Genesis 1 and origins science

[Percivale]

It seems if you read Genesis 1 from the perspective of modern science, reading the word day as a long time period, it lines up pretty closely with what most scientists agree is the order life developed on earth.

Day 1 The sun ignites and earth coalesces.
Day 2 Volcanic activity produces atmosphere.
Day 3 Plate tectonics and cooling produce land and oceans
Photosynthetic life begins oxygenating atmosphere, leading to:
Day 4 Sun, moon, and stars become visible due to methane haze clearing.
Day 5 Fish, dinosaurs*, and then birds appear.
Day 6 Familiar mammals appear, then humans.

*vs 21 says "God created great sea creatures..." The Hebrew word translated sea creature here, taniyn, is used of a variety of creatures, including Moses' serpent (staff), leviathan, and a legged creature used metaphorically for Pharaoh in Ezekiel (crocodile?). Perhaps the best description that includes all these meanings would be 'dangerous reptile.' I'm pretty sure if Moses saw a dinosaur he'd call it a taniyn. The word is not used of the fish that swallowed Jonah, so I don't think whales is a good translation.

I wonder, what is the probability that Moses or any ancient person could have come up with all these parallels to the discoveries of science on his own? If low, that confirms both the accuracy of the Bible and the day-age interpretation of it. Just counting the main events and calculating it mathematically Geisler came up with 1 chance in 42,000.

But there's several issues to consider that affect that calculation.

One is flexible interpretation. For instance, does the fossil record say birds or mammals came first? Do we look for when the first representative is found, or when the group becomes common? Or in the Bible, do we take the words specifically or generally. Do plants arriving on day three refer to photosynthetic organisms generally, or to stereotypical trees and grass specifically, etc.

Also, would an ancient person likely come up with just any order of events, or only ones that followed a certain pattern, and how many patterns are possible. Such as, simplest to most complex, nearest to farthest, most important to least, biggest to smallest, or the reverse of any of those?

At any rate, I think there is a correlation there that is worthy of notice, and deserves further attention.

 

[Papias]

Percivale wrote:

It seems if you read Genesis 1 from the perspective of modern science, reading the word day as a long time period, it lines up pretty closely with what most scientists agree is the order life developed on earth. ....
At any rate, I think there is a correlation there that is worthy of notice, and deserves further attention.

In a very general way, yes. At least, better than some other ancient origin stories (or to be more specific, the Gen 1 story, which is different and younger than the Gen 2 story, lines up decently well in some places.).
Bible scholars have long recognized that the two stories are from two different storytellers, and that the Gen 2 story is a lot older.

I will agree that this approach is at least better than the YEC, science denying approach, where evidence is ignored or lied about so as to pretend that a literal reading & interpretation of Gen 1 fits reality, when it doesn't.

However, when I've seen that approach used, it often makes up/adds things to the text, ignores other sections, and generally seems like a stretch done in an attempt to make one's reading somewhat literal.

For instance, there is no mention in Gen 1 of a "methane haze", "volcanic activity" or even an "atmosphere" - "firmament" literally means "hard dome", not "air". "bacteria" and so on aren't mentioned at all, etc.

Worse, "calculations" of these invariably insert things into the text that aren't there, being more of a calculation of the author's ideas than of anything in scripture.

Also, the order is often simply wrong. Birds are created before any life on land (when life on land existed ~400 million years before birds of any kind existed), land appears after the oceans existed (when in reality, there was land before any oceans existed, by again hundreds of millions of years), land plants are said to exist before aquatic life (again, the reverse is true), and the whole sun and stars doesn't exist until day 4, again off by at least 10,000 million years in addition to being out of order. There are plenty of other examples too.


I think it works much better to see Genesis as an artistic poem on the glory of God's creation, rather than as a science text intended to give scientific details. After all, if we do that, then we have little defense against false assertions like these: Category: The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Quran - The Religion of Islam

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Percivale]

The impression I get is that Moses or whoever wrote it was shown a vision by God, of a series of scenes from the formation of earth, seen from earth's surface. Seeing it that way, rather than as a modern science text, harmonizes it with science much better. Remember Moses didn't know what methane, molecules, microbes, or planetary orbits were, so could only record what he had words and concepts for. He may have missed a few things, but what he did record is remarkable for the parallels. Consider that the sun being created on day four wouldn't have made much more sense then than now (they could have asked where the light and heat came from till then too), while seeing it as becoming clearly visible only after photosynthetic life is what science confirms.

