Poetically Harmonizing Genesis with Science

My issue with concordism is this, and ONLY this: when someone tries to provide a scientific explanation for each and EVERY text.

When it comes to Genesis… I think some of it is just “nice poetic filler” that has no real reference to scientific law or facts.

George

It is the words chosen by scientists that need to be examined within the context of Church dogma dealing with sacred text that is the issue. The discussion becomes hopeless when we focus only on Neo-Darwinism, but a meaningful discussion can take lace on a broader front. For example, eternity is a concept that is increasingly understood within science as taught by Christianity. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, can now be discussed at a deeper level by considering the various models and maths debated by physicists. The act of creation is now debated as a total concept, while some see it as a “bottom up”, others as “top down” and others as an open system subject to modification. Even though people may speak of the big bang as a beginning, at a quantum mechanics, information may be obtained within a classical context, that points to a “beginning of creation”, defying a linear concept of time at a QM level. Arguments are also made regarding random, chance, causality - all concepts and words that are debated by science, and even greater speculation occurs on these early days of information concepts.

It is not fear of failure, but rather the need for debate by philosophers of science who may see both the science and philosophy, and who would enable a dialogue with theology, that is the issue. For example, atheists oppose a lot of the implications from physics for the very reason, that when understood correctly, the meaning is clearly that of Christian teachings on creation (and not mechanical putting into motion), nor an eternity of matter, nor a super dense primal atom that started a big bang.

We should endeavour to obtain a good understanding of theology, philosophy and science, before we declare these bronze age writers as primitives who lacked inspiration on spiritual matters. The Bible is probably the most scrutinised and misread book on this planet, yet the faith stands to this day - I think debates derived from attempts to fit its meaning with the latest scientific concepts can lead to mistakes. Scientific concepts have evolved greatly, and will continue to do so.

Well, I agree with your objections as far as they go. But, they do not take into account how the poetry works, and you insist on a Western linear progression. What we have is an inspired text that gives us an outline and the order in which God created the universe that matches what modern scientists have determined.

A is sort of correct (if I understand your statement). Gen 1 does not “intend,” it is not an intelligent being. The writer had intent to teach. God had intent to teach. The writer probably had no idea his teaching would be used thousands of years later. God did, so made it usable to all generations by inspiring the writer and those who kept the text. When I first read your statement, I interpreted “elements” as in chemical elements, but I think you are using it to mean groups. So yes, the chronological order of the groups described in the poem do match science if read poetically and not linearly.

B is correct.

All the lineages of land plants start at one time to fill the barren land (water plants are not mentioned). All the lineages of land animals start at one time to fill the plant covered land. That happened with incredible speed (geologically speaking). The text does not need to specify that fungus were the first tall land plants or that the first land animals still needed water for their eggs to develop or that their lineages began in the ocean long before land plants. His point was that ALL the land plants and ALL the land animals were created by One God, a repeat of His creed.

The poet does name a few groups of plants and animals. These references are very vague large groups. The poets description of plants may seem to us a description of “flowering” plants thus out of order. However, it is more simplistic than that: fish swim, birds fly, and plants have seeds and fruit. Like sea animals, plants come in small and large sizes (tree).

Sea animals are grouped with birds. There should be lots of critters between. However, taken as a circular unit of poetry, the writer is repeating the creed from Gen1:1 with the added visual aid. From the bottom of the ocean to the highest flying bird, all animals are created by God. Putting land animals in the middle would have distracted from that point and mucked up the poetry.

Circular pattern is not linear pattern. They are interlinking circles. On day 5, sea creatures fill the oceans of day 2 and everything else follows, which includes birds that fly in the atmosphere created at the beginning of day 2. That is a circle. However, day 3 happens before day 5. Land plants fill the land of day 3, which comes after day 2 but before day 5. That is linking circles. He uses circular pattern to show the connections between these groups. Western linear progression simply makes progression simpler to see but the connections more difficult. All life came out of the ocean. The first to live on land were the plants followed by the land animals and humans.

