Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

[Messianic Israelite]

With reading my post fully, I hope it's clear I'm saying that groups that preach that 'young earth' ideology are wrong. I can say more though. YEC is unbiblical ultimately, in that the YEC theory uses added ideas that are not in the text anywhere.

Example: without any basis in the text, the added idea that zero or little time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 right at the start:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

As we can easily see, no information at all is given about (the ultimately less important side issue of) how much time passed during verse 1 before the moment in verse 2. Assuming it was zero time or little time is an extraneous idea to the text, an added idea. It could be for instance 1 second or 9 billion years.

But we can see by looking in astronomy that the latter is a good estimate.

Of course the text isn't about relatively trivial (though interesting to me) details such as geology or planetary accretion -- those are not the subject matter, which instead is very clearly in the text about Earth being a "very good" (the actual text wording) home for us, the suitability of Earth as a home for us being "good" is repeated 7 times, and is a dominate theme any good reader can see.

In my faith we take a literal interpretation of the Bible and what you are referring to is the gap theory, which I can agree with. Indeed, between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1 where it says in my Bible, 'the earth had become waste and void' there isn't included how much time elapsed in the Biblical texts. It could well be billions of years, or thousands of years, or hundreds...we just don't know. It's good to see that someone else has researched the texts and seen this for themselves. Ultimately, Yahweh spent 6 literal days to make this planet habitable. All other attempts to deny this is done by people who have little to no faith in Yahweh and as Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him".

 

[halbhh]

In my faith we take a literal interpretation of the Bible and what you are referring to is the gap theory, which I can agree with. Indeed, between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1 where it says in my Bible, 'the earth had become waste and void' there isn't included how much time elapsed in the Biblical texts. It could well be billions of years, or thousands of years, or hundreds...we just don't know. It's good to see that someone else has researched the texts and seen this for themselves. Ultimately, Yahweh spent 6 literal days to make this planet habitable. All other attempts to deny this is done by people who have little to no faith in Yahweh and as Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him".

If you are willing and kind, please don't imagine I subscribe to a theory I read somewhere (i.e. the 'gap' theory, as it's too incomplete a way of seeing the text imo to me personally). While yes, I can see the text doesn't specify that the days are consecutive without gaps, and it's a useful point in itself, it's far short of the detail of the theory I have. If you would like to know what I actually think in more detail, I'll be glad to share. I have to attend to some duties for now, tho.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Perhaps the creation in the Bible is to be seen symbolically?

A possible interpretation:
Day 1: Adam brought darkness into the light through his sin
Day 2: Noach and the flood
Day 3: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their decedents are the plants
Day 4: Jewish Kings and Jewish Prophets are the lights
Day 5: Jesus came and made new living creatures through the cross, which are the Christians
Day 6: Christians fill the earth with their faith
Day 7: Eternal Sabbath with Jesus

Good evening Teritos. If the Bible meant that interpretation, it would simply say so. Yahweh doesn't mean to confuse people as we read in 1 Corinthians 14:33. Yahweh created as stated in the Bible. It is not hard to believe in Yahweh's majestic power to create. The Bible wasn't written by uninspired nomadic people who had no insight in to Yahweh's truth.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

If you are willing and kind, please don't imagine I subscribe to a theory I read somewhere (i.e. the 'gap' theory, as it's too incomplete a way of seeing the text imo to me personally). While yes, I can see the text doesn't specify that the days are consecutive without gaps, and it's a useful point in itself, it's far short of the detail of the theory I have. If you would like to know what I actually think in more detail, I'll be glad to share. I have to attend to some duties for now, tho.

Hi halbhh. Good evening. Fair enough.

 

[metis]

Ultimately, Yahweh spent 6 literal days to make this planet habitable. All other attempts to deny this is done by people who have little to no faith in Yahweh and as Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him".

You are citing just one theological interpretation of the Creation accounts, and most Christian theologians are not scriptural literalists.

Also, the Creation accounts [1:1 & 2:4] may be a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian creation narratives, thus being more allegorical than literal.

 

[Heyo]

And the sun is a second generation star.

Stellar population - Wikipedia

Opinions differ on that one. As Wikipedia points out the sun is considered a population I star (by some). I.e. it is of the third generation, made from the remnants of a population II star that itself was created from even older remnants.

 

[ecco]

yes, this is when the universe becomes *transparent* to the photons. Prior to that matter and photons interacted fully, which didn't allow the photons to travel far before being absorbed again.

