Genesis and science, revisited.

[RandFan]

Whatever we make of the first book of the Bible we have to assume we are not the target audience. What ever message Genesis is trying to convey, it was lost a very long time ago

I'm not sure what good it is then. Seems to me that a god would update or do a rewrite once in awhile.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

Hello Hans,

Most Bibles are copyrighted. The KJV isn't. Of course you can still post limited portions of it without violating the copyright.

If you compare Genesis and the creation account with the science of the day in which it was written you may have a point. Today's science, however, is not yesterday's or for that matter, tomorrow's science, so the point is moot.

If, however, for the sake of entertainment, such an exercise is attempted it would be best to consider the language of the original as closely as possible. Having read this thread quickly I can see that the Hebrew words bara, (create Genesis 1:1) asah, (made Genesis 1:16) yohm, (day) ohr (light Genesis 1:3) and maohr (the source of light Genesis 1:14) are important.

At Genesis 1:1 the earth and heavens (universe) including the sun and moon were created and complete. The Hebrew verb, having two states - the imperfect (incomplete action) and the perfect (complete action) - so the verb bara at Genesis 1:1 indicates the creation was complete before the first creative day. At Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew waiyomer is used in the imperfect state and should note progress in action, for example, in James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his) - Afterward God proceeded to say, “Let there be light”; and gradually light came into existence.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

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.

There are a few things that skeptics often overlook.

1. The Hebrew day went from evening to evening.

2. The 24 hour period of 12 hours each didn't exist for the Hebrew until the Babylonian exile.

3. The term day (Hebrew yohm) can mean any given amount of time from a few hours to time indefinite.

4. The term day is applied 3 different ways in the creation account, only one of them as a 24 hour period.

5. Morning and evening are figurative and even if taken literally wouldn't constitute a solar 24 hour day.

6. The creation is said to be both 6 days and 1 day. Meaning there were 6 "days or periods" in one "day or period."

7. The seventh creative day of rest continues in David's day and later in Paul's day and continues today. It hasn't ended.

8. The term day is used today pretty much the same as it was in the ancient Hebrew. It doesn't always mean 24 hours.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

@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?

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that at all. No age of the creation can be determined through the Bible. It simply doesn't say. The creation was complete in Genesis 1:1, the "days" that followed were progressive action. For example, the light gradually became discernible before the source of the light could be discerned, but the sun had already been created an indeterminable period of time before then.

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

Because it would take longer? Besides which, the Bible doesn't really support the idea of an omnipotent God.

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.

Didn't mass extinctions ensue? However, the sun was already there as I stated above.

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

Such as?

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.

Not exactly. The Hebrew term yohm is grossly misunderstood and atheists, having primarily theists dogma to go on, see it as you have described it.

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.

YEC doesn't make sense at all. From a Biblical or scientific standpoint.

 

[Dinwar]

3. The term day (Hebrew yohm) can mean any given amount of time from a few hours to time indefinite.

So the omnipotent deity can't even be precise in His language?

4. The term day is applied 3 different ways in the creation account, only one of them as a 24 hour period.

Care to point out which are which? And why you picked each one?

5. Morning and evening are figurative and even if taken literally wouldn't constitute a solar 24 hour day.

Again, the Lord God Almighty can't even speak intelligibly?

6. The creation is said to be both 6 days and 1 day. Meaning there were 6 "days or periods" in one "day or period."

So.....they can't keep their stories straight.

7. The seventh creative day of rest continues in David's day and later in Paul's day and continues today. It hasn't ended.

I have NEVER heard that argument made.

8. The term day is used today pretty much the same as it was in the ancient Hebrew. It doesn't always mean 24 hours.

No, it's not. Three days means 72 hours, give or take. A day means a solar day. It does NOT mean thousands of years. We have an entirely different term for that: Millennium. Again, this is an omnipotent deity that the Bible is supposedly the work of--yet He can't accomplish the simple task of speaking clearly. And don't say they wouldn't have understood, I've already pointed out that that's not a valid argument.

ETA:

Didn't mass extinctions ensue? However, the sun was already there as I stated above.

Nice try, but no dice. Two (maybe three, depending on how you count) mass extinctions took place prior to plants arising. Only one was caused by the shutdown of photosynthesis. You'd think God Himself would mention the fact that He's had to restart a half-dozen times. Unless He's embarrassed?

 

[MG1962]

I'm not sure what good it is then. Seems to me that a god would update or do a rewrite once in awhile.

Maybe he did and we just missed the significance

 

[MG1962]

This isn't much of a question--the assumption here is that God sucks as a teacher. I mean, we all start out life the same way--ignorant, naked, and crying. The only difference between the scientists of today and the desert nomads who came up with these stories is education: the scientists were taught differently (and better). Thus, if God was incapable of talking to His chosen people about His creation, the only explanation is that God was a horrible teacher. Which cuts into that "omnipotent" thing, which means He's not God.

