Does Genesis 1 describe the Universe?

[Tcg]

Some claim that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe and yet an examination of the text reveals that the author doesn't have any concept of planets other than the earth. Beyond that, the author doesn't even understand that the earth is a planet. This is an example of Ancient Hebrew concept of cosmology:




Why do some claim that Genesis 1 describes the universe when the author shows no knowledge of our solar system much less the universe?


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

Why do some claim that Genesis 1 describes the universe when the author shows no knowledge of our solar system much less the universe?

Tcg

I can't speak for why some people claim what they do. But just because some people claim it doesn't mean we should discredit the text if it doesn't deliver. Maybe it just wasn't of interest to the writer, known, or vital to the point being made. Maybe the claimant is wrong.

We should look at what the text says and judge accordingly. And in Genesis 1 what we see (in Genesis 1:2) is that the earth was formless and empty, and that darkness covered the face of the deep.

That's the first description we have of a starting point. And it strikes me as an image of something like Mars, should we go there today, if we wanted a real comparison. i.e., the writer is telling us that the earth was a barren wasteland unsuitable for life.

The unfolding story goes on to show how God worked to make the earth more hospitable. So it's more a story of terraforming than it is universe creation. Now granted, it is an ancient view of terraforming and surely wouldn't hold up to even our basic science on the topic. But that too is beside the point. The point (IMO) is to show the reader what kind of god God is. It is not to accurately detail out a scientific process (or the structure of the universe for that matter).

You offer a politically correct response, and I appreciate the distinction between what the text literally describes and the most probable intentions of the ancient and fallible human author who wrote it.

[theophile]

Either way, the focus of Genesis 1 seems to be much more narrow than the universe, and we should focus our attention accordingly. i.e., most of the text is focused on the earth and our role in it. One where we are called to follow God's example and rule over the earth in kind.

No. Its focus is on explaining how everything began. It then goes on to try and explain how God's perfect creation went down the gurgler by putting the blame on human beings, but that is all just religious propaganda. The important point is that the description of the so-called creation events from nothingness to earth, sun, moon, plant, animals, humans and so on is patently wrong. It's a wild guess from the minds of primitive people with absolutely no sign of any divinely inspired knowledge.

To be clear, Genesis 1 does not show any kind of downfall or blame game. That is Genesis 3 and beyond.

From nothingness? That is not explicitly said in Genesis 1 either (or else show me where). What Genesis 1 explicitly says is that the earth was empty (and without form). Not that there was nothing at the beginning, but only that there was nothing in the earth. No life. There is a big difference between the two, and it shows that your view of the biblical creation events may itself be patently wrong.

Finally, do you have any sign of divinely inspired knowledge? How do you know it if you do? If you don't, how can you call the Israelites out for not having it? Seems to me your only definition of divinely inspired knowledge is scientific. There are other kinds of valuable knowledge out there that aren't hard sciences.

[1213]

...
Why do some claim that Genesis 1 describes the universe when the author shows no knowledge of our solar system much less the universe?

If you would want to speak about what the Bible tells, it would be better to show the scriptures in the Bible, without poor image that is not found in the Genesis.

[Tcg]

...
Why do some claim that Genesis 1 describes the universe when the author shows no knowledge of our solar system much less the universe?

If you would want to speak about what the Bible tells, it would be better to show the scriptures in the Bible, without poor image that is not found in the Genesis.

Here's a similar image that provides references for those who'd like to check them.



If one doesn't find the images helpful, one can ignore them and answer the O.P. question based solely on the content of Genesis 1.


Tcg

[brunumb]

Either way, the focus of Genesis 1 seems to be much more narrow than the universe, and we should focus our attention accordingly. i.e., most of the text is focused on the earth and our role in it. One where we are called to follow God's example and rule over the earth in kind.

No. Its focus is on explaining how everything began. It then goes on to try and explain how God's perfect creation went down the gurgler by putting the blame on human beings, but that is all just religious propaganda. The important point is that the description of the so-called creation events from nothingness to earth, sun, moon, plant, animals, humans and so on is patently wrong. It's a wild guess from the minds of primitive people with absolutely no sign of any divinely inspired knowledge.

To be clear, Genesis 1 does not show any kind of downfall or blame game. That is Genesis 3 and beyond.

From nothingness? That is not explicitly said in Genesis 1 either (or else show me where). What Genesis 1 explicitly says is that the earth was empty (and without form). Not that there was nothing at the beginning, but only that there was nothing in the earth. No life. There is a big difference between the two, and it shows that your view of the biblical creation events may itself be patently wrong.

Finally, do you have any sign of divinely inspired knowledge? How do you know it if you do? If you don't, how can you call the Israelites out for not having it? Seems to me your only definition of divinely inspired knowledge is scientific. There are other kinds of valuable knowledge out there that aren't hard sciences.

However you want to nit-pick, Genesis is completely at odds with what we have learnt about the universe and the origin of Earth. The authors knew nothing about it and God provided no revelations. Their understanding of it all was just primitive guesswork and totally wrong. It took hard work and human intelligence to brush aside all the superstitious nonsense to reveal the true glory of the universe and our place in it. No God necessary.

[TRANSPONDER]

The point about the images is that they best accord with the description in Genesis (and later on in the Bible) and make it possible to understand puzzling expressions like 'the waters above' and 'the fountains of the deep', while the Bible apologist prefers to fit them to the world and cosmos as we know it. I have only once come across one apologist who thought the earth was the centre of the universe, and even she didn't think it was a flat circle.

[Difflugia]

I have only once come across one apologist who thought the earth was the centre of the universe, and even she didn't think it was a flat circle.

If you haven't, read this old thread.

[TRANSPONDER]

Before my time, but the retreat into denial is always astounding:

Because it cant be proven that earth rotates, I think it is possible earth is not rotating and it is for example sun and moon that rotate around earth, or something else that seems to us that there is rotation.

I won't quote the writer to save their embarrassment. But it's a fine example of 'I don't understand it, therefore it in't true'.

[1213]

Here's a similar image that provides references for those who'd like to check them.

Thank you. I think that shows nicely how the whole image is basically a straw man argument against the Bible.

For example the circumferential sea claim is based on these:

When he established the heavens, I was there; When he set a circle on the surface of the deep,
Pro. 8:27
He has described a boundary on the surface of the waters, And to the confines of light and darkness.
Job 26:10

A circle can be also drawn on the surface of a sphere, which is why the image of flat planet idea is not Biblical.

[Tcg]

Here's a similar image that provides references for those who'd like to check them.

Thank you. I think that shows nicely how the whole image is basically a straw man argument against the Bible.

For example the circumferential sea claim is based on these:

When he established the heavens, I was there; When he set a circle on the surface of the deep,
Pro. 8:27
He has described a boundary on the surface of the waters, And to the confines of light and darkness.
Job 26:10

A circle can be also drawn on the surface of a sphere, which is why the image of flat planet idea is not Biblical.

Your reply doesn't address the O.P., "Does Genesis 1 describe the Universe?" In fact it doesn't mention Genesis 1 at all.


Tcg