Recommended book on Creation

[WonbyOneanddone]

I highly recommend a book called "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. In it, he helps reconcile science and the Bible regarding how everything came to be.

The genius of the book is, he used antiquated theology from Jewish rabbis who lived before the era of modern science that points to an earth billions of years old, yet these theologians were convinced that the universe was much older than thousands of years old. How? From the original Hebrew text and their expertise in the language, coupled by passed down information.

The gist of the book is that God's word is not taken literally enough in the original Hebrew, especially in translations like the King James Version.

Hints of this the disconnect can be seen in the King James version, such as Genesis 2:4.

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,

So if we are talking days of creation, what is the author referring to by generations?

Essentially, different verbiage describing the passage of time is used pre-man, and once Adam was formed the clock is like it is today, tracing Adam back some 6000 years ago.

Being a physicist, he even came up with his own theory of the days mentioned in the Bible as it correlates to how we perceive time today. The universe is some 15 billion years old according to science, and he theorizes that with each day in Genesis, time halved. In other words, day one was 8 billion years, day two was 4 billion years, day three was 2 billion years, day four was 1 billion years, day five was 500 million years, etc. The key here is understanding that time is not constant. Depending where you are in the universe, time passes differently and is effected by such things as acceleration that warps time and space.

So the neat thing is, if you use this calculator, all of the days of Genesis match to that of science, such as the Cambrian explosion occurring some 500 million years ago on day 5.

Enjoy!

 

[coffee4u]

And I highly recommend the book written by the creator himself, it's called the Bible.

 

[Brightmoon]

And I highly recommend that you read factual up to date science books if you want accurate information about nature

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

And I highly recommend the book written by the creator himself, it's called the Bible.

I just love the snarky replies.

Well believe it or not, the book I referred to was a commentary on the very book you recommend, just so ya know.

But the trouble is, the Bible is not a book of science. Essentially you have a very condensed couple of chapters that cover the creation of the universe, as where in science you could have entire libraries on the subject regarding the science of it.

That is why you need a man both of science and part theologian to be able to bring the two together.

But what we are used to are theologians who have next to no education in science demeaning it and building the creation museum that teaches that the earth is only 6000 years old, while scientists like Richard Dawkins, who have precious little education when it comes to theology, write idiotic books like "The God Delusion"

But that is what happens when you have very little education in one subject but a vast education in another subject. You tend to dismiss the one you have very little knowledge about and demean them. But that is not the case with Schroeder, he has a tremendous respect for both fields of study, and this is what is required to bring the two to some sibilance of cohesion.

It reminds me of how the Church once insisted that the universe really did revolve around the Earth and would burn anyone at the stake who disagreed. Well funny thing, the Bible does not actually say that the universe revolves around the Earth, it was an interpretation flaw of the Bible that was responsible for their error, which I think is happening today with the issue of the age of the universe.

Here is what Schroeder said about the age of the universe

"The age of the universe has been measured using a variety of independent technological systems, including radioactive dating, Doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 degrees above zero" radiation background. The methods of these studies are totally unrelated. Therefore, an error that might have occurred in one would not appear in the others"

Now for the Biblical interpretations

Notice how in Genesis it says, "and there was evening and there was morning?" So tell us, before the sun was created on day 2, what was a day if it was a literal day? Last I checked a literal day was one rotation of the earth as it revolved around the sun, so if there was not sun during day 1, what was a day?

Also notice the odd way of saying this, "and there was evening and there was morning" Why not start with morning? An answer can be found in the root meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew word for evening is erev. The root of erev means "mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly". However, the word for morning in Hebrew is boker. The root meaning for this is "discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly." So what is really being conveyed here is not a literal day, rather, what is being conveyed here is creation going from chaos to order.

But I understand the mindset of someone who thinks they understand both how science lies about the Bible and how they understand the Bible entirely so as to ridicule anyone who disagrees with their beliefs regarding both because I used to be that person.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

And I highly recommend that you read factual up to date science books if you want accurate information about nature

So first a snarky reply from a Christian and then one who seemingly is not a Christian.

You two are prime examples of the problem that I speak of, which is either a disdain for science or one for theology when really both are legitimate and beautiful fields all their own and should be respected.

 

[coffee4u]

I just love the snarky replies.

Well believe it or not, the book I referred to was a commentary on the very book you recommend, just so ya know.

