I guess you absolutely do not believe anything in the bible, is that correct? It’s all a myth to you, right?
I am jumping into a conversation that I haven’t followed but just going by your words
I would like to point out that in Exodus the Israelites were put to some very specific tests to see if they would obey God. The story of the mana makes it absolutely clear that God meant a very specific day on which to hold the Sabbath. They were allowed to collect more on the day before it and the manna didn’t rot, whereas on any other day it did if they kept any of it over. There can be no better indication that God meant a very specific day. This ties in with the fact that He states directly in Exodus 20:8-11 that He created everything in 6 human understandable days, not billions of years.
I guess it all boils down to who one accepts as one’s authority on our origins - God or man.
No. I believe everything in the Bible. Some things in the Bible are not literal. I believe that the majority of the Bible is real including I believe in angels , I believe in fallen angels, and I believe that prophets spoke the words of God, and I believe that the apostles literally raised corpses from the dead and brought them back to life, and I believe the witch of Endor that Saul talked too really summoned up the ghost of Samuel. I believe that on Pentecost people seen flames falling down and landing on the apostles and they spoke new languages they never learned. I believe that Jesus really is the son of Yahweh. I believe that John foretold the events of Nero and Titus begin fighting Jerusalem and shortly after Nero died Titus destroyed the temple. I believe that the apostles and those who recorded the laying on of hands was resurrecting corpses, healing the sick, casting out demons, and being unharmed by venomous snakes. I believe Jesus’s corpse came back to life and that two angels rolled a stone out of the way and that Jesus eventually ascended to heaven in some way. I believe that Moses literally parted the red seas, that his staff turned into a snake or something mythological, and that Sampson has super strength and that God sent a supernatural fire down and destroyed Sodom.
So I believe in the supernatural, the incredible magical powers of God, and so on. However somethings in the Bible was not written as being true.
The first even chapters of Genesis seems to be written in a creation myth poem style. It’s not written in a way that is meant to be interpreted as literal history. Science has no role in my understanding of Genesis. If Genesis 1-11 was written as a historical narrative then I would do one of two things. 1. I would either accept it as truth and reject science. I would call all scientists liars or deceived and cling to my faith. Or 2. I would see that it was wrong and call the Bible a book of lies.
However, genesis 1-11 does not demand a literal interpretation. It’s writing style is completely different 12 and onward.
I also recognize that the writing style of Job and Jonah is clearly fictional.
I see that throughout the Bible hyperbolic and symbolic language is used again and again. Such as in one verse it says all Canaanites were killed and then it says some were alive. I see that revelation was not written to be understood literally. There is no giant sea monsters or a vampire woman prostitute and Satan is not a dragon. There was no 4 Horsemen riding around killing people. It was very symbolic. The reason why is because how it was written. I just apply that same address does to other books and areas of scripture.
1 Like
It does not boil down to ones sense of authority. It’s not Gods way or the scientific way. After all the majority of us in here believes in God, believes in the Bible, and yet we still recognize that genesis 1-11 is not literal.
It’s not choosing between God and man on out origins.
It’s choosing between good biblical hermeneutics based off of contextual analysis of genesis 1-11 that indicates it’s a fictional mythological narrative versus ignoring all of the clues in the text and forcing a fall belief that it’s meant to be interpreted literally.
If you realize it’s not a autobiographical and historical narrative meant to be read literally, then it opens up the doorway for science to be accepted. If you wrongly accept genesis 1-11 as literal, then it closes all doors except the silly notion of early young earth creationism.
So the choice is not science or God. The choices is a literal or no literal interpretation of the creation account.
Then the second choice is the implications of those interpretations and how it interacts with science.
1 Like
A myth tradition from nearly a thousand years before the final edit of course.
And in answer to the OP, just like the infinity of others from eternity. By nature. Nature being instantiated by God.
Yes, there is a distinction between the vault of heaven and the waters above. Exactly what those might refer to, if anything in particular, is less clear. The imagery of the vault of heaven is that of a solid dome. Note that the Bible does not say “the sky is a solid dome”. It uses words suggestive of that, but that is what it looks like. Did ancient Hebrews think that the sky was a solid dome, or were they just using old conventional words (like our continued use of “sunrise”), or did they even particularly think about the structure of the sky? If we try to misinterpret the Bible as a science text, then we run into the problem of a solid dome for the sky; if we recognize that it’s not telling us about science, then the nature of the “vault” is a matter of literary curiosity.
