Order Of Creation In Genesis

[Storm]

"One day to God could be thousands (or millions) of years to us" is a common justification given to reconcile Genesis with evolution. It doesn't work, though, because the order of Creation is scientifically inaccurate. From the mighty Wiki:

• First day: God creates light ("Let there be light!") - the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
• Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!") - the second command - to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "heavens".
• Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
• Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command) to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.
• Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
• Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."
• Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

Plants are created before there's a sun to sustain them, and birds before the reptiles they evolved from. For that matter, there's the tricky issue of light coming before the sun.

So, merely stretching the meaning of "day," which I find suspect in its own right, does not render Genesis scientifically accurate.

Now, I'm all for reconciling religion and science. It's just that this attempt fails.

Your thoughts?

A personal request: I don't want this to turn into yet another thread attempting to dis/prove evolution. I want to discuss how they can fit together. If you don't at least try to reconcile the two accounts, please refrain from posting.

 

[fantome profane]

Like reading anything you have to ask what this text is really trying to tell you. This Genesis text is trying to tell us about the existence of “God”, that “God” is responsible for creating the universe, life and specifically humans. It is telling us that “God” has a special relationship with humans. It is telling us about the relationship that humans have to “God”, to each other and to the universe.

Now in order to tell us these things a narrative has been created. Narrative stories are an excellent way of conveying ideas, humans tell stories, we remember stories, and we understand stories.

Now I don’t want to mince words here. The details of the narrative are wrong. Period. They are just wrong. There is no point trying to read this like it is written in a secret code (day really mean a thousand years, or just a really long but unspecified period of time) and there is no point trying to twist the words to make them match what we know to be reality. The details of the narrative are simply wrong.

But the details of the narrative are irrelevant. What is relevant is what the narrative is trying to tell us. Are the things this narrative is really trying to tell us wrong? I can’t say. Personally as an atheists I don’t believe the things this narrative is telling us. But that does not stop me from understanding and respecting the narrative. And the things that this narrative is trying to tell us are not in conflict with evolution, or with science in general.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The only way to reconcile the Bible's creation myth with science is to attempt to interpret it metaphorically. Although it has the same metaphorical value as L.Ron Hubbard's creation myth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only way to reconcile the Bible's creation myth with science is to attempt to interpret it metaphorically. Although it has the same metaphorical value as L.Ron Hubbard's creation myth.

Spoken like someone burdened with many engrams.

 

[Storm]

The only way to reconcile the Bible's creation myth with science is to attempt to interpret it metaphorically. Although it has the same metaphorical value as L.Ron Hubbard's creation myth.

I think the Genesis story has tremendous value, metaphorically speaking. It's a masterfully crafted myth.

 

[gnostic]

I think the Genesis story has tremendous value, metaphorically speaking. It's a masterfully crafted myth.

As a myth, yes, I would agree. The Genesis has value in theology and myth.

As science, or in just simply everyday reality, the Genesis' creation myth has no values whatsoever.

Day and night, as in light and darkness, are governed by the sunlight shining on specific area, as the earth itself spins on its axis.

Of course, day and night go out the window (become meaningless), when you live in one of the Arctic circles, but not everyone live in these area.

Genesis is quite specific, that day and night referred to light and darkness, and clearly referred to the first day that has "morning" and "evening", but without the presence of the sun. And the sun doesn't appear at all in these verses about the first day; the sun wasn't created until the 4th day.

Hence the Genesis is clearly scientifically wrong, and in ordinary reality. With myth, anything is possible, but I preferred reality than myth. Myth is only useful to me as entertainment.

 

[Storm]

Myth is only useful to me as entertainment.

Now, there I can't agree, but I don't want to derail the thread. (Dead as it is. )

 

[idea]

There were two creations, one in heaven, one on Earth...

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 3:5)

the generations of heaven, and the generations of Earth.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: ...
(Old Testament | Genesis 2:4 - 5)

The order in Gen chapt 2 is different from the order in Gen chapt 1 because there are multiple creations, everything was formed in heaven before it was brought to Earth.

I personally think that at least some of the life on Earth did not evolve here, but instead came from another world... Our God rules many worlds.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the cSon I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33)

COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce
life from other worlds, brought here in whatever order God pleases.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the Genesis story has tremendous value, metaphorically speaking. It's a masterfully crafted myth.

