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]

Heavens and earth does not equate to universe.

It does to me.

That provides evidence only of what you believe.

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

I use the ESV.

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.

But the O.P. quite clearly is. In fact only one chapter of one book.

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

Tcg

Oddly no evidence to the contrary.

It is your duty to provide evidence to support your claim, not mine.


Tcg

[brunumb]

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

Beliefs do not equate with truth. Scripture is nothing more than religious propaganda and only has any currency with the religiously indoctrinated. "The truth is out there"...... not in the Bible.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That provides evidence only of what you believe.

We are both operating under belief.

I use the ESV.

And?

But the O.P. quite clearly is. In fact only one chapter of one book.

Ok, so lets just deal with Genesis 1.

"Does Genesis 1 describe the universe"?

My answer: Yes.

Next question.

It is your duty to provide evidence to support your claim, not mine.


Tcg

Been there, done that.

[Tcg]

That provides evidence only of what you believe.

We are both operating under belief.

I'm not.

I use the ESV.

And?

Check out the search using the ESV and you'll understand my point.

But the O.P. quite clearly is. In fact only one chapter of one book.

Ok, so lets just deal with Genesis 1.

"Does Genesis 1 describe the universe"?

My answer: Yes.

Next question.

Can you support that with evidence?

It is your duty to provide evidence to support your claim, not mine.


Tcg

Been there, done that.

Perhaps elsewhere. You haven't here.


Tcg

[historia]

Genesis 1-11 is clearly mythology.

What do you consider the indicator that Genesis 12 shifts from mythology to history?

While the stories in chapters 1-11 are set in the primordial past and are design to account for humanity's position in the world, starting with Abraham, the stories shift to a more local context, and begin to refer to places, customs, and other cultural details that we now know from archeology were typical of the time period that Abraham supposedly lived (but, interestingly, not of the later time period when these stories were written down), and so they seem more grounded in history.

I wouldn't say that the text goes from myth to history (in the modern sense) in chapter 12, so much as it transitions form myth to saga or legend.

[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.

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."

Okay. All I'm saying is apply whatever truth barometer you have to it. And don't outright dismiss it just because it isn't necessarily history or science. Or because its source is human imagination and endeavor. Which I take to be your reasons. Those are very narrow reasons to dismiss something that doesn't even claim to be these things.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'm not.

If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.

Check out the search using the ESV and you'll understand my point.

I did, and I still don't understand your point.

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

So I repeat; And?

Can you support that with evidence?

No evidence that you will accept. The Bible is clear that God created everything that was made, and the Genesis 1 is the account of this creation.

If that isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Perhaps elsewhere. You haven't here.

Then go elsewhere and you will find your answers.

[Tcg]

I'm not.

If you don't believe that God exists, then that itself is a belief.

I lack belief in god/gods. Lack of belief is quite clearly not a belief.

Check out the search using the ESV and you'll understand my point.

I did, and I still don't understand your point.

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

So I repeat; And?

I searched on the word you claimed which was "stretching."

Can you support that with evidence?

No evidence that you will accept. The Bible is clear that God created everything that was made, and the Genesis 1 is the account of this creation.

If that isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Another claim lacking support.

Perhaps elsewhere. You haven't here.

Then go elsewhere and you will find your answers.

Odd that you can't address them here.


Tcg

[theophile]

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.

This raises an interesting connection for me. i.e., there is an element that never gets created in Gen 1:1, but that is nevertheless present in Gen 1:2. This element is the deep (/ sea), or the water against which God's Spirit hovers.

Isn't that striking if you stop to think about it? Like, when did the water get created? The short answer is that it didn't. Which throws a wrench in how most people think of Gen 1 and the ex nihilo aspect of God's creative act. (If they'd actually stop to think about it.)

Folks may argue it is part of "the earth", but water is neither heaven, earth, or God, yet it is present immediately after the big bang of creation in Gen 1:1. It also explicitly surrounds - or is separated by - the sky / the heavens that God creates in Gen 1:6-8. All of which suggests it was present before Gen 1:1, or that it is an uncreated element.

I would suggest it is something like the amniotic fluid in which God creates. An infinite womb that God is with(in) at the beginning, and that God stretches the heavens and earth into (to your point). Like a cosmic sea swirling with God knows what.

This aspect / character (which is a more upfront character in other contemporary creation myths, e.g., Tiamat in the Enuma Elish) is too often missed for its significance in Gen 1 and for God.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57]

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."

Strangely enough, it appears that neither personality recognized that the mechanism was created, and thereby a 'god' was involved with that creation.

It didn't just make itself...