The Bible affirms that the universe is temporally finite - it has a beginning. That is a major reason why geologists of the early 1800’s saw geology as supporting the Bible, in opposition to the eternalist speculations popular in the “Enlightenment”, and why the Big Bang was rather unpopular in certain atheistic circles. But both the geologists of the 1800’s and the astronomers of the 1900’s recognized that the scientific data pointed towards an ancient earth. No scientific evidence supports a young earth against an old earth (relativity does allow it to be both old and young, depending on the speed of the observer). Science is not the ultimate authority, but anyone who wants to credibly claim to be following the Bible must be honest, including in talking about scientific evidence.
Exodus certainly includes emphasis on obeying the Sabbath law, but that does not tell us anything about whether the seven-day pattern of Genesis 1-2 is a calendar week versus more symbolic.
1 Like
After seeing a mediocre performance of the Bible in a competition with comic books on which has the best description of nature, maybe one might stop trying to measure the Bible on that particular scale. Time to stop it with this absurd notion of making the Bible out to be a science textbook. I know it is embarrassing to the religionists for scientists to have such a better connection to God through nature itself, but don’t you think they should just accept their limitations when it comes to questions about nature and instead focus on the things where science doesn’t have any answers?
Is it not reasonable to leave the question of how the world was created to science and let religion focus on the question of why the world was created?
1 Like
Interesting diagrams, Dave. Unfortunately you seem to have left out the 4th day in which both the sun and moon as well as the stars were all placed in the separation between the waters. This puts a little kink in the rest of your diagrams because now you are proposing that all the waters ABOVE the stars came down to the earth…which is a bit of a stretch to say the least. Read where God stretched out the heavens like a tent and look at what we see today as a universe filled with stars and galaxies billions of light years across…when did God stretch out the heavens? Before or after the flood? How much water was placed above the vault? More than was on earth or less? You show all the water above disappeared and should now be on earth, ready to be restored in the 1000 year kingdom? Then why need a new heavens and a new earth?
Maybe you should revisit your diagrams again?
So when exactly does real history start? Was Jesus mistaken when he said “…in the beginning He created them male and female…” Is that beginning the exact same one as “…In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”?
The assumption of a creation myth poem style is the usual story thrown out be those who would much rather submit to the praise of men. Your choice. Have a great life.
“Science” has absolutely zero answer as to how the world was created! You do realize that, don’t you?
Nor does any Christian alive today know how the world/universe was created! They do have a great description and a very definite timeline but the deep ins-and-outs no one knows but God.
Religion has absolutely zero answer as to how the world was created! You do realize that, don’t you?
There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that God has ever had any intention whatsoever of explaining how He created the world.
Science has tons and tons and tons of answers as to how the world was created! How? Because we can observe the process happening throughout the universe. The creation of the whole universe has left its footprint not only in the light still traveling to us from these events but also in the very laws of nature themselves. For example we know where the substance of the Earth came from, just like we know where the substance of most things come from in the world around us came from by simply watching it happen. When a baby is born, do all those molecules simply appear as a magical creation of a deity? No they do not. We know this because we can watch it happening. What does religion tell us about such things? NOTHING!
Incorrect. Not from reading the Bible to be sure. But SOME Christians do open their eyes, ears, and minds to all the data God is sending us from every corner of the universe. Not all Christians shut their eyes, ears and minds.
Scientists yes. But from the Bible? No.
1 Like
Sigh…firstly I didn’t say anywhere that the vault is a solid dome. I simply pointed out what the text is very clearly stating - the lights were put into the space between the two waters. Do you want to deny that that is what it says? Go ahead.
Furthermore, whether you want to recognize the scientific statement that is clearly visible or not is neither here nor there. I choose to see it as it is clear to me and that is all that matters.
The same applies to Exodus 20:8-11. It clearly states that God created everything in six days - everything in heaven and everything on earth. Whether you believe those words or not is again your own business strictly between you and God. If you choose to teach others that God did not write those words with that exact meaning, that’s between you and Him. As for me, it is clear that God intended to convey the exact number of days that mankind should work and then take a break on the seventh day. What you do with those words are up to you - spread your own interpretation as much as you want - the consequences will be dealt with when you face God on judgement day - to see whether what you have built stands the test of fire, just as Paul said.