Conversely he may have had a perfectly good reason for letting it go down the way it did. A good teacher doesn't spoon feed the student, but leads them to the answers. Man by his very nature is intensely curious creature, and discovering the unknown has been a driving passion since we first walked the Earth

Than why bother distorting the words until they become meaningless in an attempt to make it say what science has discovered?

But you will agree thats the providence of those arrogant enough to claim to know God's mind. Clearly if God is anything like we might imagine, that is an impossiblity

 

[Dinwar]

Man by his very nature is intensely curious creature,

No, we're not.

A good teacher doesn't spoon feed the student, but leads them to the answers.

Your explanation of why God chose to allow His chosen people to wallow in ignorance, filth, and easily preventable DEATH is "God works in mysterious ways", in essence. Sorry, but no. If God was omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent He could have easily educated His chosen people--without interfering with our curiosity (modern scientists don't exactly lack this, and we know far, far more than I'm saying God should have mentioned). He doesn't get to be benevolent and choose not to, and He doesn't get to be omniscient and claim He doesn't know how to.

and discovering the unknown has been a driving passion since we first walked the Earth

Again, it still is. God could have told His dramatic story--MUCH more dramatic than we're given in the Bible--taught His chosen people who to live lives superior to the rest of the world, etc., without in the least infringing on their ability to be curious. This is A GOD you're talking about and He's being out-thought by a mere mortal less than 30 years old.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe he did and we just missed the significance

If he couldn't write it so that we can tell the difference then doesn't that make him incompetent? There's not much for me to be impressed with.

 

[MG1962]

If he couldn't write it so that we can tell the difference then doesn't that make him incompetent? There's not much for me to be impressed with.

Dunno this guy did a pretty good job of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

[RandFan]

Dunno this guy did a pretty good job of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Sorry?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

At Genesis 1:1 the earth and heavens (universe) including the sun and moon were created and complete. The Hebrew verb, having two states - the imperfect (incomplete action) and the perfect (complete action) - so the verb bara at Genesis 1:1 indicates the creation was complete before the first creative day.

The first verse translated like that is a summary statement. It refers to the same creation as verses 3-31* do.


* Of course, if you wish you could also include the 7th day.

 

[Johnny Marseilles]

So the omnipotent deity can't even be precise in His language?

Primitive languages are always far more difficult than their modern descendants. Languages begin in complexity and simplify over time. Languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European languages.

The problem isn't with the deity it is with the modern "skeptic."

Oh, and the omnipotent deity is a fabrication of the dark ages. It isn't Biblically supported.

Care to point out which are which? And why you picked each one?

The Hebrew word yohm is translated as day in 3 different ways. I pick each one because they are each used in 3 different ways and each are used in a similar way today, which demonstrates it isn't the ancient Hebrew or God's fault, or a case of mistranslation. It is simply a lack of understanding on the part of the modern day "educated" "skeptic."

1. The daylight hours - Genesis 1:5a (KJV) 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

2. The day and the night - Genesis 1:5b (KJV) And the evening and the morning were the first day.

3. All the 6 days together as one - Genesis 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Again, the Lord God Almighty can't even speak intelligibly?

No, again you misunderstand.

I have NEVER heard that argument made.

Now you have. The day of rest was the period of time in which God intended for Adam to have filled the earth and subdue it. Since Adam slowed things down we can't enter into that seventh day, so David and then Paul, 4 and 7 thousand years later pointed this out. (Psalm 95:8-11 / Hebrews 4:9, 11) Since this hasn't changed the seventh "day" may be thousands of years longer than the 9 thousand it is today. We may enter it when God's purpose is complete, once sin is removed.

No, it's not. Three days means 72 hours, give or take. A day means a solar day. It does NOT mean thousands of years. We have an entirely different term for that: Millennium.

So in our "day," unlike the ancient Hebrew "day," or yohm, to say the "day" is a 24 hour period, figurative or literal, must only be applied thus? My grandfather's day implies that he lived for only 24 hours? In the days of the caveman? What about the dawn of science, or the twilight of our lives?

 

[tsig]

Conversely he may have had a perfectly good reason for letting it go down the way it did. A good teacher doesn't spoon feed the student, but leads them to the answers. Man by his very nature is intensely curious creature, and discovering the unknown has been a driving passion since we first walked the Earth



But you will agree thats the providence of those arrogant enough to claim to know God's mind. Clearly if God is anything like we might imagine, that is an impossiblity

God has his reasons (to teach) but it'd be arrogant to claim to know gods' mind?

