• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Literal Creation Account and the Actual Roots of Science. Read on …

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
--- Apologies for the length of this OP. I abbreviated the subject content as much as possible. ---

Scientia, ‘to know’, is the word from which today’s word ‘science’ is derived. (ref 1) The existence of such knowledge, scientia, dates back to as early as 8500 B.C. “Early peoples did not compartmentalize their lives and knowledge like we do. They saw themselves as part of the whole world around them and everything as integrated and working in harmony. For them, then, their religious beliefs and their scientific thought/knowledge were all the same, and not two separate things like they are for most of us.” .. (Univ. of Cincinnati, History of Science ref 2 ) Peoples of that era had gained such knowledge and had written and preserved information that directly relates to the study of biology today. (ref 3)

The literal reading of Gen. 1&2 will introduce the living elements around which the studies of botany and biology have developed and a disclosure of the environment necessary to support such life. The text presents each of these elements in a specific, defined order. The OP will introduce these events and elements as disclosed in Genesis Chapters 1&2.

The purpose of this thread will be to introduce a discussion of the literal reading of Genesis chapters 1&2, of scientia and science. It’s purpose will not include issues relating to Christianity, the ‘church’, religious movements or doctrines; nor will it include the comparison of scientia or other beliefs among other ancient peoples or cultures.

Genesis begins by identifying the prime Cause of the events to be described. (Gen 1:1a) It then identities the scope of the effects introduced, the heavens and the earth. 1:1b; The earth is described as formless and void (a waste and emptiness) and darkness was over the surface of the deep. (1:2a) It then introduces the moving of the Cause and the presence of waters. 1:2b The next element introduced is light. (1:3) [This first mention of light would include, at a minimum, the presence of visible light. It could also include the presence of the entire electromagnetic radiation spectrum of ‘light’. (ref 4) Next, the light is separated from the darkness. (1:4) [ This could suggest that the light was gathered or separated to a specific location.] Next, an expanse (a firmament) is introduced as being placed in the midst of the waters and separating the waters above the expanse from the waters below the expanse. (1:6,7); [ Water, the element defined as H2O, can exist in three forms; vapor (gaseous), fluid or solid (ice). ] Next, the waters below the heavens are gathered into one place called ‘seas’. (1:9a, 10b); Dry land also then appears. (earth) (1:9b, 10a)

After this the subject of the living elements of plant life is introduced. First, “vegetation” (translatable; grass), then “plants” (translatable; herbs) yielding seeds after there kind, then “trees” bearing fruit after their kind with seeds in them are introduced. (1:11) Next, it says, “ And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seeds..”; (1:12)

[An objection is raised here that vegetation cannot live without visible light and atmosphere therefore this order is not scientifically possible. …. First, light has been separate from darkness since 1:4. Next, water has been present on the earth since 1:9a and dry land since 1:9b. The pooling of water into seas (1:10b) also indicates that there was enough heat energy present to result in the liquefaction of water. The presence of a gathered source of light in 1:4 would have been sufficient to generate a source of heat energy. There was gravitational mass sufficient to retain the liquefied waters on the surface of the earth. (1:9a, 10b) The presence of such heat would have also generated water evaporation from the seas into the atmosphere. ] [ A second realization is, 1:11a says, “Let the earth sprout vegetation …” . However 1:12a does not say that vegetation, plants and trees had yet sprouted from the earth. It says, “the earth brought forth vegetation.” Seed germination within the ground is the first step in the process of vegetation and plant growth. It is therefore possible that the wording in 1:12a refers to the plant germination taking place beneath the surface of the earth. This is also consistent with what is later written in the continuing account, … “ Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth;…” 2:5 This does, by implication, conclude that their seeds were present in the earth]

Continuing now after 1:12, … The next day ‘lights’ appear in the expanses of the heavens (also translated illumines, light bearers) for signs and seasons, for days and years, and “to give light on the earth”. (1:14, 15) Two great lights were also then made, the greater to govern the day, the lesser to govern the night, (1:16), They were then specifically placed in the heavens, (1:17) to govern day and night, to separate light from darkness. (1:18) This presents a gathering of the visible spectrum light into lights

[Two of these lights are noted and identified as having been specifically ‘placed’ in their locations. (1:17); The ‘greater light’ would apparently refer to the placement and ignition of the sun. The specific locating of this light would insure the exact amount of heat and light radiation necessary to generate the exact atmospheric conditions needed to sustain vegetation and all subsequent forms of life.]

