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]

It conveys how we should comport ourselves to make the earth a place where life can prosper. (Hence ethics, politics, and economics.)

It's core truth, I would argue, is in the linkage between the action God demonstrates (and calls us to model) with the rest and prosperity (i.e., goodness) that comes from it.

Although this over simplifies, it is basically the argument that IF we keep doing what God shows us, THEN the world will be a happy, wonderful place where we all live happily ever after. So if we want to critique Gen 1 we should do so on that front (IMO).

How on earth do you get all of that from Genesis 1? Perhaps you could quote specific passages to illustrate what you are claiming.

Where does Gen 1 say it is a scientific-historical view of the universe? ... Anyways sure, I can provide quotes.

Let me break it down a bit more to show how the text conveys what I'm saying:

1. Gen 1:1-25
I'm not going to cite them all. These verses clearly show a trajectory, through God's action / rule, towards a more productive and full / prosperous earth. From the barren, dark world mentioned in Gen 1:2 (i.e., "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep"), to a world brimming with plants and animals in Gen 1:25.

i.e., it is more about achieving productivity / prosperity (economics) than it is hard scientific truth (physics).

Any objection?

2. Gen 1:26
This verse begins to show God's purpose for humankind. Note the point that we are made in God's image and likeness so that we can take over ruling the earth, i.e.:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

This is the transition from God to humankind that I indicated, where we are created and called to continue God's work. This becomes even more clear in Gen 1:28 where that purpose is further pronounced and aligned with God's preceding efforts: i.e., where we are given the mandate to "fill the earth and subdue it," which is precisely what God was doing throughout Gen 1:1-25.

i.e., our mandate as humankind is to continue the work that God has been doing so that the earth continues to be productive and life can prosper.

Any objection?

3. Gen 2:2
Although technically outside Gen 1, this verse is the capstone where God can now rest because the earth has a good start and humankind is onboard to continue God's work.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

So look, it's not exactly rocket science.

You have a clear trajectory from barren to productive earth.
You have God demonstrating throughout the kind of rule required to do it.
You have a transition of that rule from God to humankind.
You have God exiting the scene and the beginning of our tenure (which we quickly mess up).

Any objection?

If not, that's basically the story, which means the structure of Gen 1 conveys a pretty clear relationship (/ argument) between the nature of God's rule (our rule) and productivity / prosperity on earth. That is the point of the story, and the core truth that Gen 1 conveys. So again, that is what you should all attack if you want to show how false Gen 1 is. i.e., you should attack the nature of God's rule / the way of ruling we are called to, and point out how it does not / cannot lead to the 'good' outcomes that Gen 1 identifies.

None of it, frankly, has much to do with a scientific-historical description of the universe.

Last, if you want more proof, just look at how the rest of the bible unfolds, and where we soon see the results of our failure to rule in the way that God shows us. In short, instead of productivity / prosperity, the world falls to crap, and we need to restore the rule that we were originally called to, through Jesus, to get things back on track. (The bible in a nutshell is trying to convey this same truth as Gen 1.)

[TRANSPONDER]

What? Another one who doesn't think that God knows everything? Not even the working of the cosmos He created? I suppose it's a viewpoint that might explain a few things, but in fat I think it has no merit - rather like the 'natural explanations' of the Flood, the star, darkness at Noon and miracle healings, which while validating the Bible would invalidate Jesusgod. Because the Better hypothesis is that it is an invented creation -scenario based on Mesopotamian originals ...

Again, where in Gen 1 does it say God knows everything? The answer is nowhere. You can't just add things to the text that aren't there, and then proclaim yourself to be right.

If you want a broader argument on God's omniscience, just look to all the times God changes in the bible. Would an all-knowing God change course, or regret an action, or knowingly set the whole thing up to fail? It's ridiculous. It's not the biblical view but rather Greek influence (as I believe we've discussed before, but perhaps was someone else).

I get what you say. I'm just surprised as Omnipotence generally seems to be an unwritten dogma about God. I agree it makes more sense if God doesn't know everything, let alone Jesus. But we do get written implication that Some things are known - prophetic predictions, for instance. It would make more sense if some things are promised and sometimes they happen and sometimes they don't. It would explain why after 1,000 years of backing the Hebrews God suddenly switches his support to Greek Christians. But of course it also makes even more sense if humans had just made the whole thing up.