Why do you have this objection? What if the explanation for those “fillers” has not yet been discovered? What if some of those “fillers” can be explained scientifically but no one has made the connection? Do you object to that? Do you object that someone trying?

Actually, I sort of agree that some biblical passages will never quite match reality. But I am willing to accept a new interpretation that works or get excited that someone is getting close.

The way you word ideas always makes my brain jerk sideways. Kind of like that.

I am guessing your association with the word dogma is positive and useful. Mine has some of that but not in general. I find religious dogma stagnant, which hides false doctrine and kills God’s inspiration. So we start off on different ends of probably the same stick.

You want scientists to examine their wording. I believe they generally choose the most appropriate words and generally try to be specific (I do like how physics words match biblical concepts). Old philosophy tried to do the same. However, that never meant meanings were always understood. Communication is definitely the key. Today’s religious writers are not that way. Too many cannot use the rules of logic. Too many prefer propaganda to actual proofs. Too many redefine meaning to fit a particular theology so understanding is confused.

I want the Bible to be real. I want the Genesis texts to show divine inspiration. Too many interpretations of these texts lack reason to believe. I want a reason to believe. I want a reason that will jerk the brains of atheists and believers alike.

I am probably closer to your position than it sounds.

So I suppose if a Creationist talked himself into thinking that Genesis was a perfect match to Evolutionary Science … who am I to stand in his way.

But, generally, I think “the LITERAL interpretation of every verse” is at the HEART of the problem … not the solution.

George

This is very interesting to me. It seems like “Order of presentation and order of events are not the same thing in ancient Hebrew literature. Indeed, Hebrew lacks the kinds of verbal tense inflection we tend to expect.” an important fact that I haven’t heard before. Would very conservative Bible scholars agree with that? Is there some publication (ideally online) that explains what the problems or limitations of Hebrew in regards interpreting passages like in Genesis? I wish someone could do an interpretation of Genesis 1-5 using the right principles. I realize that some things could not be pinned down in the interpretation itself, but could be addressed in footnotes.

1 Like

I think I am beginning to understand your position somewhat - dogma to me is the teachings of the Christian faith put in a coherent manner that obtains a universal agreement within the Church. For example, the trinity doctrine is dogma, as is that God is the creator of heaven and earth. So I take these as given, living, articulations of God’s revelation, but worded after a great deal of discussion by the Church, and grounded in Biblical authority.

What you describe, I regard as heresy and rampant speculation without any grounding in Biblical authority. A lot of what I have gleaned from a couple of years on this site smacks of what you describe as stagnant, but also nonsense motivated by “culture wars” and ideology. So my outlook has shifted from considering a lot of stuff on this site as self-promoting nonsense, to an unfortunate outcome of differences that seem to focus on peripheral areas of Biblical teachings, which have been dealt by the Church over a long period (eg is the earth old, is the sky a dome).

I am a practicing scientist so I understand that we choose our words carefully, and I also understand that little of these definitions are aimed at theological teachings. Thus I regard some statements that non-scientists take into theological discussions as leading to error. It is not that science is wrong or that theology is stagnant - it is the meaning of words in this area should go through a process of philosophical (science) discussion and this would then include theological discussion. Not an easy thing to do in our age of massive information.

1 Like

I wonder if you are trying to get too scientific by looking too closely at the details in this way?

Suppose we stick to a poetic viewpoint without letting the science or literalism constrain us?

As you are doubtless aware, Shakespeare often used poetry in parts of his narrative-like plays. Last year I stumbled across a great analysis of such an instance in “Romeo and Juliet” as they meet and are attracted; the ‘creation’ of their romance. To the outside observer it is just mere dialogue. And if that same outside outside observer were additionally cold and heartless, it would appear to be totally unrealistic. But look more closely; Shakespeare adopts not only poetry, but the highest form of poetry for him, the sonnet. And even further, he casts this sonnet, which would usually be monologue, as brilliantly shared dialogue; and yet further this sharing gets increasingly intimate and intertwined as the lovers get to know each other across these fourteen lines.