Next, the introduction of living creatures begins. Two categories of creatures are introduced; first large sea creatures and swarming sea creatures (1:20, 21a) and second, birds and winged creatures that fly above the earth. (1:20, 21b); Their ability to reproduce is introduced. (1:22)

Next, earth creatures are introduced, cattle of the earth after their kind, creeping after there kind, beasts after their kind. (1:24,25); Next, the intension to create humankind is introduced. (1:26a) The next thing indicated is the intension to allow humankind the authority to rule over the creation as stated in 1:26b. Next, the act of the creation of humankind as a distinct entity, separate and unique in the creation, is stated. It next introduced is that humankind will have two genders, male and female. (1:27) The male and female, are then addressed together and told, “ Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (1:28) [Here, the intension to create the separate and unique entity of humankind has been presented. The creation of that separate entity has been presented. Their separate genders have been identified and they are told to be fruitful and to rule over the earth. But a physical body has not yet been formed for either gender.] Next it was said, “.. every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all of the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be [ future tense ] food for you; ..” (1:29); and this same food was given for, “… every beast on the earth and bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life”. (1:30)

It then says, “ Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted,” (2:5a) This would confirm the second conclusion given for 1:12 regarding the germination and not the sprouting of the seeds. Next, Gen. 2:7 introduces that man is now given a physical body and a soul. His body is formed of the dust of the ground. “ And then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils [the first time a physical feature is identified with man] the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (also translated, soul); [ To this point neither the physical body nor the soul of an individual person is mentioned.] It then says a garden was planted toward the east in Eden for man and there he man was placed. (2:8); It then says, “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food;” (2:9a); [ The context suggests that the growing mentioned here applies specifically to the garden planted here.] “Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” (2:15); Then, as man’s body have been formed out of the ground, ever beast of the field and every bird of the sky were formed out of the ground. “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and what ever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” ( 2:19) The writer then describes how the physical form of the woman is brought into being. “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the Lord god fashioned (also translatable, built) into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to him.” (2:21,22); all Genesis references, NASB, New American Standard Bible)
------------------------------------
Here, the literal reading of Gen. 1&2 has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology. In addition, it has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.

“Botany is the scientific study of plant life. As a branch of biology, it is also sometimes referred to as plant science(s) or plant biology. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, disease, ecology, and evolution of plants.” (ref 5)

Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures; it introduces the elements necessary for the growth of that plant life; it introduces the specific subject of the reproduction of that plant life (the presence of seeds); it presents the conditions needed for the metabolizing processes within plant life. (Gen. 1:9, 11a, 16a, 17, 18); Genesis 1&2 therefore introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of botany today.

“ Biology is the study, or science, of life. It is concerned with the characteristics and behaviors of organisms, how species and individuals come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales.” (ref 6)

Genesis introduces and presents biological life; it introduces distinct characteristics of that life and their behavior… that is large sea creature and swarming sea creatures; birds and winged creatures; cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth…..how these creatures came into existence. In so doing, Genesis introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of biology today.

Therefore it can be said of Genesis 1&2, that its content introduces, include and address the specifics elements and their characteristics that exist as part of the study of biology and botany as a science of today.

In the essay, History of Science, the author says, “Because modern science distinguishes between subjective and objective and teaches us that objective is “good” and subjective is “bad,” this creates for us an increasingly wide gulf between our perceptions of phenomena and the concepts by which we explain them.” (ref 7)

It is my opinion that such an approach is non-conducive to the advancement of a collective and cooperative collaboration of humankind’s knowledge. Instead it results in the seperation of knowledge in ways that dichotomize humankind’s potential for coming to the fullest understanding of who he is and of the universe in which he lives.

