The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

Mainstream science has given us a pretty comprehensive theory of universal evolution from the Big Bang to the appearence of modern man. The biblical equivalent of this theory appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis. This biblical theory is presented in large brushstrokes but the similarities between itself and scientific theory are quite uncanny. As it stands, the chronology of universal presented in Genesis is as follows:Light - the Big Bang
Firmament - the expanse/expansion of the Universe
Earth
Seas
Vegetation
Sun, Moon and stars
Oceanic Life
Land based Animals
MankindThere are obvious and striking parallels between the scientific and biblical theories with one exception - the creation of the sun, moon and stars AFTER the creation of earth. I would like to demonstrate that this difference can be rectified and that it has occurred through not taking the text of Genesis literally enough!The biblical passage in question is verses 14 - 16 of Genesis 1: It is easy to see why this chapter has been interpreted as the creation of the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light) and the stars. However, on closer reading it is clear that this passage refers to the creation of various 'lights'. These 'lights' have specific functions:- "to separate day from night" and to "serve as signs for both festivals and for seasons and years".To my point - the light that governs the day is not the sun, it is Daylight and the light that governs the night is Moonlight, these are the lights that "separate day from night". The lights that "serve as signs" are, not just any old stars, but the stars we know as the Zodiac. Here it is - the phenomena of Daylight, Moonlight and the Zodiac are not, as one might think, created by the sun, moon and stars. They are created by Atmosphere.Although the sun shines on the moon there is no daylight because there is no atmosphere. Similarly, if you stand on the moon and gaze at the stars you will not be able to discern the stars of the Zodiac because the moon does not have the atmosphere to filter out the weaker starlight leaving us with the familiar patterns of the Zodiac.In short - the passage above is not about the creation of sun, moon and stars but of atmosphere. The creation of atmosphere is an absolutely fundamental aspect of our being here.Now the chronology in Genesis is as follows:Let there be light - the Big Bang
firmament - the expanse/expansion of the universe
firmament - all celestaial bodies (galaxies, stars etc.)
earth
seas
vegetation
atmosphere
oceanic life
land based life
mankindIn general, the similarities between the biblical and scientific theories of universal evolution are uncanny. Are these similarities a product of my deranged imaginings and, if not, how did they come about. Edited by AdminModulous, : Just acknowledging the inaccuracy in the spelling of the Thread Title. Corrected Gensis1 to Genesis 1

I can see this is going to be a long haul.Hairsplitting,pedantism and sidetracking seem tobe the orderof the day but I will try to deal with your "points" but first may I ask a favour of you.
There is a passage in Genesis1 that deals with the creation of sun, moon and stars. I have put forward the interpretation that it actually deals with the creation of atmosphere. I would ask you to treat this passage as a set of data, evaluate the interpretation I have put on it and present arguments for and against (in your case 'against' - it is strange to come across so many insecure scientists )
As for your points:
"Two, actually. Genesis also claims that land plants were created beforesea creatures" - pedantism
"So you are saying the atmosphere was created after plants? That is still a problem" - the blue skiesof Daylight indicate not just any old atmosphere but a breathable one
"This is false. When the sun shineson the moon there is plenty of daylight." - there is a famous photograph of an astronaut stood on the moon. It is obvious from the shadows on the ground that the sun is directly oiverhead yet the backgound sky is jet black
The last point about the Zodiac I will leave open for now.

Hi Brian
The mainstream scientific views on universal evolution are common knowledge. Many science textbooks contain it. If in doubt I refer you to your local library.
If you get a chance could you please critique my interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 regarding the so-called creation of atmosphere

Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.

Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.

Hi PaulK
Indeed, with no atmosphere more light will shine on the surface of the earth but the phenomena of daylight will not exist which is the point of what I'm saying.
I too do not know how plants can survive without an atmosphere unless we're talking about the bacterial blue-green algae that gave us our present breathable one. Land based plants such as trees certainly do cock up chronology of things but we can't have everything.
Maybe the passage is concerned with the creation of a breathable atmosphere. Please feel free to critique the interpretation I have given of the passage from Genesis 1 while I mull over those pesky trees.
How can there be day and evening when the earth hasn't even been created? This too doesn't make sense but maybe there is some weird kind of explanation - like it refers more to phases or stages rather than actual earth days

Hi Gary
There's no pressing need to reconcile the Genesis 1 account and scientific findings. No one's going to be saved and the world will stay the same. It's just a bit of fun

There are SIMILARITIES between Genesis 1 and conventional wisdom on universal evolution. These SIMILARITIES are there and there are too many of them to constitute a lucky shot in the dark. The author(s) of Genesis 1 could have said virtually anything by way of explaining how everything came to be. I would ask you to read Genesis 1, something you have probably never done or would ever dream of doing, and see for yourself whether these SIMILARITIES exist or not. Your rabid dogma could do with some revision. As for your comment about no theologians or clerics etc. never contributing to scientific advancement, you may be shocked to learn that many of the "great minds" of science were devoutly religious men. Those who weren't usually made their big breakthroughs in a "Eureka" moment of instant revelation. A method of gaining insight that makes a mockery of the processes of logic and rational thought. Try to remove your dogmatic blinkers - neither science nor religion offer a total view of reality. They are both partial explanations.