So what did I say, mate? Your haste to answer shows up clearly.
No you cannot observe anything. No one has ever observed a planet being formed - they might interpret certain images as showing that that is what is happening but no - it is still far out. Even further out is the observation of any star being “born”. If you were to provide the documented observation of either planet or star being “Born” you’d probably be awarded the Nobel prize…
Where do those “laws” come from???..did the material decide to formulate and subject itself to such “laws” which are understandable by human beings? Did the material decide that it would randomly create human beings so that its “laws” would be amenable to the logic which those humans would apply to its workings?
REaly? Please do tell. Just note that stars cannot form all by themselves in violation of the Jeans Mass Limit…
No you cannot. Prove it.
The religion of the atheist tells you that the universe made itself out of nothing. When the universe itself was still nothing, it decided to fashion itself out of nothing before it got to make itself out of nothing.
So you and a whole lot of others have decided that because of your prior agenda that you cannot tolerate Genesis 1-11 to stand as literal you’ve come up with a neat way to put your own meaning on it. So just when exactly does real history start? And how do you know that your starting point is indeed the right one?
So what makes you so sure that your hermeneutics is better than mine? Who is the arbiter of good hermeneutics? I read it the way I read it. You read it and want to put your spin on it - your choice. It means to me what I see it clearly stating to me - all within the most important context of all - that of the one who actually did the creating Himself. Jesus said “…in the beginning He created them male and female…” wherein the “beginning” is exactly the same as Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning…”
You and your buddies are free to invent your own beginning - good luck with that.
No, it’s not a realization that I need, it’s simply your opinion that wants to make it so. I see clearly that the sequence and time indications are literal. You can see them as whatever you want as long as it makes you happy that it achieves its purpose for you.
This is obviously where it becomes clear who your authority is on our origins. It’s not the one who created us it’s man-made science. Your choice, mate.
How it interacts with science? Is science the be all and end-all in life? For you perhaps, Not so much for me. I prefer to know exactly how the bible and my understanding interacts with GOD’s will, thank you very much.
I’ll read through it and respond later on this evening.
But to state, and this is something you’ll notice stated here often.
Applying contextual analysis to genesis 1-11 and determining that it is not written in a literal historical or autobiographical way but instead is written in a fictional poetic style has nothing to do with science. It’s purely reading comprehension. Has nothing to do with science what so ever.
You did not say that the sky is a solid dome, but the imagery of the Hebrew text (here and other uses of raqia, as well as the root of the word) suggests that. If Genesis 1 is interpreted as a strictly scientific narrative in a modern sense, then we should conclude that the sky is a solid dome.
It is easy to be mistaken in interpretation. By claiming that putting the lights into the space between the two waters is a scientific statement, you are treating Genesis 1 as a modern scientific text, but it is an ancient Near Eastern text, not a modern Western one. The key points of Genesis 1 are that everything is made by God and has its proper place. Sun, moon, the sea and the like are not gods.
But neither is it a meaningless existence governed by blind chance. Humans have a particular role, caring for God’s creation. With our modernistic mindsets, we tend to come to Genesis (and the rest of Scripture) asking “when, how?”, but the actual critical questions are “who, why?”
Leviticus 25:8 says that the jubilee year follows a day of 49 years. Genesis 2:4 speaks of one day of creation. Exodus 20 sets the pattern of Sabbath rest for us, but is not a very good proof that creation took a single calendar week.
I believe the words of Exodus 20:8-11, and also 20:16. The scientific evidence unambiguously supports an ancient earth, and that has been clear for about 250 years. We must be honest about what the science indicates, whether we decide to accept it or to rely on something else. Presuming to teach that which one neither knows nor understands is not a good thing, as I Timothy tells us. We should be very careful not to spread claims without carefully verifying them. Saying “here’s my interpretation” is perfectly reasonable, but we must keep in mind the limits of our interpretations - it is Scripture, not our interpretation, which is inerrant.
Although science is good for some things, it is neither the ultimate authority nor the best way to convey certain information. Insisting that Genesis 1 must be science while rejecting the finds of science is a post-“Enlightenment” approach, not the historic position of the church.