 

[MG1962]

God has his reasons (to teach) but it'd be arrogant to claim to know gods' mind?

I actually said he "may have"

 

[Atma]

Genesis is just the story of how all men sin, and it was the most popular and widely circulated story at the time in the ME, so it was adopted into the bible. It was never meant to explain nothing more than how man was created and any other surrounding BASIC concepts in realtion to creation.

How it became accepted as fact today is history.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hello Hans,

Most Bibles are copyrighted. The KJV isn't. Of course you can still post limited portions of it without violating the copyright.

I didn't see any copyright notice. Anyway, I call 'fair use'.

If you compare Genesis and the creation account with the science of the day in which it was written you may have a point. Today's science, however, is not yesterday's or for that matter, tomorrow's science, so the point is moot.

No. The point is that some Christians claim that the bible predicts scientific discoveries. That is what I'm addressing. Presumably they mean present science (otherwise their point is moot). Future science may change, but I doubt it will find a much different sequence for the creation of earth.

If, however, for the sake of entertainment, such an exercise is attempted it would be best to consider the language of the original as closely as possible. Having read this thread quickly I can see that the Hebrew words bara, (create Genesis 1:1) asah, (made Genesis 1:16) yohm, (day) ohr (light Genesis 1:3) and maohr (the source of light Genesis 1:14) are important.

IMHO it is moot to discuss detailed semantics in a dead language. The exact meaning of those words for the people of the time can never be known for certain. Add to this that we don't even know for sure what the original wording was; we do not have a single original document.

At Genesis 1:1 the earth and heavens (universe) including the sun and moon were created and complete. The Hebrew verb, having two states - the imperfect (incomplete action) and the perfect (complete action) - so the verb bara at Genesis 1:1 indicates the creation was complete before the first creative day. At Genesis 1:3 the Hebrew waiyomer is used in the imperfect state and should note progress in action, for example, in James Washington Watts’ translation (1963) (brackets his) - Afterward God proceeded to say, “Let there be light”; and gradually light came into existence.

Yes, it is always interesting how recent bible translations tend to adapt to our actual knowledge.

The version I quote, however, says: There was light. And distinctly mentions each day, finally it says that on the seventh day, God rested.

That different versions can be found only serves to undermine the authority of the book.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Primitive languages are always far more difficult than their modern descendants. Languages begin in complexity and simplify over time. Languages of non-literate peoples are far more complex than modern European languages.

The problem isn't with the deity it is with the modern "skeptic."

Oh, and the omnipotent deity is a fabrication of the dark ages. It isn't Biblically supported.



The Hebrew word yohm is translated as day in 3 different ways. I pick each one because they are each used in 3 different ways and each are used in a similar way today, which demonstrates it isn't the ancient Hebrew or God's fault, or a case of mistranslation. It is simply a lack of understanding on the part of the modern day "educated" "skeptic."

1. The daylight hours - Genesis 1:5a (KJV) 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

2. The day and the night - Genesis 1:5b (KJV) And the evening and the morning were the first day.

3. All the 6 days together as one - Genesis 2:4 (KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,



No, again you misunderstand.



Now you have. The day of rest was the period of time in which God intended for Adam to have filled the earth and subdue it. Since Adam slowed things down we can't enter into that seventh day, so David and then Paul, 4 and 7 thousand years later pointed this out. (Psalm 95:8-11 / Hebrews 4:9, 11) Since this hasn't changed the seventh "day" may be thousands of years longer than the 9 thousand it is today. We may enter it when God's purpose is complete, once sin is removed.



So in our "day," unlike the ancient Hebrew "day," or yohm, to say the "day" is a 24 hour period, figurative or literal, must only be applied thus? My grandfather's day implies that he lived for only 24 hours? In the days of the caveman? What about the dawn of science, or the twilight of our lives?

Is there any point to these fairy stories?

 

[MRC_Hans]

5. Morning and evening are figurative and even if taken literally wouldn't constitute a solar 24 hour day.

In ANY language, how can you interpret

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
.....
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
.....
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
....etc.

as anything but the description of a passage of literal days?

If someone had meant years, or any other time-span, surely they would have used the appropriate word for that?

7. The seventh creative day of rest continues in David's day and later in Paul's day and continues today. It hasn't ended.

No, it is explicitly stated that we commemorate it with a single say every week. Why, the whole structure of weeks stem from that.

8. The term day is used today pretty much the same as it was in the ancient Hebrew. It doesn't always mean 24 hours.

When you say something like "from morning to evening" it always does (or 12 hours, but we have not yet seen a day not followed, at least technically, by a night).

Hans

 

[excaza]

In ANY language, how can you interpret ... as anything but the description of a passage of literal days?

Because it suits their argument.