The Genesis 2 story doesn't make readily testable claims scientifically, especially considering Hebrew's limited tenses and common use of metaphor. It's a story, rather than a treatise or description like Genesis 1.

 

[Papias]

I agree that Gen 2 has plenty of clear metaphor. However, don't overlook the many poetic elements of Gen 1. If anything, Gen 1 is much more clearly poetry than Gen 2.

For isntance, Gen 1 is written in the parallism form, which is often used for poetry. You can see this by looking at it, despite the losses in translation:

Formed on Day:
1 : Day separated from night
2 : sky separted from sea
3 : Land separated from sea

Filling of these things on next days:

4 : Fill day and night with sun and moon (see Day 1)
5 : fill waters and air (see Day 2)
6 : Fill land with creatures (see Day 3)

It is possible that the intent was to show the order, structure and beauty of the creation, as shown by the order, structure and beauty of Gen. 1.

If so, then it's not so important what order, or by what methods, things were actually formed.

I personally see this as a more exalted view of the text than seeing Gen1 as an imperfectly recorded witness of actual events in the wrong order. Nonetheless, if you find the view you have put forth to be more fulfilling to you, then by all means stick with it - just be aware that it takes some work to make it still have the right order.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Percivale]

I find the development of the world as described by science and therefore the Genesis 1 interpretation informed by it, to be majestic. The vastness and complexity of it, the elaborate series of cause and effect, each thing preparing the way for the next, is enthralling. Even an imperfect account of it, when you consider the subject matter, partakes in that majesty. And perhaps we can combine our understandings of the passage by saying the shortcomings in its parallels to science exist in order to produce the parallelism you described (which I had not noticed before, but is quite elegant).

Btw, poetry and metaphor seem to be often confused in discussions of this passage. There are literal poems (not as common I grant), and many metaphors are in prose; for instance most allegories.

 

[shernren]

Btw, poetry and metaphor seem to be often confused in discussions of this passage. There are literal poems (not as common I grant), and many metaphors are in prose; for instance most allegories.

To make matters more complicated there are factual-historical narrative poems, metaphorical narrative poems, fictional-historical narrative poems, metaphorical non-narrative poems, etc.

So, for example, in The Charge of the Light Brigade, the Charge is not a metaphor for anything but is in fact an actual historical event (with lots of metaphorical dressing of course!).

In Robert Frost's The Road Less Taken, the poet's arrival at the crossing is obviously a metaphor for an important life decision, but the narrative itself seems entirely (heh) prosaic, which is why everybody agrees that the poet arrived at a crossing but everybody disagrees about whether there really was a path less taken or not.

In epic mythological (and other) poetry, "historical" events are made up, but not really as metaphors for anything at first reading: when Shakespeare's Caesar says "Et tu, Brute?", it's not a historical note (nobody knows what actual Caesar's last words actually were), but neither is it a metaphor for anything, other than being a statement of ... Shakespeare's Caesar saying "Et tu, Brute?"

And then there are the non-narrative poems like Keats's A Song of Opposites ...

 

[Papias]

Percivale - I agree with everything you wrote.


(& Shernren too).



Papias

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I have long seen the rough correspondence between the first two Chapters of Genesis and the LeMaitre based theory of the beginning of the Universe. Obviously, it is not an exact correspondence, but it ain't so bad.

One must remember the Torah account, written (or probably in my mind, edited) by Moses was given to a late Stone Age/early Bronze Age man to be conveyed to people of the same period. Consequently, a long discussion of the fusion power of stars or the genetic abilities of RNA or DNA would probably be a waste of time.

I do not see a contradiction between the Biblical account and the discoveries of modern astronomers, cosmologists and geneticists. But I'm conversant enough with 'science' to know few scientists claim to know all answers, and I'm committed enough to God to see what is being said and what is not being said.

And I do NOT find the position of the RCC regarding the discoveries and theories of Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei as 'defending' God. As most of our modern science deniers do.

 

[SkyWriting]

Day 6 Familiar mammals appear, then humans.

If you plant a garden, you'll be hungry after 6 days, I promise you.
The dirt on the earth was not 5 days old.

These were not normal days.