[theophile]

What? Another one who doesn't think that God knows everything? Not even the working of the cosmos He created? I suppose it's a viewpoint that might explain a few things, but in fat I think it has no merit - rather like the 'natural explanations' of the Flood, the star, darkness at Noon and miracle healings, which while validating the Bible would invalidate Jesusgod. Because the Better hypothesis is that it is an invented creation -scenario based on Mesopotamian originals ...

Again, where in Gen 1 does it say God knows everything? The answer is nowhere. You can't just add things to the text that aren't there, and then proclaim yourself to be right.

If you want a broader argument on God's omniscience, just look to all the times God changes in the bible. Would an all-knowing God change course, or regret an action, or knowingly set the whole thing up to fail? It's ridiculous. It's not the biblical view but rather Greek influence (as I believe we've discussed before, but perhaps was someone else).

I get what you say. I'm just surprised as Omnipotence generally seems to be an unwritten dogma about God. I agree it makes more sense if God doesn't know everything, let alone Jesus. But we do get written implication that Some things are known - prophetic predictions, for instance. It would make more sense if some things are promised and sometimes they happen and sometimes they don't. It would explain why after 1,000 years of backing the Hebrews God suddenly switches his support to Greek Christians. But of course it also makes even more sense if humans had just made the whole thing up.

I think everything you're saying is correct. e.g., The whole thing is made up. But that doesn't mean it is wrong. Human imagination is at the bottom of a lot of the things we know (including God). I just don't think that necessarily devalues God, or what the bible expresses as God's teaching. I think human imagination and resulting endeavor is fully capable of understanding and expressing such a concept, assessing whether it has any reality (or even potential), and depicting it in an artifact like Gen 1, the bible, and anything else really.

And I do think there is a knowledge to God that needs to be understood. It's not explicit in Gen 1, but I would suggest that something like omniscience is the goal. It is the end, just as something like omnipotence is the culmination of the biblical God. It's just not necessarily the beginning (Gen 1), or in any step along the way. Regarding those, who knows what actual knowledge and power God has? By which I mean, what knowledge and power has actually been committed to the mandate that God sets in Gen 1:28? Even the bible makes that point time and again (see God's speech to Job for instance in Job 38).

So as a theoretical construct, I think Gen 1 depicts a God that gets its power from the world. From us. From everything else (potentially) that is out there, lurking in the deep of Gen 1:2. That's what we see time and again in Gen 1. God calls ("Let there be...") and the world answers. The world participates in the effort to bring forth what God calls for in the pursuit of life. Literally bringing it forth from all the power residing in the deep.

This means God could have significant power. Even in an actual sense. Especially if we look beyond earth to the cosmic scale, and measure God's power through all those committed to continuing God's work (whether knowingly or not). Things like prophecy and stories depicting great knowledge and power to God start to make a lot of sense. God has (or could have) great knowledge and power, which is what the bible literarily shows. Through those who bring it to God's cause (like Jesus who is biblically speaking the firstborn on earth to do so, and the beginning of a movement to gather the rest).

As such, to circle back and try to bring this diatribe together, I think there is an implicit call in Gen 1 to human imagination and endeavor (i.e., to creativity). This is a critical part of the plan and design so that all knowledge and power can be brought to God, or to the pursuit of life and its conditions in the world.

[historia]

Would you say then that Genesis 1 was not intended to be historically and scientifically accurate and therefore it does not describe the universe at least not in any literal sense?

Yeah -- I don't think the original author (or the final redactor) considered Genesis 1 to be a straight-forward historical or scientific account in the modern sense. Genesis 1-11 is clearly mythology.

[Tcg]

Would you say then that Genesis 1 was not intended to be historically and scientifically accurate and therefore it does not describe the universe at least not in any literal sense?

Yeah -- I don't think the original author (or the final redactor) considered Genesis 1 to be a straight-forward historical or scientific account in the modern sense. Genesis 1-11 is clearly mythology.

What do you consider the indicator that Genesis 12 shifts from mythology to history? Genesis 11 ends with an introduction to Abram and 12 continues the story of Abram.


Tcg

[brunumb]

Let me break it down a bit more to show how the text conveys what I'm saying:

1. Gen 1:1-25
I'm not going to cite them all. These verses clearly show a trajectory, through God's action / rule, towards a more productive and full / prosperous earth. From the barren, dark world mentioned in Gen 1:2 (i.e., "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep"), to a world brimming with plants and animals in Gen 1:25.

i.e., it is more about achieving productivity / prosperity (economics) than it is hard scientific truth (physics).

