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

[Tcg]

And I appreciate your recognition of the waters as a major area of contention. This is not belief speaking but biblical fact. And fair enough there should be some agreed upon version there to conduct a debate. All I'm saying is that looking at the text objectively shows that the waters were never created in Gen 1. As the initial diagram posted shows, and I agree, there is a great deep outside the bounds of the heavens and the earth. Something that God did not create.

The author or authors of Genesis don't agree with your assessment. The "great deep" is not described as something "outside the bounds of the heavens and the earth", but rather as something directly beneath the earth:

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

This is describing the sources of the Great Flood. The rains that fell as a result of the heavens opening and water from below the earth. That which sprang up was water plain and simple. It certainly wasn't the universe that burst forth to cause the flood. This is as inaccurate as the description of the "heavens and the earth" from Genesis 1 and it is so precisely because it is based on the same inaccurate view.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

[theophile]

And I appreciate your recognition of the waters as a major area of contention. This is not belief speaking but biblical fact. And fair enough there should be some agreed upon version there to conduct a debate. All I'm saying is that looking at the text objectively shows that the waters were never created in Gen 1. As the initial diagram posted shows, and I agree, there is a great deep outside the bounds of the heavens and the earth. Something that God did not create.

The author or authors of Genesis don't agree with your assessment. The "great deep" is not described as something "outside the bounds of the heavens and the earth", but rather as something directly beneath the earth:

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

This is describing the sources of the Great Flood. The rains that fell as a result of the heavens opening and water from below the earth. That which sprang up was water plain and simple. It certainly wasn't the universe that burst forth to cause the flood. This is as inaccurate as the description of the "heavens and the earth" from Genesis 1 and it is so precisely because it is based on the same inaccurate view.


Tcg

That's a nice verse, thanks for raising. But per your own rule we are talking Gen 1 here. Not Genesis. But even so I don't get the contradiction. I have no issue with Gen 7:11. In fact it makes my point exactly.

The deep is below the earth, yes. But it is also above. It surrounds. Just look at the diagram you posted in the OP. Or better, look at Gen 1:6.

And God said, “Let there be a dome between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the dome and separated the water under the dome from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the dome 'sky'. And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

This is clear: the waters are explicitly both under and over the sky / the heavens. The heavens and the earth that God creates are literally surrounded by the deep. The dome marks its edge. Contained within are all the stars of the heavens. Outside is the deep.

The verse you cited puts it beautifully: "the windows of the heavens were opened." Windows on the dome that hold the waters above at bay.

[theophile]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

Pretty sure I've admitted from the beginning that Gen 1 isn't science. So I'm not papering over or whitewashing anything. I understand its weaknesses as an objective account of the cosmos, and have never hidden or denied them. But that doesn't mean we can't find interesting scientific connections in it. Nor other ways that it deeply reflects reality.

There is no harm in recognizing the good along with the bad.

[TRANSPONDER]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

Pretty sure I've admitted from the beginning that Gen 1 isn't science. So I'm not papering over or whitewashing anything. I understand its weaknesses as an objective account of the cosmos, and have never hidden or denied them. But that doesn't mean we can't find interesting scientific connections in it. Nor other ways that it deeply reflects reality.

There is no harm in recognizing the good along with the bad.

Understood, since you clarify that you accept that Genesis is -to put it bluntly - factually wrong. That is, you aren't trying to rewrite it to fit the science.

It seems that you are arguing for greater and hidden truths behind the universe, and perhaps suggest that Genesis is telling us about these. I have to say that greater and hidden truths - even if it turns out to be a Cosmic Mind - is not likely to be any more revealed by Genesis that any other holy book that hints at greater hidden universal truths whether it be Brahma or thew Tao.

From the sceptical -secularist point of view, unknowns or at least unprovens remain speculations or indeed Beliefs without any validation. 'science' has either explained matters or unexplained problems, but no gods or anything like it. The feelings and ideas that humans get is indeed Data but for all we know, just stuff that happens inside our heads and no more than that, even if we use them to inspire our Holy Books.

[theophile]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

Pretty sure I've admitted from the beginning that Gen 1 isn't science. So I'm not papering over or whitewashing anything. I understand its weaknesses as an objective account of the cosmos, and have never hidden or denied them. But that doesn't mean we can't find interesting scientific connections in it. Nor other ways that it deeply reflects reality.

