Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

[Polymath257]

I will come to that later.
For now I am busy on the events of the morning of the 3rd day.
It is clear that the Bible say that the Earth was a mud ball and it developed into a collection of Landmass and water as the water seperated from the solids.
later today i will go to Day 2.
Step by step, as the author of Genesis intended.

Actually, a reading of Genesis does NOT suggest a ball at all. It suggests a flat surface to the water, a firmament above (heaven) with water above it, and the water covering land underneath (so moving the water away reveals the land, which can then dry).

It looks to me that you are trying to force the current scientific views into the words of Genesis.

 

[tas8831]

If I, as a Bible believing Christian, listen to the Bible hating, atheist, and non-Christian speaker,

Very charitable.

I find that they usually take some very silly, superficial, and even made-up opinions on what Genesis says concerning the creation of the Universe, and push it as the true and correct narrative.

By quoting the bible? I guess so...

These people are really either, too comfortable and lazy to go and read the Bible for themselves, or due to their poor investigative methods, unable to grasp the simplest of explanations from the Bible.

Ah, 'explanations' from the bible...

But fight for their narrative, they will. I will prove this statement in this thread, because when I will be done, you will see many Bible attackers continue to fight with hair-splitting semantics.

I will put it in one question (as it was framed by Zakir Naik in 2000)

“If the God of the Bible was unable to explain how He created the Universe, how can we trust anything else He said?”

And this was what drove me to investigate for myself when I wanted to make fools of the Christian, their God, and their Bible.

The questions posed by the Atheist, and copied by the Muslim in their vigorous proselyting, was:

1. How was it possible that God created the Earth before the Sun, Moon and stars if the Bible say they were created on the 4th day, when science today knows that the Sun and Stars are part of the Universe and was created before the Earth.

2. Why does the Bible say everything was created in 6 days (6 000 years ago), when science today knows that the universe took billions of years to take its’ current shape?

3. If Christians believe these ‘Days” in Genesis to be thousands of years each, they will have to explain how plant life survived from day 3 to day 4 without any sunlight?

I loved these questions, and I was so sure this will be my evidence to proving the Biblical God as erroneous in science, and a mythological idea.

Every time I see a new thread opened by the atheist on this topic, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Not to the person who posts these allegations, but to myself for the reasons to why I needed to know what the atheist wanted me to belief. I soooo much needed their observations to be true!!!

I needed their evidence that the Bible was at fault…

So that I could soothe my conscience with “evidence” that my atheism was solidly on a foundation of “Science”.

Well, it took me about 3 weeks to lose that fight!

So, Lets see what I found!

The Bible say:

1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth.

2. The Earth was without shape, empty, and it was a dark and wet collection where the Spirit of God hovered above.

3. Then God said “Let there be Light!”, and it was evening and morning. Day 1.

4. Then God divided waters above a “Firmament”, from waters below this firmament. Day 2.

5. God then separated Land and Sea and made plant life. Day 3.

6. God made the great and lesser light to be signs of time, seasons etc. Day 4.

7. God made animals in the ocean and Birds that could fly. Day 5.

8. God made Land animals, and Man. Day 6.

Now, before we look at this description on what Genesis says God did, it is important to agree that the above summary is correct.

I will give a few hours to allow anyone to correct me if they disagree.

Apologetics is so yesterday....

 

[tas8831]

Not just any atheist, mind you... no no, a TOTAL atheist.

TOTAL atheists are the worst kind!

 

[tas8831]

But I simply love how the Atheists NEEDS everything to be soooo surgically correct.

Imagine that - someone wanting things being laid out as an argument to be correct... Crazy!

 

[Polymath257]

Oh wow!
What you are saying is a total impossibility!
The God of the Jews?
There were no Jews in Egypt, Moses was not a Jew, the 12 tribes were not Jews!
They were Hebrews, and Moses lead Israel into Canaan in 1440Bc,

Except that this contradicts Egyptian chronology, which has Egypt controlling the lands of Canaan around that time. It is interesting that the Egyptian dynasty at the time was the Tutmosid. Is there a connection between the name of Moses and the names of the pharaohs? maybe a cultural memory of the time when Egypt controlled the areas?

 

[tas8831]

Your atheism? Really? A brief period of time reflecting on and questioning beliefs held from an early childhood do no constitute atheism. Do you think your arguments are stronger because you claim that you were once an atheist, but now you have seen the light - again?

