The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

As many here have pointed out, there are all kinds of problems with saying that Genesis describes events in the correct order.Without even looking very hard, a bunch of problems come to mind:The Bible says the earth (Gen 1:1) was created before the stars (1:16). Day and night (1:3) were created before the sun (1:14). Plants (1:11) were made before the sun (1:14).Furthermore, birds and whales (1:21) were created before reptiles and insects (1:24). Not to mention that everything in this creation was originally herbivorous (1:30).Then you go over to Genesis 2:18-19 and find that man was created BEFORE the other animals. Gen 1:27 says man and women were created simultaneously, but Gen 2:18-22 says Man was first, then Animals, then Woman (from a man's rib, no less. Since when does an omnipotent being need genetic material to clone something it made from dirt in the first place?).That's not to mention a ton of other absurdities, like talking animals or the sky being a "firmament" - (an upside down bowl). Really, thinking that Genesis is anything other than very figurative language is insulting to the Bible and to believing Christians.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Oh, another problem just crossed my mind. The Genesis account has a watery earth with no land first, then land later. The opposite is true - the earth accreted from debris hot, and only after it cooled did water start to condense out, then rain. As it rained on a completely dry earth, small puddles grew to lakes, then to oceans, and at no time was water over the entire earth.In talking with fundamentalists, I've found that the most common explanation for all the complete mixup of order in the Genesis account is that it was written by some stupid person, who couldn't understand what was really the case if God had said that. That explanation (the "Naive observer") insults our ancestors, since ancient people could very well understand concepts like long times and like one form changing into another. The Hindu scriptures are much older than the Bible, and they talk about very long lengths of time, for instance.Perhaps even worse, the "naive observer" explanation for the confused account we read in Genesis also calls the whole Bible into question. If the Genesis account is so wrong because the human writer wasn't able to write the right thing, than what about the rest of the Bible? Do the fundamentalists also advocate throwing the gospel accounts out the window, since they too were written by naive observers, who could have gotten much of it wrong, as the writer of genesis did? What about Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament - is he just some guy guessing about stuff?That's another reason why it seems to me that creationism belittles God and insults Christianity.Thoughts? Take care-

quote:

---

Why is it if YOU wrote a book that was found NOT to be in the correct order, it wouldn't be a big deal?

---

Um, because I'm not claiming to be the divinely perfect master of the universe and all powerful creator of all things. I'm just some bloke who can think sometimes. I'm pretty pathetic compared to an all perfect God who is claimed to have given us his all perfect word. So my book could very well be wrong or too verbose with no point. My book could go on and on for over a half-million words and still be so unclear that people could fight over their different ideas of what it means for centuries. I'm only human after all.

quote:

---

The bible never claims to have been written in order from chapter one, two, three, etc..

---

No, but we aren't talking about anyting after chapter 1. Chapter 1 does explicitly state that this is the order. Plus, we've all heard Christians say it is in perfect order (hence this whole thread). Here's another example: kids Genesis and Science are Compatible http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/genesis.htm#grayThe Bible says:

quote:

---

In the beginning God .....the earth was......And God said, .......And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day......And God said, ........And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day......And God said, .....And it was so. .......And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day.... (etc.)

---

Is this another case of a Christian ignoring or changing what is in the Bible?

quote:

---

Point is.. Words change. They shorten, lengthen, change meaning, etc. Did firmament mean "upside down bowl" to them when the Bible was written? I don't know-- do you know for sure?