Look up the 'photon epoch'. For example, in
Photon epoch - Wikipedia

Note the timing of the photon epoch: from about 10 seconds to about 370,000 years.

The article you are pointing to is discussing the beginning of the recombination epoch. This is when the universe became transparent and the background radiation was formed.

Many cosmology books will simply discuss the times when radiation was the dominant part of the energy balance of the universe, which lasted until about 47,000 years into the expansion. Radiation, in this situation, includes photons and neutrinos primarily.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Heyo]

I take these atheist-to-biblical literalist claims with a grain of salt.

I have yet to meet a believer who made it from atheist to theist through reason. They either weren't atheists to begin with (more like apatheists) or they had some revelation, circumventing reason.
If anyone feels qualified, Were You an Atheist™ before You became a Theist? is still open.

 

[ecco]

With reading my post fully, I hope it's clear I'm saying that groups that preach that 'young earth' ideology are wrong. I can say more though.

Yes. I understand you don't believe in YEC.

YEC is unbiblical ultimately, in that the YEC theory uses added ideas that are not in the text anywhere.

Example: without any basis in the text, the added idea that zero or little time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 right at the start:

I see that you use the added idea that a day is not a day and the time between days is not 24 hours.

As we can easily see, no information at all is given about (the ultimately less important side issue of) how much time passed during verse 1 before the moment in verse 2. Assuming it was zero time or little time is an extraneous idea to the text, an added idea. It could be for instance 1 second or 9 billion years.

But we can see by looking in astronomy that the latter is a good estimate.

As you said, no information is given. Yet you want to assume a very long period to make your interpretation of the Bible track along current scientific lines.







You failed to address the second time-frame question - that of the time back to the Flood of Noah.

 

[halbhh]

I see that you use the added idea that a day is not a day and the time between days is not 24 hours.

Maybe you confused me with someone else?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything exactly that way here or recently that I can recall, though....I will recognize that it is indeed a reasonable question to ask about what a 'day' really is when:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

And then of course as everyone knows Adam continues living quite a long life, having children, and so on....

So, sure, it's clear enough that one might reasonably ask whether a 'day' is just 24 hours in this text.

But I don't recall raising that point anywhere recently, and it's not actually the way I myself theorize about the text to just use that common view that the 'day' is an era or long stretch of time, and so on.

I don't rule it out that notion of the lengthy 'day', but that's not key nor is it central to my own theory about how the text works. It might be correct, or not, and either way seems fine to me.

Question: Is there a way for us individually not to be pigeonholed into camps where the camp is not very much like our own individual viewpoints?

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Read the definitions.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.

No time frame is given whatsoever for how long that took.

Then it says the Earth HAD BECOME formless and void/waste and ruin.... to an unspecified degree.

THEN the rest took place... what follows after is not the original creation.

The Bible places Lucifer on Earth before man -and he had already staged his coup with the third of the angels for which he was responsible ("who kept not their first estate") -and had been cast back down -before the events in Genesis/Eden.
There is a reason Lucifer was renamed/called Adversary/Destroyer.

Also consider the difference between being made -and being made TO. It is one thing to say God made the greater and lesser lights -which might suggest initial creation -but another to say he made them TO differentiate between day and night, etc. -which concerns juxtaposition/timing.

The animals/kinds listed are not actually specified to be the first in existence on Earth -and may have even been species brought back from an extinction event.

If you read it with a long ago created, then messed up, then renewed Earth in mind, it makes sense.
It also fits with the rest of scripture -which in no way supports a young Earth or universe.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Anyhow, what is this strategy in an attempt to discredit Moses as the author of the first 5 books of the Bible?

You assume I mean to discredit Moses? Interesting. That wasn't really my intention. The fact is, as far as I'm aware, that there is no third party attestation of his existence outside of scripture. Maybe I'm wrong, and you could provide some evidence. I'd love to see it.

I am not talking of Biblical critisizm now, that is for another thread.
At this stage all I did was to show the people who critisized Genesis as "Non Scientific" and "non compatable to any logic" that such a perception is faulty.
I do not understand why all of a sudden Ad Homen should enter your argument.
All I am realising, is that what I have posted is not to your liking, and you need to grasp straws, to build a strawman.
Please allow me to stay on what I propose, and show me if on my statements, I am wrong in my interperetation of the Biblical Creation narrative.
So simple.
Did I read it correct, or not!