I take these atheist-to-biblical literalist claims with a grain of salt.
Knew a guy in grad school who claimed to have been an 'old earth evolutionist' until he did some 'research.'
As I got to know him better, he revealed that, in fact, his father was a self-proclaimed bible expert, and ran a small private 'bible Christian school' that he had to attend, in which all they learned was bible stuff. His time as an 'old earth evolutionist' ended up being (by his own unwitting admission after drinking a couple beers) a period of about a month when he was a teenager going through a rebellious phase. His 'research' consisted of dissecting the heart of a fish and concluding 'creation.'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it was compiled after Babylon and and all the text was already considered holy so they couldn't change it without people getting upset because the people memorised their religious text so well.

I suspect that the above is a gross over-simplification

You might be interested in Schniedewind's How the BIBLE Became a BOOK.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I suspect that the above is a gross over-simplification

You might be interested in Schniedewind's How the BIBLE Became a BOOK.

It is definitely a gross over-simpification. It was half a joke actually. It is also gross speculation.

I would be very interested in reading that book. Thanks.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There was no water before the stars, for instance. Nor heavy elements to make planets. And the sun is a second generation star.

The 6000 years/Old earth/evolution controversy is peanuts when compared with the amount of other mistakes present in the first page of that Holy Book.

Ciao

- viole

And we will get to the 6 000 years a littlebit later.
The Bible never said the universe is 6 000 years old.
Furthermore, on the issue pf the existance of water, the Bible never mentions that the Sun was filled with water, but the Earth.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There are many different sources that give many different dates. Some sources are more reputable than others.

As for the date of Moses... We can't even be sure that he was a real person that actually existed, but we can have a general idea of when the Torah might have been written (600-500 BCE). We also know that those stories come from oral tradition, but I'm not sure when that oral tradition began.

Which is also a postulation, not a fact.
Archaeology on the OT was the one factor that did prove more than 3 000 cities, names, topographical places etc, as true, when for more than 400 years the same identities was discounted by the Bible critisizers. But this was something I learned loooong after I found the Biblical Creation Epoch to be true and supported by science.
Actually, Science dont even know that what they use as their model of the origins of the Universe, came out of Genesis.
But we will get there too.
For now, We only investigated how the Earth took shape from a mass of matter, into Land and Sea with an atmosphere.
There are much more to come.

 

[SA Huguenot]

As for the date of Moses... We can't even be sure that he was a real person that actually existed, but we can have a general idea of when the Torah might have been written (600-500 BCE).

Anyhow, what is this strategy in an attempt to discredit Moses as the author of the first 5 books of the Bible?
I am not talking of Biblical critisizm now, that is for another thread.
At this stage all I did was to show the people who critisized Genesis as "Non Scientific" and "non compatable to any logic" that such a perception is faulty.
I do not understand why all of a sudden Ad Homen should enter your argument.
All I am realising, is that what I have posted is not to your liking, and you need to grasp straws, to build a strawman.
Please allow me to stay on what I propose, and show me if on my statements, I am wrong in my interperetation of the Biblical Creation narrative.
So simple.
Did I read it correct, or not!

 

[SA Huguenot]

I suspect that the above is a gross over-simplification

You might be interested in Schniedewind's How the BIBLE Became a BOOK.

Thanks for the reference.
I will definately get his publication and work through it at a later stage.
Perhaps he has some newer information I dont.
on Archaeology, History, science and so on, I have a personal collection of 1300 plus books which I have personally read over 18 years or so.
Greetings

 

[SA Huguenot]

Actually, a reading of Genesis does NOT suggest a ball at all. It suggests a flat surface to the water, a firmament above (heaven) with water above it, and the water covering land underneath (so moving the water away reveals the land, which can then dry).

It looks to me that you are trying to force the current scientific views into the words of Genesis.

Nice observation.
I applaud you for this answer.
However, if we read tht before God let light shine on the Earth, the Earth was without shape, any recognisable shape.
And when light shone on the Earth, it became Evening and Morning.
Is there any possible way that there would be evening and morning without the earth turning on its axis?
Furthermore, There is a few references to the fact that the Earth is an free standing body in space, and it is round.
Stuff like God encompassed the Earth throughout its deep, and in Job, the earth is round and hangs on nothing.
Again, if I read Genesis chapt 1, it does not say the Earth is flat also.
Anyhow, Im off for the weekend
Greetings

 

[viole]

And we will get to the 6 000 years a littlebit later.
The Bible never said the universe is 6 000 years old.
Furthermore, on the issue pf the existance of water, the Bible never mentions that the Sun was filled with water, but the Earth.

And? Fact is: it writes the water existed before the first star was created. Same with heavy elements.

Not to speak of the sun being a second generation star.

So, there is no way to force Genesis page 1 into any of the things we know today. Which should not be surprising, considering that the authors were totally ignorant about astrophysics, cosmology, etc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Nice observation.
I applaud you for this answer.
However, if we read tht before God let light shine on the Earth, the Earth was without shape, any recognisable shape.
And when light shone on the Earth, it became Evening and Morning.
Is there any possible way that there would be evening and morning without the earth turning on its axis?

