Genesis and science, revisited.

[MRC_Hans]

Regarding the day being 1000 years it becomes a bit of a problem later in Exodus.

According to the commandments (all 613 of them not 10) keeping the Sabbath was because YHWH worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th.

Good point! So 24h days it must be.

Hans

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Unless someone wants to make my weekend a thousand years long.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

I thought I read somewhere that the universe was rather dark until 1,000,000 years (or 100 "god days") after the big bang. Am I remembering correctly?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Re #1: Wrong. Light is only created after the earth and water, and the heavens (Exactly what the latter is remains unclear).

I fear you got this bit in Genesis wrong. Light is not created only after the earth and the heavens, and the waters are not created at all (although light does come after water).

The creation of the heavens and the earth in verse 1 refers to the days of the creation week, esp. the second and third day, i.e. the ones with the firmament and the appearance of the dry ground.

And the earth in verse 2 is "tohu wa bohu", i.e. "formless and empty". IOW it does not exist yet in any discernable form.


(^^^ Of course that does not in any way, shape or form vindicate reading mordern day science into an ancient piece of literature, or some such nonsense.)

 

[tsig]

In a couple of threads, the claim that the bible (here in specific Genesis 1) makes surprisingly accurate predictions of later scientific findings has resurfaced. It has probably been done here before, but still, let's actually read Genesis 1 and see.

(I assume that it is OK to quote extensively from Genesis 1, it is hardly copyrighted)

Quoted from here: http://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Claim 1: According to the bible, light came first; this is a prediction of the BB theory.

Claim 2: ATTB, darkness is treated as a sort of substance; this predicts dark matter.



Re #1: Wrong. Light is only created after the earth and water, and the heavens (Exactly what the latter is remains unclear).

Re #2: Both light and darkness could be seen as entities (since no light sources have yet been created), OTOH, they are clearly equalled to 'day' and 'night' respectively.

The last sentence also implies that time exists in this phase.



I notice no particular claims related to this verse, but we can note that there has now been two distinct references to 'day', 'morning', and 'evening'.

Otherwise, the content bears little sensible reference to the real world, and can be taken to mean practically anything.



OK, not so bad, but a bit elementary. Obviously, water must gather to form a sea and people could observe rivers still flowing into the sea. Not much in the way of a prediction. Another day passes....



So we have plants arriving, on land. This is contrary to what science tells us, but Genesis does not mention water plants at all, so they may be implied, somewhere. Also, fruits and seeds are in reality a fairly late development. Another day passes....

Claim #3: The 'days' mentioned in Genesis may not be literal days, they could really mean [insert whatever time span currently fits your argumentation].



Now, it becomes interesting. The so inclined may say that this is total nonsense, having the sun created much later than light. However, we can also view it as an indication that time now takes up the pace we know and only now 'day' and 'night' take the meaning we usually associate with the terms. A little, but surprising glitch is the assignment of the moon solely to the night; the moon can be visible on most of the day, as well.

A general comment here: Medieval Christians interpreted the account so far to depict a flat earth with a dome of sky over it, and later critics have taken that up, claiming that "the bible claims earth is flat", but I don't think this is fair. The description can just as easily be taken to depict the actual arrangement; it is simply too unspecific to be taken in favour of any idea, be it flat earth, geocentric, or heliocentric. It more or less fits all.

And another day (now evidently a literal solar day) passes:

Life comes to earth. First birds, then fishes. Oh well, not much to comment on here; I have not met any bible follower trying to claim that this particular bit predicts any scientific findings.

And another day passes, and...

Land creatures come, first livestock, then wild animals. Long after birds. Actually, this sequence is a tad strange, even from the POV of desert nomads. They must have known that livestock is domesticated wild animals? And why livestock before humans?

Humans are added last. Well one out of 5-6 ain't too bad, I guess.

There is a little more, but this part does not have the Adam's rib nonsense. It is just so let's leave it at that.

Hans

Odd that the Bible didn't seem to say anything about these phenomena till after science discovered them.

 

[tsig]

Yes, Genesis 2 is a pretty nice piece of philosophy. They weren't dumb back then. They must have noticed that animals don't appear to experience any considerable pain giving birth. They will have been familiar with the fact that some tribes were more primitive than others, their folklore may even have reached back to the times their own people were hunters. They will have been familiar with the crop farmer, animal farmer dilemmas.

Hans

I can see you've never assisted a cow having a hard delivery.

 

[Dinwar]

Re #2: Both light and darkness could be seen as entities (since no light sources have yet been created), OTOH, they are clearly equalled to 'day' and 'night' respectively.