---

Well, we do have other ancient jewish writings, and they use "firmament" to mean "upside down bowl". It's not like scholars have only the words of the Bible from the ancient world.Perhaps more importantly, if you do think that the changeable nature of language renders the meaning of the Bible unknown, then doesn't that eliminate the use of the Bible as something that has meaning for today? If every word could mean something else, then why bother with the Bible? I don't know why, but so often I see Christians (both liberal and conservative Christians) taking verse after verse, and in each case deciding first what they want it to mean, then figgering out some way to make it mean that.If one is going to ignore what the author meant, then why restrict that approach to the Bible? Why not take any document and make it mean what one wants? That could come in really handy when reading a will, for instance.It seems that by demanding proof for the idea that "firmament" means "upside down bowl" (like it does in other ancient jewish writing as well as in present day hebrew), but not supplying proof that "firmament" means "a galaxay 200 light years across", you are shifting the burden of proof.Just sayin'.Take care-
Edited by Equinox, : typoEdited by Equinox, : clarified pronoun reference by changing "it" to "my book".Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

IA friend of mine was born and raised a conservative Jew in Jerusalem, and Hebrew is his first language. I talked with him about Genesis a couple years ago, and we went through the different parts of the creation story in detail. As people like Arachnophilia know, the story is rich in details that are not apparent in the English.Anyway, on the subject of the firmament, he said that the Hebrew word used the same word used to mean a metal bowl beaten to be concave from a flat sheet. In other words, “firmament” literally means “solid beaten bowl” in Genesis.For what it’s worth-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

OK, you are clearly not suggesting the typical fundy line. What you are saying (correct me if I’m wrong), is that a transcendent God inspired the creation story inerrantly (or at least in agreement with modern science) to someone (say a proto semite) in the distant past, say, 5,000 BCE, and the story was passed along various cultures, rewritten & re translated by different peoples such as the Amorites and other middle eastern pre-biblical people, and that these stories were eventually adopted and incorporated into the Hebrew Bible (probably roughly in line with what modern Bible scholarship has shown us as far as the adoption of earlier stories to make the bible). Hence, the Bible is the word of God, but that the transmission hasn’t been preserved, and the revelation didn’t come to the Hebrews (it predated them).Right?If so, that’s an interesting idea. It’s an idea squarely outside the stated beliefs of most Christian groups, and especially outside those of any fundamentalist group. It also means that your interesting idea is more in line with the evidence, and not as silly as biblical inerrancy. However, I don’t see how it survives Occam’s razor, since all we have are the highly distorted end results, which we now can’t tell from campfire tales. It is an idea that can’t get support from fundamentalist Christians, and also can’t get support from the evidence. I mean, I’m not strongly against it, but it draws only lukewarm support from me, due to the Occam thing.Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Nimrod wrote: You know, linguists have done a lot of work on much of the development of languages. It sounds like you’ve read a little already (though I seriously hope it isn’t just from one source, or even worse, one non-academic source). It may be already decently established which language developed into Hebrew (btw, languages aren’t “founded”, they evolve from earlier languages). I’d go no further without a simple fact check. Wha? Are you saying you think the tower of Babel legend and the global flood legend describe events that actually happened? If so, you really have some basic homework to do. Both have no evidence for them, and lots of evidence against them. Again, have you compared the creation and flood accounts to the preceding stories in the Mesopotamian texts? Or the legend of King Sargon, as a baby, being kept from a hostile ruler by his being put in a basket and floated down the river? I guess I don’t understand your statement - it sounded like you were denying that the Bible copied stories from earlier legends - which is well known and uncontested, except among fundamentalists who also believe in flying people and talking animals.If you aren’t convinced of that yet, we could start another thread (though I’ll have sparse attendance until next week). Well sure - people are people, and have common themes because those are the things that really happen, such as love, conflict, adultery, etc. This is especially true of the story of a flood - since people live near rivers for water, food, washing, travel and other reasons, and since rivers flood, it’s a no-brainer that everyone has flood stories, sometimes more than one. Well, we can look at the Genesis text and see that the order doesn’t make any sense at all. The Genesis account has whales and birds existing before reptiles, and fruit appearing before animals of any kind, and many other egregious mistakes. I don’t understand why anyone claims the “correct order” thing - it’s just silly, like claiming that the words in the US constitution are in alphabetical order, it’s easy to just look and see that it’s incorrect, and it makes it look like the person saying that either doesn't know the Bible, or doesn't know science or perhaps both.Then to try to claim that the words mean different things in Hebrew or that the ancients were too stupid to know any better only seem to dig the hole deeper. It seems much better just to avoid making the initial statement.Have a fun day-Equinox