Whoa.... You definitely did not read it correctly, and you assume much. Where did you see Ad Homen?

 

[metis]

That wasn't really my intention. The fact is, as far as I'm aware, that there is no third party attestation of his existence outside of scripture.

It appears that Exodus most likely was first carried orally as there has never been any writing found when Moshe supposedly was alive.

 

[SigurdReginson]

It appears that Exodus most likely was first carried orally as there has never been any writing found when Moshe supposedly was alive.

I'm assuming you mean that the stories were carried orally before they were written down, which I would agree that this seems very likely. Unfortunately, nothing has been discovered yet that corroborates that he existed, and no peoples that could write at the time recorded the supernatural events of Exodus that are attributed to him (such as the plagues of Egypt). If something was found, though, that would truly be amazing!

 

[Messianic Israelite]

You are citing just one theological interpretation of the Creation accounts, and most Christian theologians are not scriptural literalists.

Also, the Creation accounts [1:1 & 2:4] may be a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian creation narratives, thus being more allegorical than literal.

Hi metis. Good evening. If your religious profile is correct, I can see you are a Catholic. As a result I'm hardly surprised that you question the literal interpretation of Genesis, the Pope having said in times past that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution. You say I am citing just one theological interpretation of the Creation accounts, but am I? I am just accepting the book of Genesis at face value.

Jeremiah 29 says:
"15 Woe unto them that hide deep their counsel from Yahweh, and whose works are in the dark, and that say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? 16 Ye turn things upside down! Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, He made me not; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, He hath no understanding?"

Yahweh does have understanding. He made this earth habitable in a clear and wisdom-filled way. Sure, the creation account may have other interpretations, but you cannot esteem the potter as the clay by rejecting what it says in favor of our own interpretations. I can't say much about the Babylonian creation narratives. The Babylonian mighty ones themselves indulge in eroticism, feasting, and fighting - it is clearly not the truth. The Bible explains how Yahweh took action on a desolate and void world to create it in to a habitable and beautiful place for mankind.

 

[ecco]

.I will recognize that it is indeed a reasonable question to ask about what a 'day' really is when:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

And then of course as everyone knows Adam continues living quite a long life, having children, and so on....

So, sure, it's clear enough that one might reasonably ask whether a 'day' is just 24 hours in this text.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. Gotta luv it.

Given ten readers of Genesis, you get fifty different interpretations. Indeed you not only are quibbling about the length of days but also the length of time between days.

So, is a day 24 hours, or is a day 930 years? Does "surely die" mean physical death or does it mean spiritual death? Does "surely die" mean physical death or does it mean getting kicked out of Eden? I've heard many different interpretations.

All of which makes it rather ridiculous. Perhaps it makes more sense to read it as the authors probably wrote it. A day is what they recognized as a day - Sunup to sunup or sundown to sundown or midday to midday. The same way we look at a day in 2021.

If that makes the literal seven days of creation a nonsensical standpoint in view of today's knowledge, well, it is what it is.


Ditto with years. When the writers wrote "And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.", they literally meant that Enos lived for almost a century. The reading and math of people like Usher was used correctly to track the origin of "everything" to 4004 BCE and the Flood to 2350 BCE.

This is what the writers wrote. This is what the writers believed or at least what the writers intended to convey. If you believe differently, you need to show really good evidence why this is incorrect.

I don't rule it out that notion of the lengthy 'day', but that's not key nor is it central to my own theory about how the text works. It might be correct, or not, and either way seems fine to me.

This is what the writers wrote. This is what the writers believed or at least what the writers intended to convey. If you believe differently, you need to show really good evidence why this is incorrect.

Question: Is there a way for us individually not to be pigeonholed into camps where the camp is not very much like our own individual viewpoints?

We can reduce the number of pigeon holes to essentially two:

• Those who ignore science altogether and contend the entire earth was flooded 4300 years ago.
• Those who pick and choose and twist and turn to try to make the writings of the Bible more in line with today's scientific knowledge.

In some ways, I have more respect for the former. They may be misguided, but they fully respect what is actually written in their holy scripture.

 

[halbhh]

We can reduce the number of pigeon holes to essentially two:

lol!

Ok, then.

Guess that's about it for the discussion it would seem. After all, once everything is tidy in a couple of pigeonholes, you've got it all solved...in a way.