The creation of Romeo and Juliet’s romance. The Genesis account of creation. Suppose we let those two resonate with each other. And suppose, depressingly and by complete contrast, that we also let the crudely literalist reading of Genesis resonate with a Friday evening bar-room chat-up.

It so happens that I wrote a little article last year about just this:

http://www.servicemusic.org.uk/docs/creationism.htm

1 Like

Another poetic line of thought. In my spare time (away from the day-job in IT in scientific research) I am a songwriter and hymnwriter. I realised that we have seem to have no hymns that take science seriously. Yes, there are several that talk about present-day nature, such as “How great thou art” and “Great is thy faithfulness”. But none that resonate with the wonders of the deeper science. This isn’t really surprising; the language of the peer-reviewed science paper doesn’t normally lend itself too readily to the language of worship-songs and hymns!

So here’s one. This approach seems to honour both what the scripture authors knew (and didn’t know) and what science knows (and can’t know). It lets them resonate with each other, but without trying to force a contrived concordism, and also (I hope) without falling into the “God of the gaps” trap.

In terms of our scientific desire to understand every last detail (good and right and proper!) I draw your attention to the last line of verse 3. (And spot the book reference in the last line of verse 2.)

1.  In chaos and nothingness, you of unnameable Name
    spoke into the emptiness, fanning dark energy's flame.
    Your Spirit was hovering, racing and shaping the birth
    of galaxy clusters, of sun and the moon and the earth.

2.  Your voice pierced the darkness, your Word blazed your light on the world;
    whole continents drifted while aeons and ages unfurled;
    and coaxing the DNA helix to double and bind,
    your Spirit breathed origin to every species and kind.

3.  O Lord, where were we when you laid the foundations of earth?
    When morning stars harmonised song, when the oceans burst forth?
    When you played your dice, when you planned that through chance life evolved?
    In mere mortal span, still your mysteries remain unresolved.

4.  So where then is wisdom, and can understanding be found?
    Yet heavens are voicing your glory: in Christ is their crown.
    Invisible God, given visible image, you came,
    breathed order and life: Jesus Christ, Name above every name.

       Transcendent and immanent, God ever three, ever one:
       we praise you and worship you, Father and Spirit and Son.

Hope that helps.

1 Like

We have a holy book. Most religions have holy books. What makes ours better than theirs?

When I ask that question, most people say, “Because it is inspired.” But believers in the other books say the same. Where is the proof that ours is more inspired or theirs not inspired? Where is the proof that the Bible is not just good philosophy mixed in with lies to make gullible people obey?

I have met people who lost faith in the Christian religion and cite Gen 1 first in their long list of stupid things people believe. The first chapter of an inspired holy book should not have logical reasons to be called stupid or a myth. I find it amazing that Augustine had this same observation. His solution served the Church well.

If only Gen 1 matched standard science, a person might say, “Lucky guess,” or “You manipulated the meaning to fit.” If we add Gen 2-11 to show all those strange little stories tell the same story as standard science, then one must be hard core against belief to deny something was going on.

Ontology is philosophy with a good mix of metaphysics, mostly ideas that cannot be falsified. Theology makes Gen 1 about spiritual things. The only spiritual aspect mentioned in Gen 1 is God. The rest of the text is about nature. Gen 1 rejects all other gods and spiritual forces of nature. Gen 1 and standard science have the same goal, the description of nature.

No. You still don’t get it.

I believe God gave Moses an actual vision of the historical creation. A vision does not dictate full understanding or comprehension. He got enough to set things into an order that matched or changed his understanding of nature. Because of God’s inspiration, it matches today’s understanding too.

Such a vision would contain too much detail to write in one historical document. A master poet, probably not Moses, captured the vision. Poetry can relay more concepts with less words than a narrative. It can SHOW the interplay of the parts without going into great detail. It is also easier to memorize or sing, which comes in handy when the population has few books/scrolls.

The poetry did not “disguise” meaning. The order is not “dislocated.” These words convey an almost evil intent. Instead, circular poetry shows how all the parts of a natural creation overlap and intertwine, which match standard science. A simple list does not do that, and one never will.

