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

[SA Huguenot]

"Third morning" is a fantasy. There never was a "third morning".

And you dont even want to use a small bit of creativity to answer my question. I always wondered why Atheists calls Bible believers "Close minded", when they are the ones walkong around with heavyweight Bias.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Although there are books in the bible known to be stories. How the hell would you know if everything in it was just made up

It seems you're confusing personal bias with knowledge

Well, for one.
90% of what archaeology knew about the middle east 200 years ago about the period 4000 BC to 200 BC was was only known from Josephius and the Bible. Today the descriptions of the Bible is a well known fact supported by Archaeology.
many more examples, but this is off the topic anyhow.
Lets get back to what I asked, and stop running around.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Ancient belief in Canaan and surrounding areas was that the sky was a solid object on which the stars were placed. In the Bible, this solid object was called the firmament. There were supposed to be water above (with gates that could later be opened for Noah's flood).

Also, the primordial creation event was from water (the deep). Notice that this already existed and was not created by God in the Biblical account. In fact, God was moving over the face of the deep. In Canaanite mythology, the primordial water was analogous to chaos and existed before creation.

But how did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day?
Why all these other of the rail things when it is not what I asked?

 

[SA Huguenot]

The old earth theologian thrives to merge science into Genesis basically creating their own bible interpretation. If you can't keep the book of Genesis valid you basically create a domino effect of doctrine through the rest of the Bible, i.e the original sin, death, and the first Adam. The young earth theologian is interpreting the bible by letting the scriptures describe it as the way it was written 3000 years or so ago by who ever authored it. The creation event wasn't witnessed by the author and parts ssem to be borrowed from other middle eastern stories.. probably Egypt.

I like your information, but it seems as if anyone who is an Atheist point blank refuses to give an inch to my question on the appearance of the Earth on the 3rd morning.
It is almost as if they think if they answer just one small theoretical question, and the answer might be a bit too Biblical, they are committing a moral sin.
I remember how harlan Bretz was scolded bu the Geological society in 1925 when he told them about a flood of Biblical preportions. They mocked him and sent him away to give another explanation not so "Biblical"
J Pardee actually gave the reason for this flood. lake Misoula.
Bias?
no, only fear that anything Biblical might be valid.
Well, I will then continue with my examination to the Biblical description of the origins of the Solarsystem if atheistsare too scared to participate..

 

[SA Huguenot]

Well.
It is such a simple thinking, but so difficuilt to grasp for some that I will now give the simple answer to what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day.
look at this simple description.
If Land and sea was seperated from each other, it means the Earth was one gigantic ball of "Mud" before it happened.
What has all the other claims and information to do with such a minute logical description.
Please note, I at this stage do not say science agrees, all I say is this is what we all can read from the Bible, and make a logical conclusion about.
My next question is this:
How did the Earth look / appear on the morning of the 2nd day, before there was a "Firmament" with water above, and below this firmament?
A bit more difficuilt, but easily to answer.
Enjoy!

 

[SA Huguenot]

oh, and I know there were not continents as I drew, but allow this small error untill the whole theory gets unfolded.

 

[SA Huguenot]

You must be joking! After reading the account in the bible you would still consider it to represent reality? And how can you even imagine that an omniscient, omnipotent, etc. 'god' could or would create anything so absurd and ridiculous as this world? It's insane, but then what does an omnipotent 'god' even have to do all day?
Respectfully..... please read some anthropology and learn that humans have created thousands of gods and goddesses, each unique to their cultures.... it's what people did to unify and keep their group together. You must be aware that humans are brainwashed from the day of their birth to believe in the deity of their group by preachers and parents, long before they can understand or reason. It's called indoctrination into the group's beliefs. Were you not aware also that the land 'god' gave to the Jews had been lived upon by the Canaanites and their families for a couple of thousand years before 'god' even wrote the bible? It's all so obvious fiction for cultural unification reasons.......
Anyone who can accept the bible as a representation of reality should rethink that position.......

Well, If God did create the Earth as it is now, you have a valid point.
What if He did not create it this way?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The 7day creation story in genesis is brilliant considering it's historical age. Find one contemporary and better

That's subjective. I much prefer the Greek and Norse creation myths and find them far more brilliant.

 

[SA Huguenot]

"Brilliant" you say? Hmmmm........ And define 'brilliant', do you include any reference to reality? Does it make any difference to you, or do you not accept that there is reality and that there is non-reality, fiction, made-up stuff for a purpose, etc...... Are you anti scientific by nature?

Well, wait and see.

 

[Polymath257]

Uh

Guess how science date Katal Hyuk and the other levant cities?
By C14 testing on charcoal and bones.
great, C14 testing actually proves the point that the atmosphere is very young.
But we will get to that soon. All I wanted to know from you is how did the Earth appear on the MORNING of day 3?

It looked like a sea of water. The land (which was thought of as under the water) was brought up and dried during the third day.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, for one.
90% of what archaeology knew about the middle east 200 years ago about the period 4000 BC to 200 BC was was only known from Josephius and the Bible. Today the descriptions of the Bible is a well known fact supported by Archaeology.
many more examples, but this is off the topic anyhow.
Lets get back to what I asked, and stop running around.

Not true. The Biblical description is reasonably accurate for times after about 800BC. It is spotty to about 1000BC and completely wrong prior to that, except for a few place names.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Not true. The Biblical description is reasonably accurate for times after about 800BC. It is spotty to about 1000BC and completely wrong prior to that, except for a few place names.

Well, its dated with chronology was 100% acurate on the Exodus in 1450 Bc, accurate on Shalmanezzer in 721 Bc.
Mary Kenyon wanted to force jericho into 1200 BC, but her chronological dating was not what the Bible counted, but what she wanted to use as the so called "late" exodus dating.
She was proven wrong, and the Exodus of 1450 BC is acurate to Ai and Jericho of a date of 1400BC.
But this is off the point.
can you answer my question?

 

[Darkforbid]

That's subjective. I much prefer the Greek and Norse creation myths and find them far more brilliant.

I'm talking about how it drops the animalistic/humanised aspect

 

[blü 2]

Ok so God says this is what he did every day
Well, it goes like this,
In the beginning:
God created the Heavens and the Earth
the Earth was void and dark without any recognisable shape,
and the Spirit of God hovered above the waters.
God said, let there be Light, and it was evening and morning,
the 1st day was done.
day 2
God seperated waters above and below a firmament he made
day 3
God seperated land and sea.
day 4
God placed the Sun, Moon and Stars in the sky.
We will go so far for now.

To me something was very difficuilt to understand, and it was this thing called a firmament.
I thought about it for about 3 weeks, visited some websites, read commentaries, but I could not get the answer.
Water that was above and below this firmament simply did not calculate in my mind.

I then memorised Chapter one and kept on thinking about it as I travelled to work and home. At that stage I had a good 2 hours travelling a day.

Now, this is not a hoax, or something I cooked up, but a voice told me: "What did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day?"
Without causing an accident at 140Km/h, my mind rushed around at the same speed.
So, let me leave the Question over to anyone who would like to answer.
What did the Earth look on the morning of day 3?

The cosmology of the bible has no concept of

stars or galaxies or deep space
the solar system or planets or heliocentry
satellites, particularly the moon
a spherical earth
space as such ─ the biblical firmament is a solid dome to which the heavenly bodies are affixed, such that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth​

and so on.

The bible's statements to this effect are set out >here<. I'd suggest you don't fail to check it out.

Why anyone would think that two to three thousand years ago the bible was right on top of 21st century cosmology but pig-ignorant of 21st century physics or chemistry or medicine or maths ─ or indeed reasoned and skeptical enquiry at all ─ is completely beyond my comprehension, at least in terms at all flattering to the claimant.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I just got time now to continue on my explanation on what I found the Biblical description of the Origin of our Solar System is.
My second question was:
How did the Earth appear on the morning of the second day?

So far I found that on the 3rd day, the earth changed from a mud ball eart into land and sea.
we also read that on the second day, God made a firmament with waters above and waters below this firmament.

Now, I never understood what this firmament meant, and what this waters below the firmament was, untill I understood the description of a Mud Ball Earth.
after pondering on what the appearance od the earth was on day one, I realised the Bible say the Earth was without any shape, wet, deep, and dark.