But the trouble is, the Bible is not a book of science. Essentially you have a very condensed couple of chapters that cover the creation of the universe, as where in science you could have entire libraries on the subject regarding the science of it.

That is why you need a man both of science and part theologian to be able to bring the two together.

But what we are used to are theologians who have next to no education in science demeaning it and building the creation museum that teaches that the earth is only 6000 years old, while scientists like Richard Dawkins, who have precious little education when it comes to theology, write idiotic books like "The God Delusion"

But that is what happens when you have very little education in one subject but a vast education in another subject. You tend to dismiss the one you have very little knowledge about and demean them. But that is not the case with Schroeder, he has a tremendous respect for both fields of study, and this is what is required to bring the two to some sibilance of cohesion.

It reminds me of how the Church once insisted that the universe really did revolve around the Earth and would burn anyone at the stake who disagreed. Well funny thing, the Bible does not actually say that the universe revolves around the Earth, it was an interpretation flaw of the Bible that was responsible for their error, which I think is happening today with the issue of the age of the universe.

Here is what Schroeder said about the age of the universe

"The age of the universe has been measured using a variety of independent technological systems, including radioactive dating, Doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3 degrees above zero" radiation background. The methods of these studies are totally unrelated. Therefore, an error that might have occurred in one would not appear in the others"

Now for the Biblical interpretations

Notice how in Genesis it says, "and there was evening and there was morning?" So tell us, before the sun was created on day 2, what was a day if it was a literal day? Last I checked a literal day was one rotation of the earth as it revolved around the sun, so if there was not sun during day 1, what was a day?

Also notice the odd way of saying this, "and there was evening and there was morning" Why not start with morning? An answer can be found in the root meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew word for evening is erev. The root of erev means "mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly". However, the word for morning in Hebrew is boker. The root meaning for this is "discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly." So what is really being conveyed here is not a literal day, rather, what is being conveyed here is creation going from chaos to order.

But I understand the mindset of someone who thinks they understand both how science lies about the Bible and how they understand the Bible entirely so as to ridicule anyone who disagrees with their beliefs regarding both because I used to be that person.

I don't need it to be a book of science, science is simply man's striving to understand what he sees. Science can be interesting and helpful until it goes directly against scripture. At that point, I know there is something very wrong with it, either caused by man's own limitations or because man is trying to understand a miracle using scientific principles when miracles don't follow them.

The Bible is Gods breathed word to us so that we can know the truth. Even when the truth seems as impossible as marching around a walled city for a week to bring downs its walls or a man raised from the grave after 3 days.

John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

I don't need it to be a book of science, science is simply man's striving to understand what he sees. Science can be interesting and helpful until it goes directly against scripture. At that point, I know there is something very wrong with it, either caused by man's own limitations or because man is trying to understand a miracle using scientific principles when miracles don't follow them.

The Bible is Gods breathed word to us so that we can know the truth. Even when the truth seems as impossible as marching around a walled city for a week to bring downs its walls or a man raised from the grave after 3 days.

John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

IF science goes against God then science is wrong. I would agree with this, but that is not my argument.

My argument is that the interpretation of scripture is misunderstood, much like it was when the Church insisted that the universe revolves around the Earth.

And if being a Christian means pursuing truth, then pursuing the truth regarding science I think should also be an endeavor.

But what we are dealing with in regards to human nature, is overcoming our preconceived notions and beliefs whether you be of faith or not. After all, no one likes to be told their wrong, yet our very faith says that only God is true and every man a liar, every man a sinner, every man is wrong at least one time in his or her life. It is unsettling, but true and can only be embraced with humility. But we still fight it, don't we? We still like to think we are right about things and belittle those around us that rub us the wrong way. But know this, the mystery of the creation should humble us, and not be dismissed with, "I know all about it" whether you be a person of faith or a person of science. In fact, the more we learn about anything should lead us to see the more we really don't know. Knowledge is a Pandora's Box of sorts in that once you find one truth, it creates 5 more questions. Only God has unlimited knowledge which is why he requires of to have faith because we do not.

