in your mind qualifies as "bible hating?" I don't find the bible convincing. How does one go from not finding something convincing, and questioning what they have read and were brought up with, to outright hatred?

Also, what's the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist? I notice you used the word "atheist" instead of "anti-theist."

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, if the Bible say, ...In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth...
It should not be taken literally?
And if it says, Joseph DREAMED

Genesis is not the bible. It is book 1 of the Pentateuch, primarily a code of laws. In it the Sun rules the day. The moon and stars rule the night. Most versions say that they govern. Why would day or night need governing? People need governing, and laws are for governing as are judges and governments. Laws divide light from dark. It is just a guess, but maybe this passage has to do with the creation of Israel.

Scripture refers to the darkness as something within people until the LORD shines into them. "For this command is a lamp, this teaching is a light, and correction and instruction are the way to life," (Proverbs 6:23)

Whether this accurately describes what Genesis means, I'm not the authority on the Pentateuch. I have stolen the Pentateuch from the Jews. and am reverse engineering it to the best of my ability. They may be a little sore about it. Can you deny doing the same? Which of them owes you a straightforward explanation of what it says? Who reports to you on these matters that you can declare the atheists are haters when they don't agree with you?

 

[Thief]

For instance, what the heck does it mean that there was a “firmament” with waters above and below this thing?

An Earth without form and void?

Waters through to the deep?

OK, I will be honest with myself here.

I still did not like these verses, because to me they were saying NOTHING AT ALL.

nothing at all......exactly

try placing yourself ....as God......and yes you can
and you are attempting to have this conversation with an old man that has wandered unto your mountain

Moses

you have no choice but to use terms and nouns that he can picture in HIS mind
you are trying to introduce youself as .....Creator

and the guy you are talking to.....use to live in the house of Pharoah
worshipped false gods
killed someone
fled that event
hid among shepherds
and came up unto your territory......your mountain
to meet this God of the Jews

did you choose him?.....apparently ....not

can he really serve as your scribe?

well.....he did know how to read and write

supposedly

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

In my favorite movie Noah they do a good creation story.

 

[SA Huguenot]

and came up unto your territory......your mountain
to meet this God of the Jews

Oh wow!
What you are saying is a total impossibility!
The God of the Jews?
There were no Jews in Egypt, Moses was not a Jew, the 12 tribes were not Jews!
They were Hebrews, and Moses lead Israel into Canaan in 1440Bc,
in 1000Bc Israel were a kingdom of 12 Hebrew Tribes.
in 930 Bc, they split up in 2 kingdoms, Israel and Judea.
in 721 BC Israel was taken into captivity by Shalmanezzer and never returned to Palestine.
in 605 to 595 Bc the kingdom of Judah was taken into captivity to Babylon by Nebuchannezzar.
A few (42 360) returned to Jerusalem 70 years later.
These people were called Judeans.
eventually many of them intermingled with the Iudumae (Edomites) and were called Yudhae, or as trnslated as Jew.
Therefore to call Moses a Jew, is the same as calling Charlemagne an American, because there are some french in Louisiana.
or calling Abraham Lincoln a Viking, because he had some scandinavian, and English blood.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Oh wow!
What you are saying is a total impossibility!
The God of the Jews?
There were no Jews in Egypt, Moses was not a Jew, the 12 tribes were not Jews!
They were Hebrews, and Moses lead Israel into Canaan in 1440Bc,
in 1000Bc Israel were a kingdom of 12 Hebrew Tribes.
in 930 Bc, they split up in 2 kingdoms, Israel and Judea.
in 721 BC Israel was taken into captivity by Shalmanezzer and never returned to Palestine.
in 605 to 595 Bc the kingdom of Judah was taken into captivity to Babylon by Nebuchannezzar.
A few (42 360) returned to Jerusalem 70 years later.
These people were called Judeans.
eventually many of them intermingled with the Iudumae (Edomites) and were called Yudhae, or as trnslated as Jew.
Therefore to call Moses a Jew, is the same as calling Charlemagne an American, because there are some french in Louisiana.
or calling Abraham Lincoln a Viking, because he had some scandinavian, and English blood.

I'm curious to know where you're getting the dates for these events... Maybe you could post some sources?