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

[Miles]

.


I looked into the designer of the graphic, Karbell Multimedia, located in Plantation, FL.. It's a legitimate business that creates graphics/videos for its clients. Evidently, Logos Bible Software, the copyright holder of the graphic, thought there would be money in picturing the Genesis Universe, goofy as it is.

Personally, I think it's pretty cool. Showing just how ridiculously bad god got it all. One question: what the heck is a firmament?


.....................


.

[theophile]

The point (IMO) is to show the reader what kind of god God is than it is to accurately detail out a scientific process.

But if it is not based on the truth it doesn't show us anything about God at all. It just shows us how early people imagined that it all began. No God necessary.

I never said it wasn't based on truth. The question is what truth. Genesis 1 is the beginning, but of what? The universe? Maybe. I would say it's closer to the beginning of a movement and that the universe pre-exists (see "the deep" in Genesis 1:2 and in the diagram posted). We can also look to the end in the bible, which is arguably as important as the beginning. It doesn't speak of the end of the universe but something more like the completion of a movement, with everyone living happily ever after kind of thing.

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.

As such, Genesis 1 is more about ethics, politics, and economics than it is physics or cosmology. So if we want to question the truth of it we should do so on those fronts. i.e., Judge the way that God shows us in Genesis 1, and whether it logically and actually leads to the rest and goodness promised. Don't judge it for something it's not even trying to do.

[Tcg]

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.

Of course it is focused on the earth. The author had no concept of the universe or even our solar system. What else could he focus on given that was the limit of his understanding? Now that's fine if we understand it's a story written by some dude, but if we pretend God was involved in the writing in some way, then God knew nothing more than your average dude at the time.


Tcg

[Tcg]

.


I looked into the designer of the graphic, Karbell Multimedia, located in Plantation, FL.. It's a legitimate business that creates graphics/videos for its clients. Evidently, Logos Bible Software, the copyright holder of the graphic, thought there would be money in picturing the Genesis Universe, goofy as it is.

Personally, I think it's pretty cool. Showing just how ridiculously bad god got it all. One question: what the heck is a firmament?


.....................


.

I often wonder that myself. What ever a firmament is it both keeps water out and lets water through. Kinda like a bad bouncer at a bar. Their underage friends get in while others don't.


Tcg

[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?

Because it fits their need. There's really no other reason that would make sense. But I'm sure a believer will preform linguistic gymnastics to make it 'show' it's talking about 'the universe' and 'planets' and the like. After all, the world is less than 10K years old

Bishop Ussher dates the creation of the world to Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. That gives us about 6,000 years. Of course that reveals yet another misunderstanding of cosmology.


Tcg

Oh Bisshy Ussher.... What a crack up!
These people can't even all agree on their own religion so why people want to think them experts at other things is a mystery, really. But hey: if it make someone sleep better at night I guess that's all that matters...?

We must understand the limits of the information at the time. He did the best with the limited information he had at the time, just as geographers did in the 14th c. or Geologists and biologists did before Darwin. No doubt in a few centuries from now (1) we (humung beans) will look back and laugh..."the poor saps had no idea" the whole thing was an alien computer - simulation. 'They coped with ASida - let's see how they cope with....This...

(1) Yes, folks, we'll be ok. I guarantee it. Sorry, no moneys back in case of non -delivery.

Oh, I agree, but if God were behind the story we'd expect a bit more accuracy. Of course if no god/s were involved, we'd expect just what we have.


Tcg

Quite so. The 'science in the Bible' apologetic fails, even after strenuous efforts to either make the Bible fit the science (e.g divide the scientific age of the universe into 7 and call each a 'Day', and ignore the light and dark, morning and evening, as it actually says in Genesis) or deny the science. And I need hardly labour (or even labor) how Science Denial is a feature of Some aspect of religious apologetics).

I was taking it from the point of view of the Bible being what it is (not what Faith -based Belief would have us think it is - ether some kind of word of God or a roughly accurate human record) and trying to draw evidence -based conclusions from what they had, just as we did (for example) in taking what 'Dark Ages' records there were and writing the Anglo -Saxon invasion into the history books, but after some decades of archaeology, there are serious doubts about any such thing really even happened. That seems to be the case with the Hyksos. I doubt that there ever was an invasion as such, but rather the Canaanites moving into the Delta and gradually gaining influence until the Egyptians found they had a foreign dynasty up there. Same with Java and the 'peaceful conversion to Islam' that the Muslim apologists talk about. So it was until the Hindu Javanese suddenly found a Muslim state taking them over.