In the Hadean (first phase of the Earth's formation, also called the Heavy Bombardment) the Earth was, for at least part of the time, molten. We know that at least chunks have been solid for the past 3.9 billion years--we have fossils, which are fairly delicate--but there's 600 million years (roughly from the middle of the Ediacaran Period to today) where the Earth could have liquified numerous times.

Molten rock emits electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (and more). In other words, it glows.

So this part is completely wrong.

I notice no particular claims related to this verse, but we can note that there has now been two distinct references to 'day', 'morning', and 'evening'.

You missed the fact that separating "the waters and the waters" or whatever it is is a reference to the Firmament, which God opened to allow the Flood. It's important to Deluge Geology.

Life comes to earth. First birds, then fishes. Oh well, not much to comment on here; I have not met any bible follower trying to claim that this particular bit predicts any scientific findings.

I'm not nearly as generous. Animals arose a few tens of millions of years before plants (unless you count cyanobacteria as a plant, in which case you may as well call ME a plant, because I generate some nutrients when exposed to sunlight [vitamin D]). It's a serious error, and one that any god could easily have fixed. "The animals came first." "What did they eat?" "They ate really small critters. We're getting off-track here, though: animals, THEN plants."

Actually, this sequence is a tad strange, even from the POV of desert nomads.

Never caught that before. Interesting. I wonder if it has something to do with importance--I know they thought humans were created last because we're the goal; where livestock created first because they're less important than wild animals? May be a throw-back to a hunter/gatherer tribe insulting an agrarian tribe (sorta like calling someone a Yankee, only a few thousand years older).

 

[Delvo]

Claim 1: According to the bible, light came first; this is a prediction of the BB theory.

Re #1: Wrong. Light is only created after the earth and water, and the heavens (Exactly what the latter is remains unclear).

...unless you figure this is all being reported from the point of view of the Earth's surface, not for the whole universe. Then it refers to when the atmosphere was still full of junk from meteor impacts and volcanoes, and the light was finally revealed when the dust (and water vapoer) settled enough for some light to reach the ground. Notice that a hazy, clouded atmosphere can let some light through without revealing the sun itself yet as the concentrated source of it. As more and more water vapor from the cooling atmosphere condenses into liquid and flows downhill, the sun is later revealed and the bodies of water are "gathered".

So we have plants arriving, on land. This is contrary to what science tells us, but Genesis does not mention water plants at all, so they may be implied, somewhere. Also, fruits and seeds are in reality a fairly late development.

...unless you include spores and/or the mobile stage in a two-stage life cycle as equivalent to seeds, which you'd pretty much have to in ancient Hebrew due to the lack of such concepts or words for them in the language's speakers.

A little, but surprising glitch is the assignment of the moon solely to the night; the moon can be visible on most of the day, as well.

Ya, but it isn't the day's main source of light.

Life comes to earth. First birds, then fishes.

No, same day. Neither order is excluded, nor is simultaneity.

Land creatures come, first livestock, then wild animals.

No, same day. Neither order is excluded, nor is simultaneity.

Long after birds.

The ancient Hebrew word for "birds & bats" is also the word for "wing", being used to mean "winged ones" or "the winged" in the same way that the word for "fire" can be used as "the burning ones" or "those who burn" or "those who are like a flame" (seraphim). We do this in modern English sometimes, too, referring to blind people as "the blind", for example. And there were "winged ones" (insects) before there were terrrestrial vertebrates.

They must have known that livestock is domesticated wild animals

Probably not. They hadn't been there to observe the process themselves, so all they'd know is that they were similar to some certain wild species, which many people wouldn't ever have seen most of anyway.

 

[Dinwar]

...unless you figure this is all being reported from the point of view of the Earth's surface, not for the whole universe. Then it refers to when the atmosphere was still full of junk from meteor impacts and volcanoes, and the light was finally revealed when the dust (and water vapoer) settled enough for some light to reach the ground. Notice that a hazy, clouded atmosphere can let some light through without revealing the sun itself yet as the concentrated source of it. As more and more water vapor from the cooling atmosphere condenses into liquid and flows downhill, the sun is later revealed and the bodies of water are "gathered".

Except that during that period (the Heavy Bombardment/Hadean) the light wasn't only coming from above. The Earth was, at least in part, molten--meaning that the light was coming from the Sun AND from the ground itself. No amount of haze can hide the fact that to observe Earth at that point from the ground you'd need to be standing on a raft of rock amid a sea of lava.

...unless you include spores and/or the mobile stage in a two-stage life cycle as equivalent to seeds, which you'd pretty much have to in ancient Hebrew due to the lack of such concepts or words for them in the language's speakers.

That's an example of twisting the word to fit the facts. If God were telling them how the Earth formed, telling them about microscopic organisms would have been necessary (and very, very useful--imagine the medical advancements the Jews would have made!).

