• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Genesis and science, revisited.

MRC_Hans

Penultimate Amazing
MRC_Hans
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
24,961
In a couple of threads, the claim that the bible (here in specific Genesis 1) makes surprisingly accurate predictions of later scientific findings has resurfaced. It has probably been done here before, but still, let's actually read Genesis 1 and see.

(I assume that it is OK to quote extensively from Genesis 1, it is hardly copyrighted)

Quoted from here: http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Claim 1: According to the bible, light came first; this is a prediction of the BB theory.

Claim 2: ATTB, darkness is treated as a sort of substance; this predicts dark matter.

Genesis said:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Click to expand...

Re #1: Wrong. Light is only created after the earth and water, and the heavens (Exactly what the latter is remains unclear).

Re #2: Both light and darkness could be seen as entities (since no light sources have yet been created), OTOH, they are clearly equalled to 'day' and 'night' respectively.

The last sentence also implies that time exists in this phase.

Genesis said:
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Click to expand...

I notice no particular claims related to this verse, but we can note that there has now been two distinct references to 'day', 'morning', and 'evening'.

Otherwise, the content bears little sensible reference to the real world, and can be taken to mean practically anything.

Genesis said:
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...

OK, not so bad, but a bit elementary. Obviously, water must gather to form a sea and people could observe rivers still flowing into the sea. Not much in the way of a prediction. Another day passes....

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Click to expand...

So we have plants arriving, on land. This is contrary to what science tells us, but Genesis does not mention water plants at all, so they may be implied, somewhere. Also, fruits and seeds are in reality a fairly late development. Another day passes....

Claim #3: The 'days' mentioned in Genesis may not be literal days, they could really mean [insert whatever time span currently fits your argumentation].

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Click to expand...

Now, it becomes interesting. The so inclined may say that this is total nonsense, having the sun created much later than light. However, we can also view it as an indication that time now takes up the pace we know and only now 'day' and 'night' take the meaning we usually associate with the terms. A little, but surprising glitch is the assignment of the moon solely to the night; the moon can be visible on most of the day, as well.

A general comment here: Medieval Christians interpreted the account so far to depict a flat earth with a dome of sky over it, and later critics have taken that up, claiming that "the bible claims earth is flat", but I don't think this is fair. The description can just as easily be taken to depict the actual arrangement; it is simply too unspecific to be taken in favour of any idea, be it flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric. It more or less fits all.

And another day (now evidently a literal solar day) passes:

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Click to expand...
Life comes to earth. First birds, then fishes. Oh well, not much to comment on here; I have not met any bible follower trying to claim that this particular bit predicts any scientific findings. :rolleyes:

And another day passes, and...

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground
Click to expand...
Land creatures come, first livestock, then wild animals. Long after birds. Actually, this sequence is a tad strange, even from the POV of desert nomads. They must have known that livestock is domesticated wild animals? And why livestock before humans?

Humans are added last. Well one out of 5-6 ain't too bad, I guess.

There is a little more, but this part does not have the Adam's rib nonsense. It is just
male and female he created them
Click to expand...
so let's leave it at that.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Claim #3: The 'days' mentioned in Genesis may not be literal days, they could really mean [insert whatever time span currently fits your argumentation].
Click to expand...
If as is sometimes argued a day is million (or thousands) of years then there is a big issue about how the vegetation survives when the sun (which is not a Star!) has not been created. A day being a number of years also conflicts with the definition of a day being defined by the sun and moon,

It is clear that the bible order only makes sense if a day is a day, and if a day is a day then it doesn't make sense for all sorts of other reasons, some you have given.
 
@Lothian: Actually, a 6 day genesis makes most sense for a number of reasons:

1) Well, it is what the bible says, so if you trust the bible, why doubt it?

2) God is omnipotent, so why should he take longer?

3) Not only would plants wither without the sun, but whole food chains would collapse and mass extinctions would ensue, if all creatures were not either created within a short time span, or evolved gradually over a very long time.

ETA: 4) At least the short production time provides some excuse for all the shoddy design details. ;)

So the 'days could be ages' is really just an invention by apologetics who can't close their eyes to the evident great age of earth.

IMHO, the only two doctrines that make logical sense are YEC and evolution. And subscribers to YEC must then contend with the fact that God built a lot of red herrings indicating great age into his universe.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
There is a little more, but this part does not have the Adam's rib nonsense. It is just so let's leave it at that.

Hans
Click to expand...
You are being very generous to Genesis. If you look at the wording it is pretty clear that when the say the evening and the morning of the first day they are talking about a cycle of light and dark.

And the bit about the Sun and the Moon being made after light and dark would seem to be a blunder even for a bronze age agrarian society.
 
MRC_Hans said:
...snip..

Claim #3: The 'days' mentioned in Genesis may not be literal days, they could really mean [insert whatever time span currently fits your argumentation].



Now, it becomes interesting. The so inclined may say that this is total nonsense, having the sun created much later than light. However, we can also view it as an indication that time now takes up the pace we know and only now 'day' and 'night' take the meaning we usually associate with the terms. A little, but surprising glitch is the assignment of the moon solely to the night; the moon can be visible on most of the day, as well.

A general comment here: Medieval Christians interpreted the account so far to depict a flat earth with a dome of sky over it, and later critics have taken that up, claiming that "the bible claims earth is flat", but I don't think this is fair. The description can just as easily be taken to depict the actual arrangement; it is simply too unspecific to be taken in favour of any idea, be it flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric. It more or less fits all.

