lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

This came up in another thread, and I thought it would be best to discuss it here, the question was whether there are good correspondences between science and the Genesis account:

There is the initial light (let’s start with energy, shall we?), the clearing of the atmosphere and the division so the seas and land are separated (continents moving?), simple life being first (“plants” could stand in for such, algae and bacteria and other simple forms), complex life starting in the water first, birds following fish (I don’t mind if some fish changed to birds), then land animals such as mammals, and then man.

And then there were the objections of a day being called an age (I am an old-earth creationist), of the sun being created after plants, and so on.

Now the day being an age, the Hebrew word "yom" does have that meaning:

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the Lord. When evening comes, there will be light.

Which verse as it turns out also has the very phrase the young-earth creationists say must refer to a 24-hour day, “yom echad.” So the ordinal does not always imply a 24-hour day, as also is shown here:

Genesis 27:45 When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him, I'll send word for you to come back from there. Why should I lose both of you in one day [“yom echad”]?

Which certainly means “at once,” and not “within 24 hours.”

Also, Augustine and others held that creation was done in a split second, so he did not believe the days were 24-hour periods, and the sun being after plants also speaks of the days not being normal days, so this is not some idea that need be foisted on the text.

Now speaking of plants! The term “seed” is a generic term for the germ of life, it does not mean like a seed in the technical scientific sense:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Broccoli and bananas too, I would say!

As far as the sun appearing after plants, "Let there be lights" and "let them be lights in the heavens to give light" ("let there be lights and let them be lights") implies a sequence here, placing lights to give light. "And the Lord [had] made and he placed them,” it is possible that “had made” is meant here, that is a possible grammatical option (re Gleason Archer, a Hebrew teacher).

Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth...

So then if that was the purpose, then perhaps those means which were for those purposes were employed on the first day? Could there even be an echo of "Let there be light," in "Let there be lights"? And here, the perspective seems to be of someone on earth:

Genesis 1:18 ... to govern the day and the night.

So that would seem to fit with an appearance, that at this point, their obvious governance of the day and night would begin.

Regards,
Lee

Smullyan-esque

The original energy was not light. Light is photons, the fundamental particle of the electromagnetic force. In the beginning of the Big Bang, electromagnetism had not yet decoupled from the weak and strong forces, so there was no light as we have it now.
I don't recall seeing that in Genesis.
The land and seas have always been seperated. In fact, at first there was just land, in contradiction to what Genesis says. The seas grew after that, as the atmosphere cooled.
Well, that's pretty much common sense. I can't really give Genesis any points for the obvious.
Wait. Birds before land animals? This is a point FOR Genesis?
With man a whole seperate act of creation, different from the animals, in contradiction to biology, genetics, archeology, and so on.
Sun after plants ISN'T a problem?!?
Not sure what this is all supposed to mean. You've still got the Sun after life, when reality has the Sun even before the Earth!
First of all, if the order that things are presented in Genesis is as flexible as you need it to be here, then of course it comports with modern science! Wait until science determines the real order of things, and then bend Genesis to fit.

Secondly, you've got day and night starting after life begins. How's that supposed to work, exactly?

Gamera

Query whether the author of Genesis is really interested in providing a geology/biology text book or whether his concerns are elsewhere. Like the relationship between God and humans, and humans with humans.

spin

LeeMerrill,

At the time of creation, the world was waste and void, THW WBHW. The creation aims to alter this state. The first three days give form to the chaos. The second three days fills the void. Note the following table which should show the organization of the creation and the relationship between the days of the two cycles:

As fish inhabit the sea and birds the air, so the sun inhabits the light and the moon and stars the darkness.

Does this table and its implications make sense to you, LeeMerrill?

The first creative act is when god spoke the first word.


spin

SophistiCat

So, um... Where are the correspondences? What verse corresponds to what scientific finding? In typical lee style, he presents a incoherent mess.

gregor

Just like "David from Texas" had a one-word warning for extended discussions in EvC, let me suggest "Tyre."

RAFH

As is noted, if you stretch any really vague narrative enough, you can make it comport with any thing you wish. This is blather.

Everyone says to read the bible like its written, plainly, word for word. But when you point out the inconsistencies, conflicts and shear idiocy of some of it, they say you need to read it a certain way. But when you point out even then its a load they tell you it needs to be read with a specific goal in mind.

Cripe, why start with anything. Why even try to justify it. Just proclaim its true no matter what.

Want a good reason the bible is so messed up. Because its a mish mash of old folk stories gathered here and there and crammed together and then edited to support a given regime. Whatever coherence there is comes from there being some basic similarity throughout all middle-eastern religions and even those from the west which essentially grew out of the older middle-eastern civilizations.

There's good reason to believe the Hebrew were Henotheistic/Polytheists up until the exile to Babylon.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

Have fun.

Sven

Along the same line:
It's either
1) The bible is correct because it agrees with what science says (as in Lee's OP)
or
2) The bible is correct despite science saying something different (as Lee argues elsewhere).

You can not have it both ways. Either you follow science where it leads you, or you don't.

Jedi Mind Trick

What about the "evening" and "morning" terminology?

If the "day" is to mean "age" then why didn't the author use the Hebrew word for age, which is Olam?

If plants were created in the age before the sun was created then how did they survive through that age?

Just how long is a day-age?

Why was the earth created before the sun? This goes against what we know about planet formation.


If humans are a special creation on the sixth day then why, among other things, do we share the same endogenous retrovirus insertions with apes? This strongly suggests that we have a common ansestor.

Oh... I almost forgot... Why, as you suggested in the other thread, should God leave it to probability calculations that he would get some of these correspondences correctly? Mind you, I don't see ANY correspondence but I find it odd that God could not just tell us what he did with 100% accuracy. Or is it as Gamera suggests, that being a textbook is not God’s game in Genesis?

driver8

Genesis is a fairy tale not even up to Aesop's standards. It has the sophistication of a child. Even if you choose to believe in a god do yourself a favor and forget the Genesis account. On second thought, forget both the Genesis account and the god concept. Neither is tenable.