I would agree with you that God's wisdom is far more important than a science book when it comes to importance in your life. In other words, wisdom is far more important than knowledge. We are even given an example of this in the Garden of Eden because the tree that Adam and Eve ate from that made them fall was referred to as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But today, we see the same things in that we see how knowledge without wisdom brings death. Just look at the scientist who created the Atom Bomb. His response was, "I have become death". Or look at the concern of global warming. The knowledge of the scientific exploitation of fossil fuels is the concern we have today. Or how about artificial intelligence. What happens when we have computer with artificial intelligence have more and more control over all of us as we feed it the knowledge that man is slowly destroying the planet, etc.? How will that AI react to us? Ever see the movie Terminator?

I would then say that wisdom is merely knowing how to handle knowledge, which is one of the primary reasons we need God.

But those of science have the same problem, because we are all born with the same sin nature. Just look at the man who came up with the Big Bang theory. He was a priest and part time scientist. Einstein belittled is theory, because by that time Einstein had made a name for himself and, therefore, wished to protect his lofty position by siding with the common scientific view of the universe, which was that it was static and eternal. Only until they developed tools to look farther back in time did they discover that the priest was correct, and not only that, the universe is not only not static an eternal, it had a beginning and is accelerating and expanding indefinitely. Einstein later said it was the biggest blunder of his career. But every scientific breakthrough over the years have met the same disdain, such as the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen and helium, or plate tectonics, or that ulcers are caused by bacterium, etc. All of these people stood up against the popular scientific beliefs of their day and suffered in some form or fashion as a result, despite later being vindicated.

 

[Brightmoon]

So first a snarky reply from a Christian and then one who seemingly is not a Christian.

You two are prime examples of the problem that I speak of, which is either a disdain for science or one for theology when really both are legitimate and beautiful fields all their own and should be respected.

. Believing in pseudoscience nonsense about nature is not faith, it’s just delusional thinking . I’ve got some old astrology books I can lend you if you want to go that ridiculous route! Astrology is NOT astronomy. Creationist essays aren’t scientific and they basically are useless for giving information about natural phenomena, they’re also useless for applying that informations and that applies whether you’re a Christian or not

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

. Believing in pseudoscience nonsense about nature is not faith, it’s just delusional thinking . I’ve got some old astrology books I can lend you if you want to go that ridiculous route! Astrology is NOT astronomy. Creationist essays aren’t scientific and they basically are useless for giving information about natural phenomena, they’re also useless for applying that informations and that applies whether you’re a Christian or not

My book is a critique regarding common flaws related to interpreting Genesis and the Creation, and not on science.

Now for those, like me, that appreciate both science and the Bible and believe Genesis is truth and not a made up story, it is of value.

Do you think it would have been of value had he written a book about how the universe was not really revolving around the earth according to the Bible when the church insisted it was and burning people at the stake who disagreed?

I think it would have been worthwhile.

 

[Brightmoon]

My book is a critique regarding common flaws related to interpreting Genesis and the Creation, and not on science.

Now for those, like me, that appreciate both science and the Bible and believe Genesis is truth and not a made up story, it is of value.

Do you think it would have been of value had he written a book about how the universe was not really revolving around the earth according to the Bible when the church insisted it was and burning people at the stake who disagreed?

I think it would have been worthwhile.

. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? Theology might be beautiful but it has nothing to do with science. I agree with S J. Gould and his non-overlapping magisteria idea

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? Theology might be beautiful but it has nothing to do with science. I agree with S J. Gould and his non-overlapping magisteria idea

The gist of the book is, ancient theologians did not view the days of creation as literal days based upon their reading from the original Hebrew, thus, opens the door to modern science that agrees.

Being a scientist himself, he offers some fascinating theories as to how it might match scripture.

Being told in the church that evolution was of the devil as was the concept of an old earth, it always bothered me. I knew something was amiss, since I enjoyed science and believed in my faith.

To say that modern science and the Bible are mutually exclusive, having to choose one or the other, I think is in error. And I know, the Bible is not a book of science, but at the same time it briefly covers topics that science involves itself with, such as the beginning of the universe and beginning of life. After all fields of study are interconnected on some level.

But if you have no interest in such connections so be it. Most I find only have interest in theology or science only and hold to their mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

[Brightmoon]

Maybe that just the difference between us. I’ve got a science degree and there’s no room for the speculative ideas of religious dogmas . Don’t get me wrong I’m a Christianbut I don’t think science benefits from religion . Some of that is from the history of science being meddled with by the religious conservatives and that’s STILL an issue

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Maybe that just the difference between us. I’ve got a science degree and there’s no room for the speculative ideas of religious dogmas . Don’t get me wrong I’m a Christianbut I don’t think science benefits from religion . Some of that is from the history of science being meddled with by the religious conservatives and that’s STILL an issue

So how do you view the creation account of Genesis as a scientist?