Any objection?

But of course. All of what you said requires more than just reading between the lines. It really requires inserting lines between the lines. As written, it is a rather feeble attempt at describing the creation of everything and, based on what we have learned, it is patently wrong to boot.

2. Gen 1:26
This verse begins to show God's purpose for humankind. Note the point that we are made in God's image and likeness so that we can take over ruling the earth, i.e.:

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Or, it is a statement that God made human beings with an attempt to explain why we are smarter than all the other critters.

This is the transition from God to humankind that I indicated, where we are created and called to continue God's work. This becomes even more clear in Gen 1:28 where that purpose is further pronounced and aligned with God's preceding efforts: i.e., where we are given the mandate to "fill the earth and subdue it," which is precisely what God was doing throughout Gen 1:1-25.
i.e., our mandate as humankind is to continue the work that God has been doing so that the earth continues to be productive and life can prosper.

In Genesis 1:22 God pretty much said the same multiplying thing about all the other creatures he had made before he got to human beings.

3. Gen 2:2
Although technically outside Gen 1, this verse is the capstone where God can now rest because the earth has a good start and humankind is onboard to continue God's work.

But we are only concerned with Genesis 1 as you correctly pointed out to me in response to one of my comments.

So look, it's not exactly rocket science.

You have a clear trajectory from barren to productive earth.
You have God demonstrating throughout the kind of rule required to do it.
You have a transition of that rule from God to humankind.
You have God exiting the scene and the beginning of our tenure (which we quickly mess up).

Yes. It is an attempt at an origin story. There are lots of them from all over the world. Some even more interesting than this one.

If not, that's basically the story, which means the structure of Gen 1 conveys a pretty clear relationship (/ argument) between the nature of God's rule (our rule) and productivity / prosperity on earth. That is the point of the story, and the core truth that Gen 1 conveys. So again, that is what you should all attack if you want to show how false Gen 1 is. i.e., you should attack the nature of God's rule / the way of ruling we are called to, and point out how it does not / cannot lead to the 'good' outcomes that Gen 1 identifies.

Genesis is false in that its narrative is inconsistent with what we humans have discovered about the origin of this world.

None of it, frankly, has much to do with a scientific-historical description of the universe.

That's because the author(s) of this fiction knew nothing about the reality of nature. They were just winging it. Who was going to question them about it back then?

Last, if you want more proof, just look at how the rest of the bible unfolds, and where we soon see the results of our failure to rule in the way that God shows us. In short, instead of productivity / prosperity, the world falls to crap, and we need to restore the rule that we were originally called to, through Jesus, to get things back on track. (The bible in a nutshell is trying to convey this same truth as Gen 1.)

The rest is just more religious propaganda.

[TRANSPONDER]

What? Another one who doesn't think that God knows everything? Not even the working of the cosmos He created? I suppose it's a viewpoint that might explain a few things, but in fat I think it has no merit - rather like the 'natural explanations' of the Flood, the star, darkness at Noon and miracle healings, which while validating the Bible would invalidate Jesusgod. Because the Better hypothesis is that it is an invented creation -scenario based on Mesopotamian originals ...

Again, where in Gen 1 does it say God knows everything? The answer is nowhere. You can't just add things to the text that aren't there, and then proclaim yourself to be right.

If you want a broader argument on God's omniscience, just look to all the times God changes in the bible. Would an all-knowing God change course, or regret an action, or knowingly set the whole thing up to fail? It's ridiculous. It's not the biblical view but rather Greek influence (as I believe we've discussed before, but perhaps was someone else).

I get what you say. I'm just surprised as Omnipotence generally seems to be an unwritten dogma about God. I agree it makes more sense if God doesn't know everything, let alone Jesus. But we do get written implication that Some things are known - prophetic predictions, for instance. It would make more sense if some things are promised and sometimes they happen and sometimes they don't. It would explain why after 1,000 years of backing the Hebrews God suddenly switches his support to Greek Christians. But of course it also makes even more sense if humans had just made the whole thing up.

I think everything you're saying is correct. e.g., The whole thing is made up. But that doesn't mean it is wrong. Human imagination is at the bottom of a lot of the things we know (including God). I just don't think that necessarily devalues God, or what the bible expresses as God's teaching. I think human imagination and resulting endeavor is fully capable of understanding and expressing such a concept, assessing whether it has any reality (or even potential), and depicting it in an artifact like Gen 1, the bible, and anything else really.