 

[metis]

Hi metis. Good evening. If your religious profile is correct, I can see you are a Catholic. As a result I'm hardly surprised that you question the literal interpretation of Genesis, the Pope having said in times past that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution.

Hi, MI.

Correct with the above, but I never accepted using a literalistic interpretation even long before I became Catholic, such as when I used to belong to a fundamentalist Protestant denomination.

I am just accepting the book of Genesis at face value.

That's fine with me-- to each his/her own.

The Bible explains how Yahweh took action on a desolate and void world to create it in to a habitable and beautiful place for mankind.

Allegories, metaphors, and other forms of symbolism are used throughout the scriptures.

I tend to think that the creation accounts in Genesis were probably more written as a response to the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian accounts that were polytheistic. The Genesis creation accounts appear to be more poetic in nature, which hypothetically may have been done so as they could more easily be remembered and passed on.

Either way, there were no humans alive at creation, thus it certainly cannot have been any eyewitness accounts. God may well have inspired their writing, but exactly what and how this inspiration may have been done is very conjectural within theological circles.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Hi, MI.

Correct with the above, but I never accepted using a literalistic interpretation even long before I became Catholic, such as when I used to belong to a fundamentalist Protestant denomination.

That's fine with me-- to each his/her own.

Allegories, metaphors, and other forms of symbolism are used throughout the scriptures.

I tend to think that the creation accounts in Genesis were probably more written as a response to the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian accounts that were polytheistic. The Genesis creation accounts appear to be more poetic in nature, which hypothetically may have been done so as they could more easily be remembered and passed on.

Either way, there were no humans alive at creation, thus it certainly cannot have been any eyewitness accounts. God may well have inspired their writing, but exactly what and how this inspiration may have been done is very conjectural within theological circles.

Hi metis. Good afternoon. Well let's look at things another way. If I said I went to the shops and bought some flowers for my wife, how do you think I would feel if you said what I just told you was symbolic. The shop represents something else, the flowers represent something else, and even my wife represents something else. It would agitate me, because I have just told you something that is the truth, and you have taken what I have said and interpreted according to how you see fit. In the same way, I feel Yahweh is agitated by those who do not have faith to believe in His Word. Further, how do you think I would feel if you were adamant that your interpretation was correct, despite me telling you that clearly that's not what I meant.

You believe the Messiah was literal don't you? You believe in those stories, of how he walked upon the sea, or fed the 5,000 with loaves and fishes, or turned water into wine...yet when it comes to believing the Hebrew Scriptures, you won't believe what it says. Indeed, they were no eyewitness accounts of Genesis except for Yahweh, Yahshua and His angels, and He revealed exactly what He did, how He created, to His people. Allegories, metaphors and other forms of symbolism are used in the scriptures, but firstly these are made clear (such as it will say he spoke in parable) and secondly, connected to creation and the creation week comes the seventh day Sabbath. There would be no Sabbath if it wasn't for six literal days of creation as mentioned in Genesis 1. Therefore the Sabbath itself proves that Yahweh did create in six literal days.

You cannot avoid or side step the issue, or say that Genesis was written as a response to Babylonian accounts. Genesis was not written in response to Babylonian accounts. How you could say that after reading something like 2 Timothy 3:16, I do not know. The book of Genesis wasn't based on any other literature. It's the true account of what this planet went through at creation.

 

[metis]

You cannot avoid or side step the issue, or say that Genesis was written as a response to Babylonian accounts. Genesis was not written in response to Babylonian accounts. How you could say that after reading something like 2 Timothy 3:16, I do not know. The book of Genesis wasn't based on any other literature. It's the true account of what this planet went through at creation.

Certainty is the enemy of serious theology, so maybe go and do some more studying but do so by reading differing commentaries.

It's thousands of years of commentaries from both within Judaism and Christianity that can sometimes be quite enlightening at times, especially since scriptural narratives often have to put into a broader context. A literalistic approach is all too often nonsensical since the Judeo-Christian scriptures are neither objective history nor science. If you're not willing to do that, then it's virtually impossible to take what you post seriously.

I've been at this for over 50 years now and have taught it in differing venues, thus I've been around the block a few times, let me tell ya. It's like the clock analogy, whereas if one has only one clock he knows exactly what time it is, but if he has numerous clocks he'll never know exactly what time it is.

IOW, study and try to be open-minded.