The presentation of the Definition Essay quoted in ref 1 appears to be a fairly reasonable and balanced introduction the history of science. Although, I do not fully agree with some of the more subtle summary conclusions of its author.
-------

ref 1 http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm Par 2

2 ibid. Par 6,7

3 ibid. Par 4,5,6

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light , + Electro. Mag. Para 2

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany Par 1

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology Par 1

7 http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm par 7b


-----------
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
perplexed said:
In my experience lack of segregation leads to nonsense, give me the least silly example of an argument where there is no segregation.
Thanks, if that one closing comment in the OP is all you disagree with, I'm pleased.
-----------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
I think maybe I'm missing the point of the OP. Are you suggesting that because Genesis makes references to life on Earth and Biology studies life on Earth, Biology should include a study of Genesis?
There are many who propose that the literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with science. The point that this OP addresses is that the literal reading of Genesis is compatible with much of science as the information and comparisons presented evidence.

The basic Genesis account addresses all of the known physical elements needed to present of world as we know it and to support the forms of life that inhabit the earth. This includes the elements that are part of the studies of botany and biology. These are the same basic elements that science studies. Therefore the literal reading of the Genesis account is consistent with those aspects of science even though Genesis does not agree with some of the theories of science that have been proposed. ...



------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The purpose of this thread will be to introduce a discussion of the literal reading of Genesis chapters 1&2, of scientia and science. It’s purpose will not include issues relating to Christianity, the ‘church’, religious movements or doctrines; nor will it include the comparison of scientia or other beliefs among other ancient peoples or cultures.

Isn't a discussion of a literal interpretation of Genesis automatically an issue relating to Christianity, the 'church', religious movement or doctrine? Or, more simply put, do you really think there is any non-Christian way to discuss that theory?



I am not sure I can add anything to a discussion that is, in and of itself, a violation of its own purpose.
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
There are many who propose that the literal reading of Genesis is not compatible with science. The point that this OP addresses is that the literal reading of Genesis is compatible with much of science as the information and comparisons presented evidence.

The basic Genesis account addresses all of the known physical elements needed to present of world as we know it and to support the forms of life that inhabit the earth. This includes the elements that are part of the studies of botany and biology. These are the same basic elements that science studies. Therefore the literal reading of the Genesis account is consistent with those aspects of science even though Genesis does not agree with some of the theories of science that have been proposed. ...


------------------------------------------------------------------

So a literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with some of science but not all of it? I don't think anyone's going to disagree with you there.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Edmond said:
The point that this OP addresses is that the literal reading of Genesis is compatible with much of science as the information and comparisons presented evidence.

The basic Genesis account addresses all of the known physical elements needed to present of world as we know it and to support the forms of life that inhabit the earth. This includes the elements that are part of the studies of botany and biology. These are the same basic elements that science studies. Therefore the literal reading of the Genesis account is consistent with those aspects of science even though Genesis does not agree with some of the theories of science that have been proposed.
Gee, now if only you can get past life suddenly appearing as we see it today vs. evolution ... well, I can't so nevermind.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
Isn't a discussion of a literal interpretation of Genesis automatically an issue relating to Christianity, the 'church', religious movement or doctrine?


The purpose of that statement is to allow the text of Genesis to be examined on its own, apart from formal 'Christianity', the church or other doctrines may attempt to place on it.

variant said:
Or, more simply put, do you really think there is any non-Christian way to discuss that theory?

The literal text alone is being presented. The context is presented to demonstrate that its content introduces, include and address the specifics elements and their characteristics that exist as part of the study of biology and botany as a science of today. Therefore, based on that objectivity, it can be discussed from that perspective alone. …

variant said:
I am not sure I can add anything to a discussion that is, in and of itself, a violation of its own purpose.

It is objectively open to the examination as described above. …. I'm please if that is the only objection you have to the content presented. Thanks ...

-----------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
So a literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with some of science but not all of it?
There are theories of science that Genesis is not consistent with. However in the case of fundamental botany and biology, it can be said that in Genesis addresses the basic elements of botany and biology. See definitions and conclusions below.