1 Like
My take on the Genesis account requires the inspiration of God to explain creation to Bronze Age people, those with Greek understanding (like Augustine), Medieval Europeans, and to 21st century readers who hold today’s science as reliable. However, we should not hold onto what the generations added to the story so that it made sense to them. The inspiration must align with what is viewed real today.
The Bible’s first line is the writer’s creed and his total cosmology. This belief was held for thousands of years and by all of the OT prophets. “One God created everything. No others need apply.” Heaven and Earth can be interpreted as everything above and everything below. This theme runs throughout the chapter.
We must start in the right place. @Paraleptopecten summarized this time beautifully. Not the formation of our planet, but the Big Bang. If this chapter was written by God’s prophet, then he was not seeing rocks or he would have mentioned rocks.
What is more formless then the initial singularity? Nothing. It had no height, depth, or width. What is more void then the initial inflation? The nothingness let space spread faster than the speed of light because not even light existed at that time.
The spreading cooled the universe enough to form plasma, a form of super-hot energy that moves like water. With that transformation, everything slowed down to roughly the expansion rate we see now.
The Bible says God hovered over the dark and deep water. At that time, the universe was so thick with plasma particles that light could not travel. Everything was dark. God hovering (think mother bird) caused tiny ripples. Only recently have scientists been able to conceive of those waves. Moving particles let gravity pull unevenly, which opened up spaces between. The photons had room to move. Suddenly the entire universe lit up. “Let there be light.”
But that time did not last long. The growing number of atoms latched onto the photons and the universe grew dark again.
Gravity was still working. Clouds of atoms drew together until the first star burst light out of the darkness. Science matches the biblical description. There were two first lights. One of them all encompassing and the other out of darkness.
Day 2 forms the Earth. Do not hold vault, expanse, or firmament to strictly. We do not know what the writer actually visualized. The other biblical uses of that word do not mean an upside down metal bowl. The Hebrews were not that specific. It seems to mean, “all that stuff above my head.” It included air, clouds, planets, stars, and any nice spiritual place that humans could not touch.
Even with all that vagueness, the wording again matches today’s science.
The young Earth was without standing water. The planet formed too near the much hotter early sun. It was also hit by a Mars sized rock, which also formed the moon. Our planet could not have held onto an atmosphere. However, mists would have been produced by heated rock (Genesis 2:6 has nothing to do with the Great Flood). There was no sky to speak of, so it was not mentioned.
Scientists speculate that much of Earth’s water, including the atmosphere, did come from above. The early meteor bombardments brought most of it. The rest was released as those big rocks, and the ground they hit, evaporated. All the trapped gasses became our atmosphere. It did not contain much oxygen. That transformation happened with the early life forms (plant ancestors) that ate methane and polluted Earth with the oxygen we enjoy.
Only after Earth had an atmosphere could liquids accumulate into oceans (the water below).
Day 3 has land seen above the water. Science says the early Earth did not have continents. These formed by the combination of volcanism, water, and atmosphere. Such rocks are also lighter than the original rocks. That means that when plates collide a continent will always ride above an oceanic plate, which builds a mountain range of volcanoes. Two continents colliding will always build a different kind of mountain range. The Bible again matches science. Dry land did grow to be seen above the water. Paleontology says the first creatures to live above water level were plants. They were also the first to colonize dry land.
The rest of the chapter follows the same pattern, but you can’t see it if you read it like a list. The first three days open up spaces that the second three days fill. Day 4 fills the universe with astral bodies that humans use to tell time (theme: everything above). Day 5 fills the extreme environments of Earth’s ocean and sky with animals (theme: every animal below and every animal above). Day 6 fills the land with animals and humans. (theme: every animal between above and below).
I believe the Bible also agrees with and describes standard evolution theories. The Hebrew of Genesis 1 generalizes all the life forms mentioned. No species, genus, or family are mentioned. The wording only accepts Kingdom, phylum, class, and order. Even the humans are human-kind, not Adam and Eve. There is so much generalization, it must have been deliberate. Generalization accepts every living plant and animal’s ancestors back to the first life form made from the minerals of the Earth. Not one is left out.