There is no harm in recognizing the good along with the bad.

Understood, since you clarify that you accept that Genesis is -to put it bluntly - factually wrong. That is, you aren't trying to rewrite it to fit the science.

It seems that you are arguing for greater and hidden truths behind the universe, and perhaps suggest that Genesis is telling us about these. I have to say that greater and hidden truths - even if it turns out to be a Cosmic Mind - is not likely to be any more revealed by Genesis that any other holy book that hints at greater hidden universal truths whether it be Brahma or thew Tao.

From the sceptical -secularist point of view, unknowns or at least unprovens remain speculations or indeed Beliefs without any validation. 'science' has either explained matters or unexplained problems, but no gods or anything like it. The feelings and ideas that humans get is indeed Data but for all we know, just stuff that happens inside our heads and no more than that, even if we use them to inspire our Holy Books.

I would never deny the truth of other traditions. I'm not saying Hindu (or whatever) scriptures say the same thing as Biblical, but they may very well convey the same or similar truths or even truths of their own. Perhaps even more valuable truths. The same holds for science. Which for the record I value highly and think should be pursued. I am not ignorant to it, I just don't find in it what I need.

It's like I said before, Gen 1 delivers more of an ethical-political-economic truth than it does historical-scientific. And that's way more important to me, and for immediate life in this world as well I think. This is a wholly separate question, but if I was to evaluate the order of truths, the former is far higher priority. How we should live is far more important than how it all began...

But I get your request for validation. To me that must come in the form of real world experience that the rule of God (or living according to God's rule) yields the goodness and rest that Gen 1 describes. That is what must be shown. That is what Gen 1 should live or die by. (Not its physical science.)

To me the most important thing we can be asking ourselves is what kind of rule does God display in Gen 1? Does it logically lead to life and prosperity? Does it actually?...

No less valuable to life in this world because it all originated inside our heads.

[Tcg]

How we should live is far more important than how it all began...

Whether or not this is true, Genesis 1 proports to describe how it all began. Of course, given that it presents a flawed view of cosmology, there is no reason to accept that it is accurate in its description of how it all began. Much less so should one accept its advice on how to live if it in fact does so.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

Pretty sure I've admitted from the beginning that Gen 1 isn't science. So I'm not papering over or whitewashing anything. I understand its weaknesses as an objective account of the cosmos, and have never hidden or denied them. But that doesn't mean we can't find interesting scientific connections in it. Nor other ways that it deeply reflects reality.

There is no harm in recognizing the good along with the bad.

That is not denied. But the starting point or basics there is, or should be, that if science is right, Genesis is wrong. Any efforts to try to make Genesis anything more than a creation story written (or adapted) by people who had no idea what actually happened has a hill to climb and if we must speak of good and bad, good as mythological literature is fine, but good as anything else is unjustified. I disapprove of fiddling Genesis to try to make it fit science (like the good old divide the age of the universe into 7 and call each a 'day') and am not enamoured of taking some supposed common element such as 'light' and implying that this somehow validates Genesis as anything but a Babylonian myth given a Hebrew twist.

[theophile]

How we should live is far more important than how it all began...

Whether or not this is true, Genesis 1 proports to describe how it all began. Of course, given that it presents a flawed view of cosmology, there is no reason to accept that it is accurate in its description of how it all began. Much less so should one accept its advice on how to live if it in fact does so.


Tcg

I fully agree we should not take it as truth in regards to how it all began from a scientific perspective. But I don't agree with your last sentence. I don't think that is any reason to not accept its advice on how to order our lives and the world around us.

Or, if that is your argument, then what is the connection between the two? Is it just that the author couldn't have been infallible? That's a bit unfair. None of us is infallible that I know. Not even God (at least not according to Gen 1).

[TRANSPONDER]

And I would further posit, to the OP, that this too has strong agreement with reality, i.e., that there is a great deep out there beyond all that we know. But I fully concede that there is nothing about 'the deep' in Gen 1 that is scientific. It is simply an image of the cosmic ocean that we all find ourselves in. It is not an accurate depiction of our reality. More a subjective truth than objective.