 

[BobRyan]

It seems if you read Genesis 1 from the perspective of modern science, reading the word day as a long time period, it lines up pretty closely with what most scientists agree is the order life developed on earth.

Day 1 The sun ignites and earth coalesces.
Day 2 Volcanic activity produces atmosphere.
Day 3 Plate tectonics and cooling produce land and oceans
Photosynthetic life begins oxygenating atmosphere, leading to:
Day 4 Sun, moon, and stars become visible due to methane haze clearing.
Day 5 Fish, dinosaurs*, and then birds appear.
Day 6 Familiar mammals appear, then humans.

No evolutionist argues that the sun was not visible until a few million years after plants were fully established.

The text does not say "became visible" it says "made" - it says "created".

No Hebrew scholar in any world-class university takes the tortured logic and text-abuse done by T.E.'s to the text of Genesis - seriously.

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[SkyWriting]

creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;

We know that's not correct. We don't get fruit from trees at any
point in the first 24 hour day/week. So these were not normal circumstances.

 

[Percivale]

No evolutionist argues that the sun was not visible until a few million years after plants were fully established.

The text does not say "became visible" it says "made" - it says "created".

Notice though, what was made. "Great lights in the sky, to mark times and seasons, etc." not "flaming balls of gas and rocky reflective spheres." Science has discovered evidence that the early earth's atmosphere had less oxygen and more methane, which would result in a hazy atmosphere in which clear heavenly bodies would not be clearly visible until photosynthesis changed the atmosphere. Allowing the days to be long periods that overlap makes them fit the scientific evidence perfectly, and that's pretty significant for me.

No Hebrew scholar in any world-class university takes the tortured logic and text-abuse done by T.E.'s to the text of Genesis - seriously.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, btw. There are big differences between them, Intelligent Design, and Old Earth Creationism.
I agree a simple reading of the text seems to support YEC. But there are too many scientific and philosophical/theological problems with that view for me to accept it anymore. Current YEC interpretations of radioactivity and starlight seem to me to call God a liar. If it comes to believing God or Moses, I'll believe God. But i'm not sure that choice is necessary.
Also, I'm not sure anyone approaches the text without some bias. Evolutionists, whether theistic or not, would tend to be biased toward saying the text is just a bronze age legend, so would not favor an interpretation that agrees with modern science.

 

[Smidlee]

You do realize the Genesis and Revelation are connected. First you have light without a sun then later the sun appears in Genesis. Then in Revelation the sun is no longer need and we are back with light without a sun. Both Genesis and Revelation have new creations, etc.

If you refuse to believe in the creation in Genesis then why would you believe in the creation in Revelation? Do you really believe we going to sitting around a few billion years after the earth is judged by fire waiting for the earth to cool down and become alive again?

 

[BobRyan]

It seems if you read Genesis 1 from the perspective of modern science, reading the word day as a long time period, it lines up pretty closely with what most scientists agree is the order life developed on earth.

That is exactly what is done with the Bible in all texts in all cases where the intent is to bend/wrench/eisegete the text to fit an external agenda.

It is why Bible students who care about what the text says independent of what external non-biblical agendas "need" try to avoid it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Notice though, what was made. "Great lights in the sky, to mark times and seasons, etc."

Yes "two great lights".

When describing making life on earth Moses does not describe DNA or eukaryote cells.

When making the sun as one of the "two great lights" Moses does not describe fusion.

Allowing the days to be long periods that overlap makes them fit the scientific evidence perfectly, and that's pretty significant for me.

It does not fit science to say "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the LORD MADE..." Ex 20:11 Gen 1:2-2:3.

It does not fit science to argue that all plants came into being before the sun is created... before it even appears in the sky at all.

I'm not a theistic evolutionist, btw. There are big differences between them, Intelligent Design, and Old Earth Creationism.
I agree a simple reading of the text seems to support YEC. But there are too many scientific and philosophical/theological problems with that view for me to accept it anymore.

It is pretty hard to insert millions or billions of years into each point of Genesis 1 - against the actual meaning of the text - and not be an evolutionist. And if you are Christian - then a Theistic Evolutionist.

Current YEC interpretations of radioactivity and starlight seem to me to call God a liar. If it comes to believing God or Moses, I'll believe God.

God says Moses is writing the "Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13 and 2Peter 1:20-21 He also says Moses "spoke from GOD" .