Therefore this validates that literal Genesis presents inforamtion that is worthy of examination specifically from a scientific perspective. It also validates that other conclusions presented by the Genesis account may have authentic scientific content as well, even though they may be held as a theory just as other science holds its theories.

From part of OP summary ...

“Botany is the scientific study of plant life. As a branch of biology, it is also sometimes referred to as plant science(s) or plant biology. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, disease, ecology, and evolution of plants.” (ref 5)

Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures; it introduces the elements necessary for the growth of that plant life; it introduces the specific subject of the reproduction of that plant life (the presence of seeds); it presents the conditions needed for the metabolizing processes within plant life. (Gen. 1:9, 11a, 16a, 17, 18); Genesis 1&2 therefore introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of botany today.

“ Biology is the study, or science, of life. It is concerned with the characteristics and behaviors of organisms, how species and individuals come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales.” (ref 6)

Genesis introduces and presents biological life; it introduces distinct characteristics of that life and their behavior… that is large sea creature and swarming sea creatures; birds and winged creatures; cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth…..how these creatures came into existence. In so doing, Genesis introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of biology today.

----------
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Therefore this validates that literal Genesis presents inforamtion that is worthy of examination specifically from a scientific perspective.

Why is it worth examination? I agree with Galileo when he said "The Bible is a book on how to go to heaven, not a book on how the heavens go." All we need to know about the natural world can be found in the natural world. If the Bible had never been written our knowledge within the sciences would not be affected.

Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures;

Even worse, Genesis is wrong. Plants and animals are both eukaryotes. They are not separate forms of life, only divergent. So why would we use a holy book for scientific investigations, especially one that gets the science wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
f U z ! o N said:
well if scientia dates back to 8500 BC than that falsifies a 6000 year old earth :)
Actually, on that subject, the proposed 'short life' perspective of the earth's age ranges from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Therefore the dating of 8,500 B.C. year for the presence of scientia would just exceed that general margin by 500 years. Amazing how actual recorded human history authenticates O.T. chronology. ...


If that is the only objection you can find with the information given, I'm very pleased. Thanks. ... :)

-----------------------
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Edmond said:
Actually, on that subject, the proposed 'short life' perspective of the earth's age ranges from 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Therefore the dating of 8,500 B.C. year for the presence of scientia would just exceed that general margin by 500 years. Amazing how actual recorded human history authenticates O.T. chronology. ...


If that is the only objection you can find with the information given, I'm very pleased. Thanks. ... :)

-----------------------

The dating of meteorites puts the age of the Earth at 4.45 to 4.55 billion years old. Amazing how the geologic record falsifies the OT literal chronology.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Loudmouth said:
Why is it worth examination? I agree with Galileo when he said "The Bible is a book on how to go to heaven, not a book on how the heavens go." ?

I can agree with Galileo from his perspective. But today the issue isn’t ‘how heaven goes’. It's how 'life' goes. That is the biological and botanical subject that the Genesis account addresses.
Loudmouth said:
All we need to know about the natural world can be found in the natural world.?

Unfortunately, all we need to know about man cannot be found in the natural world. That is where the naturalists went beyond the scope of their own study.
Loudmouth said:
If the Bible had never been written our knowledge within the sciences would not be affected.?
If the Bible had never been written our knowledge about humankind would be far less.
Loudmouth said:
Even worse, Genesis is wrong. Plants and animals are both eukaryotes. They are not separate forms of life, only divergent. So why would we use a holy book for scientific investigations, especially one that gets the science wrong?
Actually Genesis states no where that plants and animals are separate forms of life. It presents all of its events in a specific order. That includes the introduction of all life that is presented.
Therefore, that is not a valid agrument for concluding that Genesis gets science wrong. … If those are the only objections you can find with the information presented by the Op...I'm pleased. ... Thanks ...:)



-----------------
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures



Edmond said:


Actually Genesis states no where that plants and animals are separate forms of life.



Maybe you should make up your mind on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vajradhara
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
There are theories of science that Genesis is not consistent with.


Yes, and these theories are based on evidence.

Anyway, even if we were to study Genesis scientifically, how would you suggest that we go about doing it? How do you test for a literal Genesis?
 
Upvote 0