Genesis never says anything about clay sculptures brought to life. In a vision, the first life forms would have looked like dirt. All life eventually returns to that mineral status. What about dust? Think “the least of these.” Dust is dirt you sweep out of your house. It is what makes you sneeze or clogs your nose. It is not special. It is annoying. The Creator used the same processes (evolution) to form the universe and all life. He took the least and the last of creation to form something special. In an existing lineage, God placed a spirit that made animals into creatures like himself. Only that gift makes us special.
Genesis 2 does not contradict the order of creation. It places plants, humans, and animals into a specific place but does not insist on that being the original order or that any of those things were created inside the garden.
I hope this helps.
1 Like
Not with your eyes, ears, and mind closed you cannot.
The observation of some things require opening more than one of these at the same time.
Ah yes this must be the usual empty creationist rhetoric. Something which takes billions of years cannot be observed because nobody lives that long. It is downright silly and hilarious. But the truth is that events taking billions of years leave observable records behind, so yes we can observe them happening. But demanding the impossibility of watching a billion year process in real time is a childish degree of willful blindness. We are watching both planets and stars being formed right now and this childish demand means nothing.
Some come from symmetry breaking events and the origin of others are not known objectively but only by the subjective imposition of ideology and religion. To be sure I personally believe that God created many of these laws of nature by design as part of the space-time geometry of the physical universe. But where the laws come from has no bearing on the fact that the footprint of how things came to be as they are can be seen in laws of nature as we observe them today.
This is a nonsensical question. The laws of nature are not legislated on anything but are the geometry of the space-time structure of the universe from which matter and energy has its existence. Life is a self-organizing process which can occur in the right conditions. Matter doesn’t make decisions, but self-organizing processes do make choices which appear random when you insist on a framework of time-ordered causality. Logic is a highly flexible tool which can make sense of a vast array of things including those which are real and those which are not. So expecting surprise that the laws of nature are amenable to logic is unreasonable. At most, logic only distinguishes reality from dreams.
Ok, since you asked. Cosmology explains the origin of hydrogen which provides the fuel for stars which make the heavier elements up to iron, then the even heavier elements are produced by supernovae and the collisions of neutron stars.
Yes we do observe this happening and can prove it. All it requires is using the eyes, ears, and minds God gave us to observe and study all the data God sends us from every corner of the universe instead of stubbornly closing eyes, ears, and minds to ignore God, in order to insist that only what we have chosen to believe is real. Let’s see… what did Jesus say about people like this? oh yeah their “heart has grown dull” and they do not “turn for me to heal them,” fulfilling a prophesy from Isaiah. Interesting how this goes hand in hand with that passage 1 Cor 1 quoting Isaiah 29 about God destroying the wisdom of the wise, which both turn out to about religious people.
The philosophies and ideologies of atheists are legion and they tell them all sorts of different things – interesting how this same exact thing is also true of theists. Science certainly shows us that there are many things that make themselves, but not out of nothing. Science shows us the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago along with space and time which we have no objective reason to believe existed previously in any way. Both theist and atheist can speculate subjectively about how and why this happened, but there is no objective evidence about this and science can tell us nothing about it.
Yes a whole lot of Christians have decided to understand Genesis in a manner consistent with the way that Jesus taught us to understand things rather than according to those he describes with the words “people’s heart has grown dull.”
2 Likes
So who is insisting that it’s science? It’s a simple, straight forward historical narrative that describes certain (miraculous) events within a certain specified timeframe. I take it as read - that it is a true account of something that happened in the past. With that as my basis, I make a simply deduction. You can treat it as whatever you wish and run into all kinds of theological difficulties later - that’s your problem, not mine.
Really? Where exactly is the origin of hydrogen explained? All its constituents? All the forces that bind it together? Nowhere. No one knows what it is. Better deal with that.
Then further - I’ve already made a point that it’s impossible for stars to self-form via clouds of gas - for the simple reason that such a notion would have to overcome the Jeans Mass limit. You seem to have neatly side-stepped that issue.
And once again - no one has observed stars forming in space all by themselves. If anyone had done so it would be world news and we would be celebrating the award of Nobel prizes. Please also get that under your hat. It has never been observed. What part of that sentence do you not understand?
You’re not asking for a scripture, I hope.
1 Like