Therefore a conclusion follows that the Earth over two days changed from a shapeless wet entity, into a round mud ball.
Only then did I understand that the description of the firmament on day 2 was the surface of this mud ball Earth that appeared.
The water below the surface was obviously all this solids and water that was mixed up, and the water above the firmament was nothing else than the Atmosphere!
This atmosphere was very moist, much more than what we today see on a foggy day, and we will lateron in this investigation see what influence both these waters above and below the firmament had during the flood.

Anyway, here is a drawing I made to show the metamorphosis as described in the first 3 days of Genesis.
Please note my worng description for solid matter, due to English not being my first language, I gave the wrong terminology and said matter. We all know gas and liquids are matter also.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The bible's statements to this effect are set out >here<. I'd suggest you don't fail to check it out.

Been there, read it all.
But I am not challenging any ideas, but am attempting to show you something I found when I read all those accusations.

Why anyone would think that two to three thousand years ago the bible was right on top of 21st century cosmology but pig-ignorant of 21st century physics or chemistry or medicine or maths ─ or indeed reasoned and skeptical enquiry at all ─ is completely beyond my comprehension, at least in terms at all flattering to the claimant.

Well, I would like you to remember these words when I will show you where the 21st century scientists got their science from.
We will get there. And thanks for the critisizm.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well.

It is such a simple thinking, but so difficuilt to grasp for some that I will now give the simple answer to what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day.

look at this simple description.

If Land and sea was seperated from each other, it means the Earth was one gigantic ball of "Mud" before it happened.

That’s just your guesswork, subconsciously (or consciously) influenced by what you already know of the standard theories about the formation and development of the planet. There is absolutely nothing in the brief and poetic text of the relevant Bible verses which definitively supports your specific description. You can certainly spin the text to match what you describe but you could spin it to describe countless alternative (and wrong) concepts too.

You’re basically wasting your time. I doubt few people would argue that the Biblical creation story can’t be interpreted in such a way as to fit current scientific understanding. It was interpreted to fit previous scientific understanding too, despite that understanding being later recognised as being in error and subsequently reined and adjusted. Other religious creation stories can be interpreted and spun to fit current scientific understanding too, even those which directly contract the Biblical stories. I don’t see how any of this really tells us anything concrete beyond some mildly interesting psychology around how humans create and consume stories.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

• The Bible say the Sun was created after the Earth, yet science knows that the Sun is part of the Universe, and our solar system is 8 billion years younger than the galaxy we live in. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
• The Bible say that the Universe is only about 6 000 years old, and science knows this is a huge error. It can be as old as 12.5 to 18 billion years! If the Author of the Bible could not describe the creation to syncronize with what science knows today, he can not be the God who created it all.

Well, so the argument goes. Quite frankly, these arguments are valid!
I never found anyone that could answer these questions, except for perhaps Creationists that denies science and twist the understanding of the Creation description to fit in with science. Some might even attempt to twist scientific facts to fit in with the Bible.

I just wondered "What is the Facts"?
I realised that I had to go to Genesis to see for myself what the Bible says about the way God created everything.
And I was quite surprised at what I found, was totally different from what I always believed the Bible said. Today I am delighted to know that what science says, the Bible described 4 500 years ago to Moses.
Lets first recap what Genesis 1 says about the first 5 days.

Relativity tells us we can have a young solar system inside an old universe. Not sure what the perceived problem is.

 

[blü 2]

Well, I would like you to remember these words when I will show you where the 21st century scientists got their science from.

We get the idea of skeptical enquiry from the old Greeks.

Greek ideas are influential in the NT too. The renaissance is due to the rediscovery in the West of classical (Greek and Roman) learning, and importantly influences the Schoolmen, from whose tradition we inherit the Enlightenment and thus modern science.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Relativity tells us we can have a young solar system inside an old universe. Not sure what the perceived problem is.

Explain please.
I went through the SR and GR theories, and I could not find such a claim.

 

[SA Huguenot]

We get the idea of skeptical enquiry from the old Greeks.

Greek ideas are influential in the NT too. The renaissance is due to the rediscovery in the West of classical (Greek and Roman) learning, and importantly influences the Schoolmen, from whose tradition we inherit the Enlightenment and thus modern science.

True indeed.
Philo was a Helenist, and he used the Greek philosophy to explain the Logos, or Word as Paul and John used.
If it was not for Philo, according to me, our understanding of Jewish thought in the first century on the Trinity would have been much more difficult to grasp.