JerryM

I'm posting this in hopes of getting an answer or explanation to a problem that I find in the Genesis story. As we all know, according to Gen 1:1-31, God created the entire universe in 6 days. The essential sequence of events is as follows:
Day 1. Created light; separated light from dark
Day 2. Separated heavens above from waters below
Day 3. Separated waters from dry land; created
all vegetation
Day 4. Created heavenly bodies, sun, moon,stars
Day 5. Created birds and sea creatures
Day 6. Created land animals, man, and woman

What I find interesting, is that 4 of the 6 days were spent basically on just our planet. In fact, all of the rest of the universe, was created on one day, the fourth. Now we know from astronomic observations, that our solar system is really quite non-descript. Just nine planets with some satellites and asteroids orbiting a very ordinary, average sized star. And we're located near the outer edge on one arm of a very ordinary galaxy. Does this really fit with the Genesis legend? Imagine an artist creating 20 paintings for an exhibition over 6 months. 19 of these, he polishes off in 2 months. But one work takes him 4 months to complete. And then he pronounces it good. Wouldn't he give that work the most prominent and central place in the whole gallery? Would he really just hang it in one of the back rooms among a bunch of the other paintings? If God spent so much of the total energy of creation on the Earth, why did he stick us off in an insignificant corner of the galaxy? Perhaps I'm trying to anthropomorphosize God's actions too much (although the OT God sure has a lot of human characteristics.) Does anyone else find this a least somewhat paradoxical?

Starboy

Hi JerryM,

The only way to meaningfully think of genesis is as myth. If you study it as myth in comparison with other myths, it starts making much more sense. For some reason, there are people that want to turn religion into science. These people don't seem to understand that this move is a sure fire way to screw up religion and science. Go figure.

Starboy

Godless Dave

The people who wrote the myth would have had no way of knowing how vast the universe is. It would make perfect sense for their creation myth to be geocentric. What doesn't make sense is for people four thousand years later to believe that myth as literal fact.

Heathen Dawn

Without understanding the cosmology of the Bible, that is really strange. So take the cosmology into account:

1. Earth is not a planet, but a cosmos - a house where everything lives.

2. The earth has a floor (is flat) and a roof (has a solid firmament above it)

3. The sun is not a star - stars are just lamps stuck on the ceiling (the firmament), whereas the sun and moon are bigger bodies of light.

4. The sky is blue because it is transparent, and above is a reservoire of water. The water is held by the solid sky (firmament). Once in history, God opened holes in the sky to let the water down.

Face it: the Bible cosmos is not your cosmos. Even if the creationists could disprove evolution, they'd have a whole host of obstacles to clear before reaching literal belief in the truth of the Bible. The only true Bible-believers left in the world are the members of the Flat Earth Society.

JerryM

I'm always astounded that the Biblical literalists can persist in believing the Genesis myth when it so contradicts known cosmology. I'd like to ask (respectfully, of course) any such believers out there if they truly accept that trees, grasses, and other plants existed before the sun, moon, and stars.

Albion

Yes, they do. It reminds me of the part of Terry Pratchett's "Pyramids" when the religious perspective does take over and the sun turns into a scarab beetle and everybody decides that actually maybe real life did have its advantages.

cydonia

I feel the same way, I read explanations of how the bible could be true and it seems there is alot of bending over backwards, but when i consider that it might all be myth, it isn't confusing to me at all. Then all the explanations seem pointless.