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]

But even on the human expansion dimension I don't think we're succeeding. Sure, raw numbers look good. But women are still oppressed in much of the world. Not to mention other human expressions (different sexualities, races, genders).

Raw numbers look terrible:

Humans are driving one million species to extinction

Landmark United Nations-backed report finds that agriculture is one of the biggest threats to Earths ecosystems.

Up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities, says the most comprehensive report yet on the state of global ecosystems.

Without drastic action to conserve habitats, the rate of species extinction already tens to hundreds of times higher than the average across the past ten million years will only increase, says the analysis. The findings come from a United Nations-backed panel called the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

According to the report, agricultural activities have had the largest impact on ecosystems that people depend on for food, clean water and a stable climate. The loss of species and habitats poses as much a danger to life on Earth as climate change does, says a summary of the work, released on 6 May.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4

Of course, nothing in Genesis 1 suggests that humans should behave any other way than they are. In fact, the first job humans are given by God is agriculture. So, God initiated (according to the myth) the very activity that is rendering the Earth unlivable. Additionally, nothing in Genesis 1 even hints at different sexualities or races.


Tcg

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #125]

4. The mandate given to humankind to fill the earth and subdue it in Gen 1:28.

Apparently the mandate has be achieved. Unless of course, the mandate has been misunderstood by man at this date.

Has it? Looks to me like we're emptying the world. I suppose arguable, but I don't think Gen 1 is just talking human population explosion when it says 'fill the earth.' But rather diversity of life, which has been contracting under our tenure.

Considering

"Scientists have estimated that there are around 8.7 million species of plants and animals in existence. However, only around 1.2 million species have been identified and described so far, most of which are insects. This means that millions of other organisms remain a complete mystery.
source

I doubt anyone can tell if the diversity (number of species) is increasing or decreasing.



.

Fair enough. There is a big unknown here (perhaps the contraction in species on earth is a rounding error if it's contracting at all on a net basis). And I'm sure climate change and environmental destruction is good news for many species.

But I think part of the intent behind 'filling the earth and subduing it' is finding a balance (like a garden). It's not about eradicating more complex species (e.g., large mammals, fish and the like, which I'm sure I could dredge up plenty of numbers on in my favor), so that other populations can spike. Just as it's not about unchecked human proliferation. It's more about maintaining a good mix where every kind of life can thrive.

To use a later biblical metaphor, it's about creating a place where lions can lay down with lambs. Where, under our management / rule, life of every kind can express itself in wide diversity and (relative) harmony.

I think there is good evidence that we are doing a poor job in this regard.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's another aspect. In the past, there have been major extinctions such as at the end of the Triassic (which allowed the dinosaurs to dominate) and the Cretaceous (which allowed mammals to dominate - giving humans a chance). about 90%, (or more) I recall of all species have gone extinct. Seems to be part of God's plan (especially if one denies that Humans have anything to do with global warming), so it seems pointless to beat humanity over the head with it, even if that was somehow relevant to the topic.

[theophile]

But even on the human expansion dimension I don't think we're succeeding. Sure, raw numbers look good. But women are still oppressed in much of the world. Not to mention other human expressions (different sexualities, races, genders).

Raw numbers look terrible:

Humans are driving one million species to extinction

Landmark United Nations-backed report finds that agriculture is one of the biggest threats to Earths ecosystems.

Up to one million plant and animal species face extinction, many within decades, because of human activities, says the most comprehensive report yet on the state of global ecosystems.

Without drastic action to conserve habitats, the rate of species extinction already tens to hundreds of times higher than the average across the past ten million years will only increase, says the analysis. The findings come from a United Nations-backed panel called the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

According to the report, agricultural activities have had the largest impact on ecosystems that people depend on for food, clean water and a stable climate. The loss of species and habitats poses as much a danger to life on Earth as climate change does, says a summary of the work, released on 6 May.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4

Of course, nothing in Genesis 1 suggests that humans should behave any other way than they are. In fact, the first job humans are given by God is agriculture. So, God initiated (according to the myth) the very activity that is rendering the Earth unlivable. Additionally, nothing in Genesis 1 even hints at different sexualities or races.


Tcg

By 'raw numbers looking good' I meant human population only. Which has been increasing on the macro scale.

But you're right that Gen 1 doesn't comment on the 'goodness' of gender, sexual, or racial variations in humankind. And from a gender point of view, it does limit us to 'man and woman,' which is a fly in the ointment for me.

This is something that I think follows from what Gen 1 shows. i.e., God explicitly shows an appreciation for different kinds of life in Gen 1, calling the diversity created 'good.' And so the logical extension of that appreciation suggests, or at least opens the possibility, that different gender, racial, etc., variations would also be deemed good if these were higher on the author's radar.

I do think the hint is there, but only a hint.

That said, you're wrong on what our first job is according to the bible. It's not agriculture. That's more Gen 2-3, although even in Gen 2 the job is more precisely a gardener than a farmer - and they are different. A gardener creates the conditions for different kinds of plant life to grow together in a beautiful harmony. A farmer tries to produce as much plant life as possible for human consumption...