Doctrbill, as I understand it, you are saying that the firmament can be equated with the edge of the universe, it is the expanse (and expansion (?) of the universe). In my own interpretation of the verse "God made the firmament, and separated the water under the firmament from the water above it" I have asked the question - How can there be water 'above' the firmament? To me this indicates something that stands outside the universe. I have figured that the only possible way for this to occur is if something existed BEFORE the universe was created, only then can it be said to be outside or 'above' the firmament. Genesis is quite specific that there was indeed such a situation - "The earth was a vast waste, darkness covered the deep, and the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water." Here we are specifically told that there were at least two elememts that existed before the creation of the universe - the spirit of God and the water (this must surely be a reference to the waters 'above' the firmament.)
The next step of pondering the above verse was asking - How can the firmament 'separate' the waters above the firmament from the waters below?
I view the waters below the firmament as the energy that initially poured into the newly created universe (although I'm not sure whether the Hebrew word for water can be used in this sense), whereas the waters above the firmament must be viewed as some kind of energy that could exist in a state where there was no physical space. As mentioned earlier I view the firmament, not only as the expanse of the universe but also it's expansion. When the universe was first created there were only two elements at play, the initial energy and expansion. As the universe expanded it cooled, as it cooled the initial energy changed 'forms' to make sub-atomic particles, then atoms, then the first elements (hydrogen etc), then gases, liquids, solids etc and on and on until we have todays visible universe.
So, the firmament (expansion) separates the waters (various 'forms' of energy) by cooling the universe down as it expands.Edited by danny, : No reason given.

The reason I originally posted this thread was to demonstrate that an uncanny resemblence between Genesis 1 and, what I understand to be, the conventional scientific view of 'creation', can been shown to exist IF YOU LOOK AT THINGS IN A CERTAIN WAY. The justification for "playing along" with this lies in the fact that if Genesis 1 is just some made up guess by some sophisticated savages thousands of years ago then by rights it should have absolutely nothing in common with modern day science. Think about this for a minute. Even if they were bizarrely lucky with there guesses there should still be little resemblence between the two.
The fact of the matter is this though - there are some incredible parallels between the two accounts. My proposal is this - ignoring what you think or what your bias is, let us collectively try to construct an interpretation of Genesis 1 that fits in with science. Lets just do this for a laugh if you really need a reason, but lets stop bickering over this word and that word. It is my belief that if even a little effort is put in something quite interesting will emerge. Even if you're a hard-core scientist (especially if you are), help us out as we find the best interpretation we can.

Hi PaulK, as you say, there do indeed seem to be some similarities between the two accounts and obviously some insurmountable obstacles. What I am proposing is to highlight these similarities and offer various interpretations for the remaining data that seem reasonable, even if not 'rigorous'(check out my interpretation of Day 4 in the very first post - that it refers to Atmosphere and not Sun, Moon etc). Obviously there will be holes left, right and centre but I would view this as an exercise in creative thinking more than anything else. I must stress that I have no idealogical axe to grind, I'm not reigious but I'm not scientific either. It would be nice to have people from disparate backgrounds working together rather than being at each others throats and I do believe that some interesting results will be achieved.
Just to get the ball rolling - what do you think are the significant similarities between the two accounts?

So much for getting into the spirit of things - I'll try and lay down a general framework, again, just for kicks.
Let there be light - the Big Bang. This seems like a reasonable similarity, if you know what I mean.
The Firmament - now I'll need confirmation of this because I don't know Hebrew. Can the Hebrew word for Firmament mean both the expanse of the universe AND it's expansion. I have the Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance which relates the word 'expansion' to Firmament. If this is the case then we have a pretty good guess as to the intial conditions of the universe - the energy (light) and the expansion.
Now the rest of the chapter deals with the creation of pretty much everything else stage by stage. Why not all at once? Why not, God just clicks its fingers and Wham!, everything is as it is? Why would the compilers of Gen 1 envision it was done in this 'evolutionary' way, with the simplest forms of life coming first and then becoming increasingly more complex? In the same concordance it says that life was "brought forth" from the seas. This too is a bizarrely good guess. Why would the same compilers imagine a camel was "brought forth" from the seas? Why not just created like everything else?
There are obvious contradictions in the whole set up (thanks PaulK for running straight to them) but, just for kicks, lets examine the similarities rather than the differences. It would make a change from the constant, petty bickering that seems to be the lifeblood of threads like this one.

There's nothing wrong with criticism Paul, everythings OK. I just wanted a light-hearted exercise in wordplay and the possibilities of interpretation. A bit of fun.
In response to your list of criticisms:
We can't really regard the 'days' of creation as actual days (I'm sure you can figure out why) so why don't we substitute words like 'phases' or 'stages' instead of days (I'm sure this seems highly unreasonable).
As for the waters and the firmament, check out my bizarre interpretation given in message #113.
You made a very good point about things being grouped together. Obviously, in the evolutionary sense, vegetation (even in the form of blue-green algae) comes first (mind you, there was no mention of bacteria, amino acids or any pre-biotic systems) and maybe we can say that even though some plant-life (flowering plants for example) come later in the evolutionary sense, they are all put in the same group (ie: vegetation), call it 'poetic license' if you will.
And I think you'll find (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the animals "brought forth" from the sea include "cattle, creeping things and wild animals".
I await your forthcoming critique with trepidation.

quote:

---

If you only want to discuss similarites I suggest that you find clear, definite similarities that can't be successfully rebutted. I don't think you'll find anything of significance.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be saying "If you want to discuss similarities, there are no similarities so there is no discussion." As you pointed out yourself, this is a discussion site but you seem intent on killing any kind of discussion from the outset. I believe it may be you who is in the wrong place.

I use word 'expansion' because in my Oxford Collins Holy Bible Concordance it specifically relates it to 'firmament', although I know these things aren't necessarily definitive. When you say firmament implies limitation, does this mean in a purely static sense, ie: so far and no more?
I must stress, I'm n ot trying to lay down some law with all this, it's more an exercise in the possibilities of interpretation.