Your problem is that you don't understand enough about science and why God would have needed a radioactive crust to start with - to have life on earth, nor do you understand how thoroughly scripture requires that all scripture is inspired by God - and thus is the Word of God, not the "word of pre-scientific man trying to do the best they know how - but without God showing them anything that is actually true contrary to what atheist evolutionists would prefer to believe today".

Also, I'm not sure anyone approaches the text without some bias. Evolutionists, whether theistic or not, would tend to be biased toward saying the text is just a bronze age legend, so would not favor an interpretation that agrees with modern science.

James Barr tells us that the atheists of all world-class universities working as the Hebrew and OT scholars - are fine with admitting that the text is not trying to fit evolutionism , they freely admit that the text is written in a literary style to be taken literally - as a literal historic account in both the creation week 7-day week and the world wide flood.

The reason for that is that as atheists they don't believe in the historicity of the Bible and have no "outside agenda" to make it fit what they "believe" their faith in evolutionism is telling them on their doctrine of origins.

It is only the T.E. that has the "outside agenda" to "make the bible fit blind faith evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We know that's not correct. We don't get fruit from trees at any
point in the first 24 hour day/week. So these were not normal circumstances.

No text in Genesis 1 says "the plants had no fruit".

Nor does Genesis 1 or 2 say "God did not form man from the dust of the ground" nor does it say "but normally humans do pop out of the dust of the ground" -- it is all supernatural - by definition in the creation account.

In fact in Genesis 1 and 2 God commands humans to eat fruit.

One has to "imagine" that the fruit trees God created had no fruit and his command to man to eat fruit was useless in that 7 day week.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[Percivale]

As I said, the most straightforward reading of Genesis one apparently supports a young earth. I find the scientific evidence for an old earth too strong to ignore, however, and I find the correlation between it and Genesis one's main events striking. This causes a dilemma. I feel the best way to harmonize these three facts is to accept science and biblical inspiration, but to deny biblical inerrancy. It seems God showed Moses a vision of creation, which Moses then worked into a six day account, perhaps not realizing the amount of time his vision really covered.

The only explanation the RATE project could come up with for radioisotope dating is that the rate of decay had to have been a billion times faster or so during the flood. That is unacceptable. If it happened naturally, it would be like converting the earth's surface to nuclear waste as far as how much radiation was produced. If God did it supernaturally he could have compensated for that, but would have no motive for doing so besides deceiving us. That is against his nature, and so is doing unnecessary miracles. Jesus only did miracles with a significant purpose.

If God created starlight in transit, that would mean we live in a fake universe. That is unworthy of the glory of God. Any change in the rate of starlight had to have a cause, and again, what cause could God have for doing that?
If the geologic column was laid down at once, why no rabbits in devonian forests, whales in lower strata with older fish, buffalo near plains-dwelling dinosaurs, etc? A few good examples of that sort would convince me I believe.

Biblical inerrancy is generally defended with circular reasoning. The way Jesus used scripture seems more consistent as seeing it as inspired but not inerrant. God communicated to chosen men, and they wrote what they understood, but may have added some of their own ideas here and there.

That's the understanding I've come to so far. I feel it harmonizes all the evidence best. I respect other views and am open to learning.

 

[Papias]

Percivale-

Yep, that makes sense.

One minor tweak:

"inerrant" can be "correct, but not always literal". Thus, a TE and/or someone who accepts an old earth can still be "inerrant" because they are interpreting Genesis non-literally. Thus Genesis is "correct" and "without error" to them, while still not being "literal".

Thus, you can still support "inerrancy", as long as "inerrancy" includes non-literal interpretations. BTW, no one is silly enough to insist on a literal interpretation all the time. If they were, they would think that Jesus literally were a plant (vine) and not a human, etc. We all accept that our various Bibles are filled with symbolism, non-literal writings, etc, whether we each admit it or not.


Papias

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

As I said, the most straightforward reading of Genesis one apparently supports a young earth.

Indeed and the Hebrew professors of all world class universities know that the text only works as a real 7 day week -- inserting other ideas into it that we all know the writer and the contemporary readers would never have "inserted" is simply engaging in gaming-the-text in service to some outside agenda.

Not actual Bible reading.

Which is fine for atheists - but they have no interest in that sort of Bible bending because they have no agenda for making it fit blind-faith-evolutionism.

they will take blind-faith-evolutionism - alone.

in Christ,

Bob