Febble

What makes you think that the Genesis account is not simply a parable anyway? Why should it be literally true at all? It's always struck me that trying to shoehorn science into scripture can only be done at the expense of both, and I've never understood why anyone would try (speaking as a scientist and a Christian).

Calvin's Catarrh

It seems like Christians are often completely dulled to the fact the Bible, Genesis included is repleat with accurate scientific claims dating thousands of years prior to their scientific discovery. Genesis and the many creation accounts in scripture are staggering evidence for the authenticity of scripture as God's divinely inspired word. When you contrast it against other creation myths which are usually 0% accurate, the 100% accuracy of the Bible is mind blowing.

Consider how loaded just the opening verse of the Bible is, especially in contrast to the numbers of inifinite and steady-state universe models that have been proposed.

"In the Beginning, god barah (brought newly into existence that which previously did not exist) the shamayimeretz (a hebrew word conjunction that literally means the totality of physical existence.)"

How did an semitic-egyptian scribe 3000 years ago accurately predict that:
The universe was brought into exitstence by something independent of or physical dimensions and that time had a beginning. These things have only been agreed upon by scientists in my lifetime. That is just the surface, the more I investigate, the more I am amazed. The reason that I'm so shocked by all of the clear and accurate statements, is because I only ever heard how wrong the Bible was my whole life, and I'd never takent the time to personally investigate.

HelpingHand

What strikes me even more with astonishment is the fact that the same semitic-egyptian scribe accurately described how the earth was created before the sun and the other stars.A fact that even today's scientists seem to be completely ignorant about.

Greetings

Walter

The Evil One

Genesis 1:1-2, Young's Literal Translation:

So no, Genesis does not describe a universe created ex nihilo by an extra-universal entity. It presents a dark, empty, primordial earth covered by water that is there (presumably since forever) before God starts his work.

Which is, it might be added, exactly the normal beginning for Middle Eastern creation myths: the Egyptians start with primiordial waters and so, iirc, do the Mesopotamians.

Constant Mews

This is not a factual statement. Genesis is not replete with these claims. Genesis contains observations that are consistent with the technological capability and myth-oriented minds of the time.No, actually they are not. Genesis is mostly mythological elements welded to some basic 'personal histories' that cannot be confirmed. No, its not, because your statement is completely false.

?

I suspect you know very little about science; science has NOT agreed that the universe was brought into existence by something independent of physical dimensions. Sorry.I don't know what sources you're using, but they are most certainly wrong, if this is any sample of their accuracy.

improvius

Easy. He didn't. You're just interpreting it as such after the fact.

And that's your whole problem. How many lifetimes did Christian scholars have to figure these things out before we resorted to methodological naturalism? If the Bible were such a fantastic treasure-trove of knowledge, shouldn't people have been making huge technological strides back when science was still under the domain of religion?

If you want to base your research program on interpreting the Bible, be our guest. The rest of us will stick with actual science.

improvius

Also Shinto.

Febble

Well, a few, but many more that are completely refuted by scientific evidence. I'd certainly expect them to get some stuff right.

100%????

But it's only the current hypothesis - nothing in science is final. There are lots of interesting ideas about what else might have happened besides the Big Bang that is ours. But I agree the first story in Genesis is pretty cool (give or take a bit of licence with the order of events). I also think the second story is pretty cool, too, but it's not the same as the first, and cool in a different way. Also a bit annoying (spare ribs....)

But re your comparison with other myths, any myth that posits one cause (God) is going to be more quasi-scientific than a myth that posits several (gods), because science and monotheism share a liking for parsimony. So I'm certainly not astounded that a monotheistic creation story shares some features with what science has also postulated since. But even there, Genesis only scores 1 out of 2 because, because the second story gets it far more wrong (man first, then animals). And then there's that flood.....

Well, if you assumed it was all wrong, it must be nice to find some bits that are sort of right-ish. But surely there is far more wrong than right, scientifically? Also historically? What are the bits you find so persuasive?

Nialler

So oral tradition (the tradition behind much of the Bible) is unreliable.

Fair enough. This other side of the coin does your case even more harm.

Case reclosed.

WishboneDawn

Ah. Then please explain why space shuttles haven't encountered a solid dome?

That's embarrassingly thin. It takes a pretty superficial reading of Genesis and a weak understanding of science to come up with that.