I am not a historian nor an expert as technical scholar on this issue. Tradition agree of the authorship of Moses. While Moses might not write the whole of pentateuch, he might be the author of most of the pentateuch except on those passage concerning events after his death.
This is however a discussion beyond me as I am not the expert on this. I just take it for granted that is why the assumption. If not Moses, then you better come with someone.
I agree wholeheartedly that Genesis was written for the people at that times and written by people who with the knowledge of that same time. That is not what I am trying to cross here. my point is whether our modern science can be compatible with what they observed at the time. For example:
Genesis 1:2
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The vision said that darkness was over the fade of the deep.
our modern science said that there were thick cloud of dust on the atmosphere and prevented the sunlight to penetrate, thus the darkness. that is the compatibility that I am referring. is it possible that there might be a compatibility? perhaps. what if it is not? that is okay since Gen 1 is not the passage of science anyway. But we are searching since they both are telling about the same God.
Gen 1-11 is not a prophesy about the future, but a revelation about what had happened in the past. It is a story after the fact. it is documentary in nature because basically it is telling us what had happened in the past. the language is not allegorical like the book of revelation. If you read something about the past, it is always documentary in nature. why not Gen 1-11? Documentary history is the first thing we should explore about Gen 1-11. if it is not possible, then yes… let’s move on to other voyage of biblical discovery.
Well then maybe you can explain how the firmament is compatible with science. Remember that the firmament is a hard dome, the sun, moon, and stars are set in it, and above it there is a body of water.
Gen 1:6-8 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
from the viewpoint of the observant in the ancient times, they thought that there was water contained above (with is like a dome) where water would come down from time to time. That was as far as they knew. They had no knowledge of the science of water etc.
From the modern science (mind you that I am not the expert here and I only borrow mostly from the writing of Michael G Straus), it was the time when the atmosphere became translucent, so what was happening in the cloud became observable since the light now could penetrate though not fully. we had to wait till the atmosphere became transparent before sun and moon became observable.
… or the states of matter like solid, liquid, and gas. So sometime I wonder… even if they could see out farther into the universe, might they not describe it as a kind of sea? I am not looking for any kind of concordism… it just seems to me they didn’t have the words to describe much of anything that was happening in the creation of the universe, or the solar system, or the earth. So even if they did have a vision of such things, I am not sure we would recognize an attempt of theirs to describe what they saw.
The word that is translated here as expanse is also translated as firmament or dome. The Hebrew word is raqia. Here’s a very good article from the BioLogos archives:
@Miekhie I know you think highly of Dr. Strauss, but here is a quote from Chapter 12
Yes it wasn’t dark throughout the universe, but then he assumes the writer of Genesis would know there is a universe that is out there. Since they didn’t know the universe existed that makes this “detail” meaningless. He falls into the trap of assuming the author knows what he knows.
God’s perspective would be universal. The story is told from the perspective of a human on the surface of the earth. It also includes the limitations of that human, sight for example.
if you read it carefully, Dr. Strauss did not assume that. He assumes that we the modern readers to whom he is addressing would know that it wasn’t a dark universe at that period.
He is saying God didn’t give Moses any information about the universe. Since Moses didn’t know anything about the universe this still makes the detail meaningless. To be meaningful Genesis would have to say it was dark on the earth but not above the troposphere. Which Moses would really not understand.
And moving on to Chapter 13 he really gets the actual order of creation wrong. I suggest you take a look at his order of 1 - 10 and see if you can tell where he gets it wrong.
You might be right about this. Since Dr. Strauss himself believe it is God’s perspective, then he might assume that the writer of Gen 1 (God) knew that the universe wasn’t dark. On this point, I differ from him.
Maybe if you can just point it out, so to make the discussion shorter instead of me having a guessing game trying to see your view.
Earth starts out a loose collection of rocks and dust. Gravity forms it into a sphere so it has a form.
Water collects on the surface over time. As the water level rises a single continent is left.
As soon as liquid water is present the water cycle, in it’s simplest form, appears.
Life begins in the oceans. First single cell progressing to multi-cellular life forms.
The first plants appear.
Fish develop 4 limbs and transition to land.
Land based life gives rise to dinosaurs, lizards, birds, and small mammals among other forms.
Mammals return to the sea.
Humans appear.
His biggest problem is putting plants before sea life and implying sea mammals evolved in the sea. He accepts the great age of the earth but not evolution. But he should be aware of the sequence for the development of life even if it is by special creation. The order we see in the fossil record isn’t a result of accepting evolution. The book is basically apologetics and he is preaching to the choir.
Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis . The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants.
Now to be honest, I am not the expert here and reply to you just based on my common sense and my limited knowledge of chemical reaction.
from my reading of his book, I believe it was the oxygen level that cause the atmosphere to be transparent afterward. Now the oxygen came fromphytoplankton photosynthesis and also from plants. Animals need oxygen to survive. Thus plants came first. Now, phytoplankton had existed then, but it couldn’t be seen or known by Moses at the time till they evolved to be bigger. Sea creatures, fish, bird appear afterword. Was the problem that you have is because he listed sea mammalian to arrive first?
You might want to read up on the Great Oxidation Event. The atmosphere at the time was nitrogen and carbon dioxide and there is no indication light couldn’t reach the surface. The oxygen is thought to come from blue-green algae which would need light to grow. Before the GOE life was based on anaerobic metabolism.
No, he has plants coming first and that isn’t what the fossil record says. But it fits better with Genesis.
This is what our modern science understanding of evolution , correct? But from the point of view of the observer (Moses), he could not see what is happening at the deep. He was not trying to be scientific, he was just writing what he could observe with his naked eyes.
I read the article and could not get any conclusive study on this matter. I am not the expert here, and you might have to chat with Dr. Strauss about this. He is the one that present the argument. It is compelling if it is right.
It is what the fossil record shows. Evolution would explain why we see it. But my comment was about how Dr. Strauss added to Genesis to reinforce his theory that Genesis is correct scientifically. Which if he correctly summarized Genesis shows it isn’t correct.
Which says
So God must have shown Moses this during the hazy (which doesn’t mean no light reaches the surface) and clear skies. And I looked up the original paper and it says nothing about a haze producing total darkness.
His book is really about Genesis and the Big Bang. If he had limited it to that the only counter argument is the audience for Genesis wouldn’t have understood Genesis 1:1 in that manner. Which to me is sufficient reason to not try to tie Genesis to science.