In the ancient view, the sky rotated around the Earth.

Furthermore, There is a few references to the fact that the Earth is an free standing body in space, and it is round.
Stuff like God encompassed the Earth throughout its deep, and in Job, the earth is round and hangs on nothing.

Written MUCH later than Genesis and shows knowledge gained by that time.

I thought we were just reading Genesis? or are you claiming the Bible as a whole is consistent on this point?

Also, the Earth does NOT hang. It moves in an orbit around the sun. Hanging is the old, geocentric view, which came after the flat-Earth view.

Again, if I read Genesis chapt 1, it does not say the Earth is flat also.
Anyhow, Im off for the weekend
Greetings

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is there any other explanation so far but that the Earth was a “Mud Ball” on the morning of day 3?

Who cares? Why is this relevant? How is this any sort of "Aha!" moment?

And yes, there would be other explanations, obviously. It could have been water and the "land" un-tempered rock (mountains beneath the surface) for example. Again though - why is this so relevant?

Is there any possible way that there would be evening and morning without the earth turning on its axis?

Oh geez... how about there being "evening" and "morning" without a sun? Explain away that one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

on Archaeology, History, science and so on, I have a personal collection of 1300 plus books which I have personally read over 18 years or so.

Unverifiable claims appear to come easy to to you but, if you're trying to impress me, you've failed miserably, beginning with ...

The Bible say:

1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth.

 

[ecco]

If you disagree with the article, perhaps you can cite some differing science.

Sorry, but this is a misreading of what the science actually says.
...
I don't blame you for this misinterpretation. It was probably an article written by a journalist and not by a scientist. Journalists often get the details wrong about science.

Far be it for me to disagree with you on a science topic (no sarcasm intended). However, perhaps you can cite an article for my perusal.

I just keep finding things like this...

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html

This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and 300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination. The first time that photons could rest for a second, attached as electrons to atoms. It was at this point that the universe went from being totally opaque, to transparent.​

 

[Polymath257]

Far be it for me to disagree with you on a science topic (no sarcasm intended). However, perhaps you can cite an article for my perusal.

I just keep finding things like this...

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html

This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and 300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination. The first time that photons could rest for a second, attached as electrons to atoms. It was at this point that the universe went from being totally opaque, to transparent.​

yes, this is when the universe becomes *transparent* to the photons. Prior to that matter and photons interacted fully, which didn't allow the photons to travel far before being absorbed again.

Look up the 'photon epoch'. For example, in
Photon epoch - Wikipedia

Note the timing of the photon epoch: from about 10 seconds to about 370,000 years.

The article you are pointing to is discussing the beginning of the recombination epoch. This is when the universe became transparent and the background radiation was formed.

Many cosmology books will simply discuss the times when radiation was the dominant part of the energy balance of the universe, which lasted until about 47,000 years into the expansion. Radiation, in this situation, includes photons and neutrinos primarily.

 

[halbhh]

Answers in Genesis disagrees with you...

Timeline for the Flood​

Table 1: Dates of biblical events from Creation​

Event/Person Passage Total Time from Creation (years)
God created everything. Genesis 1–2 0
Adam became the father of Seth at 130. Genesis 5:3 0 + 130 = 130
Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 130 + 105 = 235
Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 235 + 90 = 325
Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 325 + 70 = 395
Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 395 + 65 = 460
Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 460 + 162 = 622
Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 622 + 65 = 687
Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 687 + 187 = 874
Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 874 + 182 = 1056
The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6 1056 + 600 = 1656
As you can see from Table 1, the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM1 (Anno Mundi – “year of the world”). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359
Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.​

Are you saying the Bible is wrong? Are you saying the Bible is the stuff of conspiracy theories??

With reading my post fully, I hope it's clear I'm saying that groups that preach that 'young earth' ideology are wrong. I can say more though. YEC is unbiblical ultimately, in that the YEC theory uses added ideas that are not in the text anywhere.

Example: without any basis in the text, the added idea that zero or little time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 right at the start:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

As we can easily see, no information at all is given about (the ultimately less important side issue of) how much time passed during verse 1 before the moment in verse 2. Assuming it was zero time or little time is an extraneous idea to the text, an added idea. It could be for instance 1 second or 9 billion years.

But we can see by looking in astronomy that the latter is a good estimate.

Of course the text isn't about relatively trivial (though interesting to me) details such as geology or planetary accretion -- those are not the subject matter, which instead is very clearly in the text about Earth being a "very good" (the actual text wording) home for us, the suitability of Earth as a home for us being "good" is repeated 7 times, and is a dominate theme any good reader can see.