An awful lot of massaging of facts together with creative interpretation is required in order to make Genesis conform with our knowledge of the universe. In the greater scheme of things Earth is an insignificant planet in the outer suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy. The Sun is an ordinary star, one of around 200 billion in the galaxy, which itself is one of around 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. Genesis paints a picture of a specially created planet at the centre of everything with all those stars and galaxies as nothing more than lights in the sky for signs and wonders. Of all the people who have ever lived, or will live before the upcoming end of days, the vast majority of them will have known nothing of the true nature of the universe. So, what was the point of all those cosmic creations in a universe that is inexplicably expanding at an ever increasing rate? None of it makes any sense with God in the mix. The little geocentric model created by early imaginations bears no relation to reality. It reflects the idea that humans are very special and that all the unknowns that they encountered could be explained in terms of a magical being even greater than them.

Please tell me, what facts did I "massage"? Be explicit. You didn't argue anything I said directly.

And of course the earth is insignificant. Who said otherwise? If geocentricity is your problem then okay... I already acknowledged weakness in Gen 1 from a scientific perspective for similar reasons. i.e., Gen 1 does not mention other planets. Nor is it explicit on what the center of the universe is for that matter, i.e., whether the earth is in fact the center, so not sure why you're holding that against it. I think Gen 1 portrays a universe with multiple points of light. They could be other worlds, equally as important. Why not?

And what is wrong with the idea of humans being special? Look at the earth. We control its destiny and are quite arguably messing it up. Seriously destroying things for ourselves and God knows for future generations. So of course we are special. It's not to pump our own tires but to acknowledge our responsibility over this planet and the life that it holds.

What I noticed is this attempt to paper ove this Bronze age idea of a sky dome with celestial bodies painted on (or moving about) the inner surface. That is not what we have and the geocentric model is not a problem for anyone since the 16th c. But this idea of whitewashing over all the stuff wrong with the Genesis cosmic model by covering it all with 'Light' (which is arguable - in space, it's dark unless there's a star nearby) as though that somehow made fact and mythology the same thing. That's massaging fact and fiction in the hope of making it the same thing.

Pretty sure I've admitted from the beginning that Gen 1 isn't science. So I'm not papering over or whitewashing anything. I understand its weaknesses as an objective account of the cosmos, and have never hidden or denied them. But that doesn't mean we can't find interesting scientific connections in it. Nor other ways that it deeply reflects reality.

There is no harm in recognizing the good along with the bad.

Understood, since you clarify that you accept that Genesis is -to put it bluntly - factually wrong. That is, you aren't trying to rewrite it to fit the science.

It seems that you are arguing for greater and hidden truths behind the universe, and perhaps suggest that Genesis is telling us about these. I have to say that greater and hidden truths - even if it turns out to be a Cosmic Mind - is not likely to be any more revealed by Genesis that any other holy book that hints at greater hidden universal truths whether it be Brahma or thew Tao.

From the sceptical -secularist point of view, unknowns or at least unprovens remain speculations or indeed Beliefs without any validation. 'science' has either explained matters or unexplained problems, but no gods or anything like it. The feelings and ideas that humans get is indeed Data but for all we know, just stuff that happens inside our heads and no more than that, even if we use them to inspire our Holy Books.

I would never deny the truth of other traditions. I'm not saying Hindu (or whatever) scriptures say the same thing as Biblical, but they may very well convey the same or similar truths or even truths of their own. Perhaps even more valuable truths. The same holds for science. Which for the record I value highly and think should be pursued. I am not ignorant to it, I just don't find in it what I need.

It's like I said before, Gen 1 delivers more of an ethical-political-economic truth than it does historical-scientific. And that's way more important to me, and for immediate life in this world as well I think. This is a wholly separate question, but if I was to evaluate the order of truths, the former is far higher priority. How we should live is far more important than how it all began...

But I get your request for validation. To me that must come in the form of real world experience that the rule of God (or living according to God's rule) yields the goodness and rest that Gen 1 describes. That is what must be shown. That is what Gen 1 should live or die by. (Not its physical science.)

To me the most important thing we can be asking ourselves is what kind of rule does God display in Gen 1? Does it logically lead to life and prosperity? Does it actually?...

No less valuable to life in this world because it all originated inside our heads.

Thanks for the clarification. But that is really a different discussion - or two different discussions; underlying spiritual Truths that are proper to a number of different religions and the value of the Bible (morally) even if it isn't reliable factually. Right now the factuality of the book of Genesis is what's under discussion - tough we do diverse on topic quite a lot