Ya, but it isn't the day's main source of light.

Irrelevant--the Bible is flat-out wrong here.

No, same day. Neither order is excluded, nor is simultaneity.

Order's irrelevant? I can see an argument being made for this, but you'd think God Himself would be a tad more specific.

The ancient Hebrew word for "birds & bats" is also the word for "wing", being used to mean "winged ones" or "the winged" in the same way that the word for "fire" can be used as "the burning ones" or "those who burn" or "those who are like a flame" (seraphim). We do this in modern English sometimes, too, referring to blind people as "the blind", for example. And there were "winged ones" (insects) before there were terrrestrial vertebrates.

Again, this is twisting the story to fit what you want it to say. This is more obvious than the first, though: Hebrews had a word for insects (they talk about specific insects often enough in the Bible, with no confusion between locusts, for example, and birds). Using the word for "winged one", which refers to birds and bats, to refer to insects is just unforgivably sloppy.

 

[Delvo]

Except that during that period (the Heavy Bombardment/Hadean) the light wasn't only coming from above. The Earth was, at least in part, molten

I was referring to after that.

The Old Earth Creationist interpretation I was talking about, BTW, came from this book.

 

[MG1962]

Current theory suggests the earth could form in darkness as the central protostar continues it own develope. Later in life protostars radiate most of their energy deep in the infrared before crossing the Stellar Birthline and begining their life as true stars.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Is this still about the first creation story in Genesis? Meteor impacts, volcanoes ... My text doesn't have all that!

 

[MG1962]

Is this still about the first creation story in Genesis? Meteor impacts, volcanoes ... My text doesn't have all that!

Given they didn't have words for any of those things - thats understandable

 

[Rincewind]

- Genisis?

Hans

Guinness...

Something to really believe in...

 

[Dinwar]

I was referring to after that.

Not really.

Then it refers to when the atmosphere was still full of junk from meteor impacts and volcanoes,

The issue is, the time when the atmosphere was full of junk from meteor impacts WAS the Heavy Bombardment. There's not enough time between "heavy bombardment" and "sky clearing" to make a difference--it'd be like getting a haircut and getting less than a micrometer of one strand removed, and expecting your spouse to notice. Besides, this is God talking--He could have mentioned the whole asteroids colliding together to form the Earth thing. In fact, it's a much more powerful story when you think about it.

Given they didn't have words for any of those things - thats understandable

They had words for "big rock", "fell from", and "sky". If God can be bamboozled by linguistics that takes a mere human a split second to work around, I'm not sure I'd trust him to build a planet. So no, it's NOT understandable.

Current theory suggests the earth could form in darkness as the central protostar continues it own develope. Later in life protostars radiate most of their energy deep in the infrared before crossing the Stellar Birthline and begining their life as true stars.

Already dealt with: again, when the Earth was formed the Sun WAS NOT the only source of light. The Earth itself was molten rock, and therefore glowing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Guinness...

Something to really believe in...

Amen!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Given they didn't have words for any of those things - thats understandable

You may have got this slightly backwards.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Given they didn't have words for any of those things - thats understandable

Given they didn't have words for such things, why do some people try to claim they were talking about them?

Given that same people assert that God guided the pens of the bible writers, are we supposed to think that God did not have words for such things?

Hans

 

[MG1962]

Given they didn't have words for such things, why do some people try to claim they were talking about them?

Great question, and one I am definately not in a position to answer. I approach the document as a light hearted intellectual exercise.

Given that same people assert that God guided the pens of the bible writers, are we supposed to think that God did not have words for such things?

Hans

A better question might be, if God did show someone the begining of the universe or the Earth, how could that person describe it with any clarity 3000 years ago?

Whatever we make of the first book of the Bible we have to assume we are not the target audience. What ever message Genesis is trying to convey, it was lost a very long time ago

 

[Dinwar]

Great question, and one I am definately not in a position to answer. I approach the document as a light hearted intellectual exercise.

There's light-hearted, and then there's being silly.

A better question might be, if God did show someone the begining of the universe or the Earth, how could that person describe it with any clarity 3000 years ago?

This isn't much of a question--the assumption here is that God sucks as a teacher. I mean, we all start out life the same way--ignorant, naked, and crying. The only difference between the scientists of today and the desert nomads who came up with these stories is education: the scientists were taught differently (and better). Thus, if God was incapable of talking to His chosen people about His creation, the only explanation is that God was a horrible teacher. Which cuts into that "omnipotent" thing, which means He's not God.

Whatever we make of the first book of the Bible we have to assume we are not the target audience. What ever message Genesis is trying to convey, it was lost a very long time ago

Than why bother distorting the words until they become meaningless in an attempt to make it say what science has discovered?