Sorry for the History lesson but I'm aware of the limitation of raw data that we had in the past and understand that Bishop Ushher (what was he, 16 or 17th c? ) hadn't the geological research that would make old earth and indeed evolution the evidence - based conclusion in the 18th century, even if natural selection hadn't been identified as the mechanism and 'God' was still though to be the only explanation.

Of course, these days, we don't have the good Bishop's excuse and Genesis -literalists do indeed deserve our laughter and mockery, especially when they laugh at and mock, science.

[Difflugia]

I looked into the designer of the graphic, Karbell Multimedia, located in Plantation, FL.. It's a legitimate business that creates graphics/videos for its clients. Evidently, Logos Bible Software, the copyright holder of the graphic, thought there would be money in picturing the Genesis Universe, goofy as it is.

Versions of this graphic date back at least to the mid 1800s and have appeared in various Bible studies. This particular image is an updated, but otherwise direct copy of this one from a 1906 book.

One question: what the heck is a firmament?

I often wonder that myself. What ever a firmament is it both keeps water out and lets water through. Kinda like a bad bouncer at a bar. Their underage friends get in while others don't.

The Hebrew word seems to mean something flat, hard, and shiny (Daniel 12:3) like crystal (Ezekiel 1:22) or Lapis Lazuli (Ezekiel 10:1). The verb form means to "spread out" and is used of hammering metal. It's thought that the general idea was a transparent, crystal dome. We see a blue sky by looking through to the "waters above" and there are gates that open to allow it to rain.

[nobspeople]

[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?

Because it fits their need. There's really no other reason that would make sense. But I'm sure a believer will preform linguistic gymnastics to make it 'show' it's talking about 'the universe' and 'planets' and the like. After all, the world is less than 10K years old

Bishop Ussher dates the creation of the world to Sunday 23 October 4004 BC. That gives us about 6,000 years. Of course that reveals yet another misunderstanding of cosmology.


Tcg

Oh Bisshy Ussher.... What a crack up!
These people can't even all agree on their own religion so why people want to think them experts at other things is a mystery, really. But hey: if it make someone sleep better at night I guess that's all that matters...?

We must understand the limits of the information at the time. He did the best with the limited information he had at the time, just as geographers did in the 14th c. or Geologists and biologists did before Darwin. No doubt in a few centuries from now (1) we (humung beans) will look back and laugh..."the poor saps had no idea" the whole thing was an alien computer - simulation. 'They coped with ASida - let's see how they cope with....This...

(1) Yes, folks, we'll be ok. I guarantee it. Sorry, no moneys back in case of non -delivery.

Oh, I agree, but if God were behind the story we'd expect a bit more accuracy. Of course if no god/s were involved, we'd expect just what we have.


Tcg

Exactly
That is, of course, if god wanted more accuracy. Believers could say that this knowledge would be of no value to our eternal life and so god isn't interested in providing more and or accurate information.
They have an answer for everything

[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.

Of course it is focused on the earth. The author had no concept of the universe or even our solar system. What else could he focus on given that was the limit of his understanding? Now that's fine if we understand it's a story written by some dude, but if we pretend God was involved in the writing in some way, then God knew nothing more than your average dude at the time.


Tcg

Seems like an unfair standard to hold Genesis 1 to especially when you say yourself that the text is focused on earth. But let's take some of your assumptions as true for a moment. i.e., Let's say that God did write it (absurd as that is) and that God is super knowledgeable of physics and cosmology. Does any of that preclude God from wanting to write a more focused story that lays out the high level genesis of earth as we know it and our role in it? Absolutely not. So why then are we discrediting Genesis 1 because it does a crap job explaining the physical universe? Maybe that wasn't God's point.

[Tcg]

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.

Of course it is focused on the earth. The author had no concept of the universe or even our solar system. What else could he focus on given that was the limit of his understanding? Now that's fine if we understand it's a story written by some dude, but if we pretend God was involved in the writing in some way, then God knew nothing more than your average dude at the time.


Tcg

Seems like an unfair standard to hold Genesis 1 to especially when you say yourself that the text is focused on earth. But let's take some of your assumptions as true for a moment. i.e., Let's say that God did write it (absurd as that is) and that God is super knowledgeable of physics and cosmology. Does any of that preclude God from wanting to write a more focused story that lays out the high level genesis of earth as we know it and our role in it? Absolutely not. So why then are we discrediting Genesis 1 because it does a crap job explaining the physical universe? Maybe that wasn't God's point.

It's not a high level genesis of the earth, it is a totally inaccurate one. Sure, the book wasn't meant to tell a science lesson, but were it touches on science one would expect God not to get it completely wrong.

What I am focusing on the claim some make that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe. It's hard to take this claim seriously when it doesn't even mention the existence of planets in our solar system, much less anything beyond that.


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.