And I do think there is a knowledge to God that needs to be understood. It's not explicit in Gen 1, but I would suggest that something like omniscience is the goal. It is the end, just as something like omnipotence is the culmination of the biblical God. It's just not necessarily the beginning (Gen 1), or in any step along the way. Regarding those, who knows what actual knowledge and power God has? By which I mean, what knowledge and power has actually been committed to the mandate that God sets in Gen 1:28? Even the bible makes that point time and again (see God's speech to Job for instance in Job 38).

So as a theoretical construct, I think Gen 1 depicts a God that gets its power from the world. From us. From everything else (potentially) that is out there, lurking in the deep of Gen 1:2. That's what we see time and again in Gen 1. God calls ("Let there be...") and the world answers. The world participates in the effort to bring forth what God calls for in the pursuit of life. Literally bringing it forth from all the power residing in the deep.

This means God could have significant power. Even in an actual sense. Especially if we look beyond earth to the cosmic scale, and measure God's power through all those committed to continuing God's work (whether knowingly or not). Things like prophecy and stories depicting great knowledge and power to God start to make a lot of sense. God has (or could have) great knowledge and power, which is what the bible literarily shows. Through those who bring it to God's cause (like Jesus who is biblically speaking the firstborn on earth to do so, and the beginning of a movement to gather the rest).

As such, to circle back and try to bring this diatribe together, I think there is an implicit call in Gen 1 to human imagination and endeavor (i.e., to creativity). This is a critical part of the plan and design so that all knowledge and power can be brought to God, or to the pursuit of life and its conditions in the world.

It's like this - first off, Genesis is either factually correct (historical events) or it isn't. I've seen so many apologetics that try to make the science wrong or try to adapt Genesis to the science, and people have to make up their own minds - preferably after looking at both sides rather than just the one that says what they want to believe. Bottom line - those who say that the 'Cambrian Explosion' proves Genesis - style creation do not know what the Cambrian Explosion actually was and what (on the fossil evidence) happened.

Very well. Then accepting that Genesis is made up, it is possible to say there was and must be a god behind it and even that somehow it's the god of the Bible. Please yourselves. It could be Allah, Vishnu. Texactichlapoti or none of them. I don't mind. You are free to believe what you want. You can even tell me about it, but there is no shred of a good reason why I should believe it and I won't see any reason not to say so. And will back it up with the science.
There's a story. Napoleon asked Laplace to make him a working model of the 'Universe'. So he made a mechanical orrery (q.v) and Napoleon watched the planets trundling around the sun for a while.

"I see you haven't put God in there."

"It works perfectly well without, Sire."

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

Um, scripture is clear that God created the heavens and the earth...

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=ESV

Above you have multiple scriptures which attest to God stretching out the heavens. "Stretching" is just another word for "expanding"...when scientists say "our universe is expanding", that is the Biblical way of saying "our universe is stretching".

Same thing.

Or, as gotquestions.org so eloquently put it..

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning [TIME] God created the heavens [SPACE] and the earth [MATTER]".

https://www.gotquestions.org/universe-expanding.html

Or, as I am eloquently putting it; God did it.

Science is man's way of figuring out what God already did.

[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

Um, scripture is clear that God created the heavens and the earth...

Heavens and earth does not equate to universe.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=ESV

Above you have multiple scriptures which attest to God stretching out the heavens. "Stretching" is just another word for "expanding"...when scientists say "our universe is expanding", that is the Biblical way of saying "our universe is stretching".

Same thing.

I only found one:

Psalm 104:covering yourself with light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a tent.

Last I checked Psalm 104 is not part of Genesis 1.

Or, as gotquestions.org so eloquently put it..

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning [TIME] God created the heavens [SPACE] and the earth [MATTER]".

https://www.gotquestions.org/universe-expanding.html

Or, as I am eloquently putting it; God did it.

Science is man's way of figuring out what God already did.

This is a fascinating assertion, oddly no evidence to support it has been provided.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

Heavens and earth does not equate to universe.

It does to me.

I only found one:

Psalm 104:covering yourself with light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a tent.

Last I checked Psalm 104 is not part of Genesis 1.

Only one?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ersion=NIV

Psalm 104 may not be part of Genesis, but last I checked it is part of the Bible.

The creation account isn't limited to one book.

This is a fascinating assertion, oddly no evidence to support it has been provided.

Tcg

Oddly no evidence to the contrary.