I've seen better. The Lord of the Rings, for instance. It's interesting that there wasn't anyone of Tolkien's caliber around when they wrote Genesis.

 

[Storm]

I've seen better. The Lord of the Rings, for instance. It's interesting that there wasn't anyone of Tolkien's caliber around when they wrote Genesis.

I would say LotR is more appealing, but less skillful.

 

[Sunstone]

I would say LotR is more appealing, but less skillful.

Why less skillful? I don't think LOTR is the best myth out there, but I do believe it kicks butt on Genesis.

 

[Storm]

Why less skillful? I don't think LOTR is the best myth out there, but I do believe it kicks butt on Genesis.

Because I don't see the same richness and complexity of meaning, structure, and symbolism. The imagery is beautiful, the story epic, but compared to Genesis, rather simple.

ETA: Not that simplicity is a bad thing.

 

[Sunstone]

Because I don't see the same richness of meaning, structure, and symbolism. The imagery is beautiful, the story epic, but compared to Genesis, rather simple.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't find the simplicity of LOTR a fault with it.

 

[idea]

I've seen better. The Lord of the Rings, for instance.

There is some truth to Lord of the Rings you know... Tolkien wrote that to try and re-create some of his history that was lost in a fire...

see:
http://www.candlestickstudios.com/elves/ElvesChristmas.pdf
as an example... there really were elves, people who lived protected on one side of a river, in the woods.

 

[Humanistheart]

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I don't find the simplicity of LOTR a fault with it.

And LOTR stands for?

 

[Watchmen]

Lord of the Rings

 

[Humanistheart]

Lord of the Rings

I see... thanks. Well, this threads tacken an interesting turn from the Evolution v creationism starting point. Just as well I guess, afterall, adding ism to the word creation does us all a diservice.

I don't see what the big deal is though, unless your a fundamentalist. If someone wants to keep believing in creation based on genises just accept it as a type of midrash, as the jewish people do, and as their anscestors always meant it to be read. Is this just a massive over simplification?

 

[gnostic]

I would say LotR is more appealing, but less skillful.

That's depends if you have read Tolkien's The Silmarillion. The creation myth found in the 1st part (Ainulindalë) of The Silmarillion, was delightfully inventive. Definitely more skillful and beautiful than the Genesis, by a long margin.

But the The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings are myth in its own right, because Tolkien's inventive mind has created a whole new universe. But like the Genesis, can't be taken seriously in the real natural and scientific world, but as literary achievements, they certainly have their own values.

I don't deny that the Genesis has it own value, in the theological (and mythological) department, but that's where it belong. And the Genesis it has it places in literary department too.

The 6-day creation is wrong on so many levels, not just chronologically - the world and the solar system is not a mere half-dozen millennia old. Scientifically, it is not proven, let alone impossible..especially if you take the Genesis, literally. Also the Genesis seemed to be written by superstitious primitive, with no idea of science or the nature of our world.

The world is far more ancient than the Genesis' narrative. Humankind is older than the supposed first man (Adam). The oldest settlement in Jericho is older than the supposed creation by several thousands of years.

 

[Storm]

That's depends if you have read Tolkien's The Silmarillion. The creation myth found in the 1st part (Ainulindalë) of The Silmarillion, was delightfully inventive. Definitely more skillful and beautiful than the Genesis, by a long margin.

I was indeed taking the Creation account from The Silmarillion into account when I said that. Gorgeous as it is, it still lacks the rich complexity of Genesis.

The 6-day creation is wrong on so many levels, not just chronologically - the world and the solar system is not a mere half-dozen millennia old. Scientifically, it is not proven, let alone impossible..especially if you take the Genesis, literally. Also the Genesis seemed to be written by superstitious primitive, with no idea of science or the nature of our world.

The world is far more ancient than the Genesis' narrative. Humankind is older than the supposed first man (Adam). The oldest settlement in Jericho is older than the supposed creation by several thousands of years.

Well, yes. That's my entire point: that Genesis has tremendous value which is lost when one tries to interpret it literally.

 

[darkendless]

Because I don't see the same richness and complexity of meaning, structure, and symbolism. The imagery is beautiful, the story epic, but compared to Genesis, rather simple.

ETA: Not that simplicity is a bad thing.

2000 years of BS-ing has its advantages.