 

[Brightmoon]

As an allegory and as numerology! The astronomical , geological, paleontological and biological info from science doesn’t match up to any biblical based timeline. Birds evolved from fish many millions of years later for example .
The numbers 1,2,3,6 and 7 were considered magical even up to the renaissance. 1+2+3=1x2x3=6 They show up constantly and they’re all prime numbers except for 6 . 1 God and 3 days of separation into 2 parts followed by 3 days of adding stuff to the separate parts

 

[klutedavid]

So how do you view the creation account of Genesis as a scientist?

Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey. Many allegories use personification of abstract concepts. (wikipedia)

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

If the 'tree of life' is a real tree and not Jesus Christ, then you are following a literal reading of Genesis.

If the 'tree of life' is, in fact, Jesus Christ, then you are reading an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

So in the first few chapters of Genesis is the text to be read as literal or an allegorical text?

Same goes for the 'tree of good and evil', 'the serpent', e.t.c.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

As an allegory and as numerology! The astronomical , geological, paleontological and biological info from science doesn’t match up to any biblical based timeline. Birds evolved from fish many millions of years later for example .
The numbers 1,2,3,6 and 7 were considered magical even up to the renaissance. 1+2+3=1x2x3=6 They show up constantly and they’re all prime numbers except for 6 . 1 God and 3 days of separation into 2 parts followed by 3 days of adding stuff to the separate parts

Well the book I presented presents another alternative take on Genesis, that it is not all allegory.

I understand then why you reject the material since your belief system is wired in another direction.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey. Many allegories use personification of abstract concepts. (wikipedia)

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

If the 'tree of life' is a real tree and not Jesus Christ, then you are following a literal reading of Genesis.

If the 'tree of life' is, in fact, Jesus Christ, then you are reading an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

So in the first few chapters of Genesis is the text to be read as literal or an allegorical text?

Same goes for the 'tree of good and evil', 'the serpent', e.t.c.

There are a lot of ways to take the Bible. You could even say it is all allegory. But one should take pause that the Bible is the only religious text in which a scientific discipline was founded, that is, Biblical Archeology. Those scientists who use the Bible as a means of discovering finds in archeology are not all sold on the literalism of the text, or the veracity. However, they are sold on the notion that it is truthful and literal enough to use to find things they would otherwise not be able to find. For example, the Philistine people are not documented as having existed anywhere EXCEPT the Bible. So they looked at the text, and went digging around where the Bible suggested they lived. And poof! They found them.

It is my belief that the word of God can be taken a great number of ways, and have more than one meaning. It is really astounding.

 

[The Barbarian]

Believing in pseudoscience nonsense about nature is not faith, it’s just delusional thinking . I’ve got some old astrology books I can lend you if you want to go that ridiculous route! Astrology is NOT astronomy.

The problem always comes down to someone with an unusual interpretation of something the Bible says, running head-on into nature and our knowledge of it, and declaring that nature must be wrong.

If nature and the Bible seem to conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. And we are just as likely to misunderstand the Bible as we are to misunderstand nature.

The problem lies in the faulty thinking:

"1. God's word is true and cannot be wrong.
2. I believe His word is true and cannot be wrong.
3. Therefore, I cannot be wrong."

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

The problem always comes down to someone with an unusual interpretation of something the Bible says, running head-on into nature and our knowledge of it, and declaring that nature must be wrong.

If nature and the Bible seem to conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. And we are just as likely to misunderstand the Bible as we are to misunderstand nature.

The problem lies in the faulty thinking:

"1. God's word is true and cannot be wrong.
2. I believe His word is true and cannot be wrong.
3. Therefore, I cannot be wrong."

My book was not being endorsed by me as being 100% correct, but I think he is on the right path and worth a good read.

 

[Brightmoon]

The only “book” I’ll read about natural phenomena is natural phenomena itself. I really don’t care about theological ideas of nature as in the past they’ve been laughably wrong . Unfortunately what’s not funny is when religion murdered people over these pseudoscience ideas