The traditional Christian interpretation of the text caries so many non-biblical details that our “vision” no longer coincides with the biblical text. Religion changed the meaning and lost the pattern. Westerners are very linear thinkers, so yes we need to read it like it was intended to be read to grasp the full meaning.

Yes, open communication. Lets not fall back into the near past when believers condemned believers of different denominations to hell just because they did not believe everything alike. I suspect that made God cry. Probably why our world is in such a spiritual mess.

Oh, I wish I could hear your tune. Keep writing.

Lovely

This line is great
"his painting of the beginning of his love story with it and with us"
That is the running theme of my books.

My motivation for writing this book has many reasons. Showing the biblical text as a miracle for non-believers is simply obvious and necessary to me but not to you. I’m not sure why you think that an “external reason” would tempt me to skip or add to the text. I have been quite diligent in keeping those out. One of the reasons to post here is to find any I did not notice. So far, no one has found one. You haven’t even tried. Your entire discourse is an attempt to turn me away from pursuing something good and amazing.

Bolstering confidence is a good thing. In that quest, I found that a poem interpreted by science gives a much clearer understanding of God’s motivations: his love, mercy, and forgiveness. That matches the Abba Jesus loved. I have found the texts say creation is one as its Creator is One. Humanity is one as its Creator is One. The oneness of creation and humanity are scientific beliefs. Understanding God and our relationship to God is incredibly important.

To me, your approach to the text is limited by your beliefs and knowledge. Case in point: the text does not dictate angiosperms, yet “flowering plants” is the only way you describe the passage. Conifers are not angiosperms. They have seeds that people eat. They were one of the first trees. You limit the text to a current scientific definition, not the writer’s understanding of plants.

Duh, of course science has changed. That never stopped people from trying to mesh it with the Bible. In fact, our understanding of geology started because of the desire to read the two as one. Modern Creationism started because the “geologists” kept finding things that did not fit. However the two could not be one because Christians believed lots of non biblical things about creation.

I never said it proved religious teaching as correct. Harmony is circumstantial evidence for inspiration. That gives a reason to believe in the God mentioned in the text.

What religion does not speak directly to a believer’s heart? Basically your statement says you prefer a false religion over the truth if the truth makes you uncomfortable. The words of Jesus repelled a lot of religious people for the same reason. You trust your opinion way too much.

I believe I said something like Gen 1 is an outline that science describes in detail. That poetic “outline” shows the “purposefulness of the arrangements of creation” and who made everything. Not sure why you have not picked that up yet.

People who read this passage before science started destroying the myth did not need science to understand it. Once knowledge showed the interpretation (believed to be textual) to be false we started needing the two to match. Atheism took off because these passages did not match. Atheism still thinks it knows better. You have nothing but opinion to give anyone to build faith.

For as much as you have written, I have no clue which version of the creation story you believe. The “traditional interpretation” starts out in statements like, “God created everything perfect.” Gen 1 never gives any indication of anything being made perfect. Perfection is not mentioned by any other biblical writer nor is it mourned. Any interpretation that includes perfection will never match science or the Bible. It will never give us a clear understanding of God or our relationship with God.

I have a book full of details I have not mentioned in this thread including why I believe Moses had a vision of creation. I’m not sure why you think this one detail is so important except to condemn me for 1) not telling you sooner or 2) “importing.” Tradition gives Moses credit. The text’s insistence of one God as a lone creator is unique to the Hebrews and very strong in the writings at the time of Moses. But tradition is not why I believe that Moses saw this vision.

You still do not accept that the passage is circular poetry even though the patterns match. Your reasons do not address the poetry or the match with science. Your objections show that you prefer something you can manipulate in your head and solidifying the text with science messes that up. You reject that God showed Moses a vision of creation because Moses could not see subatomic matter. Basically you think God is incapable of giving an adequate vision. You reject the need for reality in the text. Yet the text is all about the reality of God creating everything we can possibly know. You limit God.