Genesis and Science

[hiramabbi2]

My Take - Open for Discussion:

"In the beginning God Created the heaven (Air) and the Earth (Ground). And the Earth (Ground) was without form, (Dust) and void; (Empty) and darkness (Death) was upon the face of the deep, (Water) and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements. The text is correct in showing that the water was not directly created, or spoken into being, because it consists of elements of the Air or Atmosphere. Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen and came from the Atmosphere and is not shown as a separate creation.

This is correct in today's scientific knowledge, but IF the Bible were written by Ancient men, Moses would not have known this. He would have written that in the beginning God created the Air, Dust, and Water, but since God Himself is the Author, He correctly shows that the Atmosphere and Ground were created, and the Water was not a separate creation but instead, came from the Atmosphere.

[hiramabbi2]

Could somebody please help me understand if this Atheist Poster is actually complaining, whining or a making a rebuttal?

How about generally showing how this particular bit of knowledge shows no more inspiration than can be provided by a simple farmer of the time period in question.

Now, perhaps you can point me to the passage where Jesus mentions relativity. Or Newtonian mechanics for that matter...

The word shamayim is used in the Bible to refer to the astronomical universe. The word itself is connected with the phrase stretched out eleven times in the Old Testament (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zachariah 12:1). The concept here is that the cosmos is not static but the verb natah is used in an active participle form indicating that the process is ongoing.

^^^ Funny you mentioned relativity... It was Einstein's theory of relativity and the expanding universe that actually granted the Scripture above scientific merit.

source from: http://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun01/Th ... Bible.html

I can only say excellent post seventil. Also, to tell you honestly, I have been looking for that link since last week in yahoo search engine to no avail . I am glad you made it easily available again to me. Thanks.

God Bless.

[Lotan]

hiramabbi2 wrote:

The 3 elements necessary for all physical form are shown... Air, Dust, and Water. Everything which is physical is composed of these 3 elements.

Perhaps he is referring to 3 states of matter, gaseous, solid, and liquid (omitting plasma and any other states of matter that may exist)?

Also Genesis 2:5 states that all plants were in the ground (presumably as seed) waiting for water to begin life. Does this include parasitic plants that grow on other plants? How about phytoplankton?

[hiramabbi2]

GENESIS 2
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; v22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Could somebody please explain the above cited text, which seems to be documenting us, a surgical procedure relative to our medical science, like “cloning” perhaps (?) -- a precedent or premise for our scientist to discover in the Book of Genesis?

By the way, do you also notice how our Lord God seems to be showing our Medical Doctors the proper way to conduct "surgical procedure" step by step by putting Adam to deep sleep first -- relative to our medical application of anesthetic -- then opening and closing up the flesh, just like the way our medical doctors do now a day?

Is it just my imagination or what? Thanks for your help in advance.

[The Hungry Atheist]

I don't know of any cloning procedure that's even been suggested by modern medical science in which a woman could be made from a man's rib. This is a very tenuous connection; there was a Viking religious belief that the first man and woman were sweated from the armpits of a giant, which can be seen as having about as much relation to modern cloning as anything in Genesis.

I'd also be very wary about describing what God does as a "surgical procedure" - all the details it actually gives is that he "took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh". No description of what instruments one might use to make the incision, nor of what might be used as an effective anaesthetic, nor how it might be administered... not much of a precedent for modern surgery, is it? If that passage was all that student doctors had to go on when trying to learn to perform an operation, I'd be very worried.

There is indeed a parallel between modern medical procedure, but let's look a bit more closely about the aspects that the description in Genesis actually has in common with modern medicine. Our Lord God is apparently instructing us that, when we need to perform an operation on somebody, "opening and closing up the flesh" will be necessary in order to get inside a person's body. Do you think we couldn't have worked that out ourselves? How else do you expect to be able to get at people's insides? Also, I don't think we really would've needed God's help to realise that some kind of anaesthetic might help with such a procedure - I don't think it would have taken much experimentation for humans to deduce for themselves that, if you're going to start cutting holes in people, they complain a lot less if they're unconscious.