And another day (now evidently a literal solar day) passes:

...snip..
Hans
Click to expand...

One of my least favorite arguments from religious believers. The idea that "a day" can mean any frame of time you care to make it to support your argument.

So a day in the bible can mean millions of years? Well it seems that Noah's boat trip was even more fantastic than we'd thought. He and the 2x2 animal menagerie were at sail for 40 million years apparently!

But that's not what they mean. They mean that in the passages where "a day" couldn't possibly be right you just change what the word "day" means.

What a convenient belief system. If you don't like what a word means you can just change it!

If this book was in fact authored by the all powerful creator of everything in an attempt for his chosen creation to understand what he wants of them MAYBE HE COULD TRY BEING A LITTLE CLEARER! Is it too much to ask of an omnipotent deity that he understand what a measurement of time is?

While we're changing the meaning of words in the bible I have a few suggestions. How about changing all the references to genocide and saying that god really meant "and all the people were given ice cream"? Suddenly things are looking up for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah...
 
In 'Dragons of Eden' Carl Sagan makes Genesis 2 sound like a pretty good allegory for the evolutionary split between reptiles and mammals and the development of sentient life, for example the knowledge of good and evil causing pain in childbirth could refer to the large head sizes of intelligent primates causing pain in childbirth.

You could also look at it as an allegory for the development of mankind - with Adam and Eve representing early hunter gatherer societies with limited land management followed by two different strands of agriculture - crop farmers and animal herders. You even get an allegory of the conflict between the groups.

Which seems to suggest that it is pretty easy to find parallels even when they probably don't exist.
 
If I did care to be an apologist for the bible I would point to the passage in Genesis where God throws Adam & Eve out of paradise and comdemns all woman kind to a future of painful childbirth. I would compare that to our evolution and the belief that as our hips got narrower, allowing us to walk upright, childbirth became a much more dangerous endeavor for humans.

But as was just said..
Robin said:
Which seems to suggest that it is pretty easy to find parallels even when they probably don't exist.
Click to expand...
 
Robin said:
You are being very generous to Genesis. If you look at the wording it is pretty clear that when the say the evening and the morning of the first day they are talking about a cycle of light and dark.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm being generous. We can afford it. ;)

And the bit about the Sun and the Moon being made after light and dark would seem to be a blunder even for a bronze age agrarian society.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'm not sure how obvious it is to an uneducated person that the day sky produces no light by itself. It is lit both after sunlight and before sunrise, for a while. It remains light if the sun passes behind a cloud. It is only if you experience a total solar eclipse that it becomes abundantly clear that the sun is the sole light source.

Hans
 
Robin said:
In 'Dragons of Eden' Carl Sagan makes Genesis 2 sound like a pretty good allegory for the evolutionary split between reptiles and mammals and the development of sentient life, for example the knowledge of good and evil causing pain in childbirth could refer to the large head sizes of intelligent primates causing pain in childbirth.

You could also look at it as an allegory for the development of mankind - with Adam and Eve representing early hunter gatherer societies with limited land management followed by two different strands of agriculture - crop farmers and animal herders. You even get an allegory of the conflict between the groups.

Which seems to suggest that it is pretty easy to find parallels even when they probably don't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, Genesis 2 is a pretty nice piece of philosophy. They weren't dumb back then. They must have noticed that animals don't appear to experience any considerable pain giving birth. They will have been familiar with the fact that some tribes were more primitive than others, their folklore may even have reached back to the times their own people were hunters. They will have been familiar with the crop farmer, animal farmer dilemmas.

Hans
 
Regarding the day being 1000 years it becomes a bit of a problem later in Exodus.

According to the commandments (all 613 of them not 10) keeping the Sabbath was because YHWH worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th.

So if a day is 1000 years then we must work for 6000 years and rest for 1000 years.

By the way the most common value given is a 1000 because when YHWH told adam that the very day he eats from the tree he will surely die (that day), YHWH was not lying. Adam died 930 years later which is within the 1000 year day. The 70 years shortage of a 1000 was due to some compelling reason according to the Midrash, but my memory is not as good as it used to be, so I cannot tell you why.

So accordingly Peter had to say in 2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.​


So here you have it folks.... I want a 1000 year weekend.
 
[Common jewish apologetics]
When god mentions the creation of light, he is not talking about the material light that we see comes from the sun. That's why they had the sun later.

They are talking about the divine light which is something completely different, see "The Zohar" and all the Kabala crap
[/common jewish apologetics]

I hope you guys are familiar with me enough to know I don't actually buy that stuff, just repeating it.

The stuff that I a common occurance among the apologetics (jewish and christian) is that when they say the word "day" doesn't actually mean day, it's because the bible was written in an ancient language of wisdom that we don't understand any more. And then I ask them, when they talk about food laws or gay rights or whatever, how they can possibly be sure what the words actually mean - well... the crickets are heard loud and clear.
 
What always gets me is that Genesis completely ignores the very existence of bacteria.
In numbers, mass and importance they trump every single other organism on the planet.
All plants die off? Life happily continues.
All bacteria die? Good bye ecosystem.

If its so scientific, why not mention this? It would also be a good argument for the book ACTUALLY being dictated by an all knowing god, rather than being semi-coherent creation myths of a group of bronze age people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom