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

[theophile]

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

Funny, I thought you were the one who posted the image with all the non-Gen 1 references... So maybe you should redirect your response to yourself? ...

Which leaves me wondering, where are your references from Gen 1 that create this image that you claim proves how out of whack Gen 1 is with reality?

To 1213's point, everything you're saying is based on a strawman.

[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

Funny, I thought you were the one who posted the image with all the non-Gen 1 references... So maybe you should redirect your response to yourself? ...

Did you not notice the references to Genesis 1?

Which leaves me wondering, where are your references from Gen 1 that create this image that you claim proves how out of whack Gen 1 is with reality?

They're in there. You must have overlooked them.

To 1213's point, everything you're saying is based on a strawman.

Neither you nor 1213 have shown that to be the case. And oddly enough, neither of you have addressed the O.P, "Does Genesis 1 describe the Universe?"


Tcg

[theophile]

I think that shows nicely how the whole image is basically a straw man argument against the Bible... For example the circumferential sea claim ...

I hear your point, but I actually don't mind the circumferential sea (the quality of the references aside). I prefer the original diagram though that labelled it "the deep," which is an explicit Gen 1 reference. It's like the area outside a known map labelled "here be dragons." (Quite literally even if we equate the deep to other creation myths like the Enuma Elish with its dragon sea goddess Tiamat.)

Also, I think there's an interesting parallel in Gen 2. The deep surrounding the heavens and earth in Gen 1 is like the wilderness surrounding the garden of Eden in Gen 2. That said, I do think it is implied in both cases that the central area is meant to expand, and over time encompass / fill the surrounding abyss.

Anyways, food for thought.

[theophile]

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

Funny, I thought you were the one who posted the image with all the non-Gen 1 references... So maybe you should redirect your response to yourself? ...

Did you not notice the references to Genesis 1?

Which leaves me wondering, where are your references from Gen 1 that create this image that you claim proves how out of whack Gen 1 is with reality?

They're in there. You must have overlooked them.

To 1213's point, everything you're saying is based on a strawman.

Neither you nor 1213 have shown that to be the case. And oddly enough, neither of you have addressed the O.P, "Does Genesis 1 describe the Universe?"


Tcg

What about all the components of the diagram without a Gen 1 reference? Only three components have coverage. So please try again, or reduce the image (and your criticism) to what you can justify.

To your last point, I've said multiple times that I don't think Gen 1 describes the universe. It is not a science text. So why would I try to show what I don't think is true? Instead I've tried to open your eyes to the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are other truths being conveyed by Gen 1. But you don't want to consider that (and that's fine, I get it's technically out of scope of the OP).

[Tcg]

What about all the components of the diagram without a Gen 1 reference? Only three components have coverage. So please try again, or reduce the image (and your criticism) to what you can justify.

As I've already answered:

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.

To your last point, I've said multiple times that I don't think Gen 1 describes the universe.

Great, that answers the O.P.


Tcg

[Miles]

What about all the components of the diagram without a Gen 1 reference? Only three components have coverage.

Only three? Boy I count quite a few

To your last point, I've said multiple times that I don't think Gen 1 describes the universe.

Then exactly what do you think it's describing? It's got stars, the most distant known objects at the time! So if this isn't a depiction of the universe then just what does it depict?

It is not a science text. So why would I try to show what I don't think is true?

Well it isn't a history text either, but many people treat it as such. Taking as historical truth the accounts of a guy who long ago raised people from the dead, cured people of major illnesses, turned water into wine, and could walk on water.

Instead I've tried to open your eyes to the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are other truths being conveyed by Gen 1.

And what would these truths be?


.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think that shows nicely how the whole image is basically a straw man argument against the Bible... For example the circumferential sea claim ...

I hear your point, but I actually don't mind the circumferential sea (the quality of the references aside). I prefer the original diagram though that labelled it "the deep," which is an explicit Gen 1 reference. It's like the area outside a known map labelled "here be dragons." (Quite literally even if we equate the deep to other creation myths like the Enuma Elish with its dragon sea goddess Tiamat.)

Also, I think there's an interesting parallel in Gen 2. The deep surrounding the heavens and earth in Gen 1 is like the wilderness surrounding the garden of Eden in Gen 2. That said, I do think it is implied in both cases that the central area is meant to expand, and over time encompass / fill the surrounding abyss.

Anyways, food for thought.

I would agree that Eden itself is a limited area and the humans will eventually expand into it, though the land area itself (geography given in Gen 2. 10-14) will not expand. I also agree that the 'circle of the earth' was seen as being ringed by mountains holding back the outer waters (a view that was shown in the portolan maps on the medieval period until circumnavigating the globe showed this view to be false.
This however only goes to show that the Babylonians snow -dome cosmos illustrated in the posted diagrams and which makes sense of the cosmos described in Genesis and in fact the rest of the Bible, is not the actuality.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

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

The most likely answer would be because they associate it with their particular image of The Creator and accepting the contrary evidence of science would jeopardize said image.

As I see it, evidence of science + possibility we exist within a creation = any Creator(s) involved with the making of that, are worthy of our admiration, so we need to at the very least prevent ourselves from thinking Genesis or any other ancient images of such a being(s) are accurate re the evidence of The Universe itself.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

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

The most likely answer would be because they associate it with their particular image of The Creator and accepting the contrary evidence of science would jeopardize said image.

As I see it, evidence of science + possibility we exist within a creation = any Creator(s) involved with the making of that, are worthy of our admiration, so we need to at the very least prevent ourselves from thinking Genesis or any other ancient images of such a being(s) are accurate re the evidence of The Universe itself.

Am I getting the suggestion that the writers of Genesis knew it wasn't true but they gave a false (Babylonian -style) creation and cosmos because they though nobody would believe it otherwise? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Noose001]

Yes it does. But the bible is not a Cosmology or even a Scientific book; it's a book about man.
It starts with creation of the universe (every created thing) and then quickly narrows down to the home of man (Earth), then man who is the focus. The ending is restoration of man, then Earth and then the universe.