So far, God really doesn't seem to want to help us out with anything specific, does he? If he's generous enough to inform us that making an incision is a useful part of most surgical procedures, why couldn't he have mentioned a cure for cancer, or something that we'd actually have more trouble with on our own?

[hiramabbi2]

So far, God really doesn't seem to want to help us out with anything specific, does he? If he's generous enough to inform us that making an incision is a useful part of most surgical procedures, why couldn't he have mentioned a cure for cancer, or something that we'd actually have more trouble with on our own?

The Lord wanted to make sure that you don't live longer than you should THA. Besides, He already gave us idea how to stay healthy by eating the right food, did He not? Would you like Scripture for those?

GENESIS 6
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

[The Hungry Atheist]

The Lord wanted to make sure that you don't live longer than you should THA.

So, he's given us some medical advice, but not too much, in fact, just enough that we'll live for exactly as long as he wants us to? You're just doing whatever's necessary to defend your theory from any attack here. If there was a cure for cancer in the Bible, you'd proclaim it as evidence God's amazing knowledge and love for us; since there's not, he just doesn't want us living too long. Anything can be made to seem consistent with your theory. A lot of kids have cancer, you know, and die before they reach adulthood. Would twenty years old really be "longer than they should"?

I'm sure the Bible has some good advice on what to eat, but again, this is all knowledge which mankind could very easily have come up with anyway, by trying things out, seeing what tastes good or what kills you. We're a curious race, we experiment like that a lot. Show me where it mentions Vitamin C or monosodium glutamate in the Bible.

...yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Does this mean that no man shall live longer than 120 years? If so, what's up with this?

[hiramabbi2]

The reason we are corruptible is because we are living in a natural FLESH BODY and not Spirit. However, if you start repenting and be born again in the Spirit of Christ, you'll will be saved.

1 CORINTHIANS 15
v53 For this CORRUPTIBLE must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

v54 So when this CORRUPTIBLE shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

[The Hungry Atheist]

What on Earth did you just say, and what did it have to do with anything I've been saying?

[ST88]

The word shamayim is used in the Bible to refer to the astronomical universe. The word itself is connected with the phrase stretched out eleven times in the Old Testament (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zachariah 12:1). The concept here is that the cosmos is not static but the verb natah is used in an active participle form indicating that the process is ongoing.

^^^ Funny you mentioned relativity... It was Einstein's theory of relativity and the expanding universe that actually granted the Scripture above scientific merit.

source from: http://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun01/Th ... Bible.html

I don't see what this proves. The "stretching of the Heavens" as a concept is not that much of a stretch, as it were. There can only be two versions of the heavens: that it was always there, or that it was created. For there to be a creation myth that involves stretching, such as a cloth being unfurled or a fishing net being thrown seems appropriate for the time.

This idea seems to have taken off from Einstein's refusal to accept a beginning to the universe, despite the prediction of such an event from his theories. I don't quite know how this validates later discoveries in physics and quantum mechanics. I am sure that there are plenty of examples of scientific discovery that can be tortured out of the Bible, but this is some kind of fallacy that, unfortunately for me, I don't remember (ex post facto?) -- much like using verbal gymnatics on Nostadamus' prophecies to apply them to historical events.

Unfortunately, most of early Christianity missed this subtle shade of meaning, because it was thought that the heavens were statically perfect.

[Dilettante]

As I recall, Genesis includes two contradictory creation stories. Which one does hiramabbi2 claim is the "scientific" one? To give an example, Genesis 1:27 says he created them male and female (at the same time). But then Genesis 2:18 says that the male was lonely so God decided to create a female out of one of the male's ribs while he was sleeping. Either one of these accounts is inaccurate, or both are just myths. Beautuful and spiritually inspiring perhaps, but myths nonetheless.