But either way, our job in Gen 1 is more broadly "to fill the earth and subdue it." It is to "rule over" the world that God created, and to continue the work that God has been doing.

There is no limitation in Gen 1 to growing / managing plant life for human consumption, be it as a gardener or farmer. So you're unfair to pin the environmental destruction caused by over-farming on God. Our history of over-farming to the detriment and decline of other lifeforms is an outright violation of our broader calling in Gen 1 to fill the earth and subdue it.

[theophile]

There's another aspect. In the past, there have been major extinctions such as at the end of the Triassic (which allowed the dinosaurs to dominate) and the Cretaceous (which allowed mammals to dominate - giving humans a chance). about 90%, (or more) I recall of all species have gone extinct. Seems to be part of God's plan (especially if one denies that Humans have anything to do with global warming), so it seems pointless to beat humanity over the head with it, even if that was somehow relevant to the topic.

This goes back to the whole, "Gen 1 is not a scientific / historical account" argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is, is Genesis to be taken as relating to true events or not? If not, then appeals to moral guidance is - irrelevant.

[Overcomer]

When it comes to the Bible -- or any other kind of literature or document for that matter -- it is imperative to look at when, why and to whom the information is written. We need to look at the purpose of these verses from Genesis and how the first audience would have understood them. In this case, the creation account from Genesis is a polemic against the creation accounts of the pagan religions surrounding the Israelites.

We also need to look at the genre as genre dictates how we interpret a passage. In this case, we have a historical narrative which is defined as presenting past events in such a way as to instruct its audience. The writer doesn't include every detail of an event, but only that information which is necessary to achieve his goal.

The Israelites would have been familiar with the creation stories of Mesopotamia and Egypt, especially since they had lived for so long in the latter country. The opening chapters of Genesis were meant to debunk those stories and show the difference between the pagan gods and the God of Israel.

Here are just a few of the differences outlined in the Biblical creation story:

1. While the pagans saw the world as an emanation of the gods, Genesis makes it clear that God, as Creator, is separate from his creation.

2. The pagans thought the gods created humankind to serve as their slaves while the Bible shows that God created humankind out of love to be in a relationship with him and, as such, he regards humanity highly.

3. Pagans were afraid of nature. In Genesis, God gives people dominion over the earth whereby they are to be stewards of creation, taking care of it, not fearing it.

One of the most obvious examples of polemecism in Genesis occurs in Gen. 1:16 which reads:

God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Note that the words "sun" and "moon" are not used. That is because, in Egypt and in Mesopotamia, the people worshipped the sun and the moon, making gods of them. In Genesis, these bearers of light are demythologized.

I have presented only a few of the many differences, but I hope the examples are enough to make my point. Genesis was never meant to be a scientific treatise. It was meant to be a polemic against pagan religious beliefs about creation.

Here's an article that discusses this in greater detail:

https://www.publicchristianity.org/the- ... -approach/

And for anyone interested in reading some of the pagan creation stories, here is one (Enuma Elish) from Mesopotamia:

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/22 ... tion---fu/

And here is information about one of the creation myths (Hermopolis) from Egypt:

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ogdoad/

[theophile]

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is, is Genesis to be taken as relating to true events or not? If not, then appeals to moral guidance is - irrelevant.

What relationship does physics / history have with ethics? The only argument I see here is that if Gen 1 is wrong in its physical / historical account, it may also be wrong in its ethics by extension of its fallibility. (And hence your statement that "appeals to its moral guidance are irrelevant.")

But there is no necessary connection between them, i.e., no reason to conclude on the basis of erroneous physics / history alone that the ethics too must be erroneous.

So what am I missing?

[Tcg]

We also need to look at the genre as genre dictates how we interpret a passage. In this case, we have a historical narrative which is defined as presenting past events in such a way as to instruct its audience. The writer doesn't include every detail of an event, but only that information which is necessary to achieve his goal.

Historical narrative? In any case, the issue is not that the author/authors don't "include every detail", but that the details given are flat out wrong.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is, is Genesis to be taken as relating to true events or not? If not, then appeals to moral guidance is - irrelevant.

What relationship does physics / history have with ethics? The only argument I see here is that if Gen 1 is wrong in its physical / historical account, it may also be wrong in its ethics by extension of its fallibility. (And hence your statement that "appeals to its moral guidance are irrelevant.")

But there is no necessary connection between them, i.e., no reason to conclude on the basis of erroneous physics / history alone that the ethics too must be erroneous.

So what am I missing?

Physics, history, biology and evolution has a lot to do with ethics, in fact. But ethics has little to do with the question of whether genesis is a story based on a Mesopotamian cosmic view or the cosmos that science tells us about.

The ethics of the Bible is a different argument altogether and the only connection is that, if Genesis is scientifically incorrect, then the ethics in that chapter at least, can't be excused by them being divinely correct. They are open to rational and ethical discussion as any moral arguments are.