I am Joseph wrote: Could you please post why it is that you think this? There is nothing in the story that specifies Isaac’s age, yet you seem to know it is 37 and not 36 or such. Elements in the story suggest that he’s a little boy, like 8 (see how he interacts with his father), but when it comes down to it, I don’t see any number from the text itself.I mean, I certainly agree with you that the text has been changed over the centuries and is unreliable, but on this point I'm wondering where you see 37. Also, can you explain a bit more about this? It sounds like either Prof Penfold was quoted out of context (quotemining), or that he’s not a professor but rather a creationist poser. More importantly, could you explain why you think it is true - even if the quote is genuine, from a genuine scientist and in context, that doesn’t prove it, and you seem to be hanging a lot on it, and your interpretation of it is simply false. As others have pointed out, random processes give rise to order on a regular basis, in your own experience. One example you can try is putting a pan of water on the stove - it’s hard to get simpler than a pan of water, yet it will form orderly convection currents when heated. Similarly, hurricane Katrina was very complex and very well ordered to move energy (and arose out of simplicity)- Katrina must have been intelligently designed? It’s well established in the natural world that order can arise from simplicity - so that quote is probably either a hoax, out of context, or from a non-scientist - that’s my guess at least, thanks for showing me where it came from.About the supposed perfect calendar in Genesis - could you supply a simple verse #?Thanks-Have a fun evening--EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : fix

OK, I read those posts, and agree that there is a lot of information you have checked into. I also agree that there is plenty of room for translation problems and other transmission corruption to have occurred. I didn’t see anything that changed what I think your position is, but feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.But with all of that, I don’t understand why you try so hard (and contradict modern scholarship) to claim that Babel and a global flood happened. There are tons of reasons to reject both - especially something like the flood. Your view that the ideas in Genesis went through tons of incorrect translations and transmission corruptions means that you’ve already discarded the idea that one can read the Bible and know what is the word of God and what isn’t. So I guess I don’t understand why you care to preserved a divine origin, if that divine origin is so far removed that one may as well read the Enuma elish , which is therefore one step closer to God than the Bible. Well, yes you are - but then you are going past that to insert modern science into Genesis where it doesn’t match what you want, and adding speculations that aren’t supported so as to come up with this convoluted history that somehow serves your desires. Claiming that there was a global flood and a real tower of Babel goes beyond linguistics and legends - it makes testable claims about the physical world which have been tested and shown to be false.The comparison of the earlier flood and such stories could be a good thread, and there are no doubt others here who are better versed on this than I (Arach?). Anyway, let’s see if there is energy around that next week. I’ll be out until then. No, I only ask people to back up their own claim. What usually happens is someone says that the Bible is inerrant and that the order in Genesis is correct, something that has odds of 1 in ((insert large number)). Then, when the story is looked at, it’s clear that it’s not at all in the correct order, at which point the original claimant starts making excuses, like the ones you have been making, for why it’s not in order. So that makes me wonder why they even bother, if they are going to negate their own claim? Actually, it used to make me wonder - it doesn’t anymore. It’s very smart marketing - if the listener is gullible, then they swallow the “correct order” line. If the listener is not gullible, then all one has to do is make some lame excuses, and quietly exit to go on to repeat the “correct order” line to some new potential convert, thus the gullible are selected to be Bible believers.In your case, you’ve already dispensed with the claim of inerrancy - blaming errors on transmission. So since it’s clearly in the wrong order, it’s convenient to blame any errors on corruption - I could do the same with any creation myth, or indeed any story, saying that it really describes, say, the water cycle, or plate tectonics, or whatever. I hope you feel better. If you’ve put forward your views in Christian forums or in churches, I doubt you’ll get as tolerant response as you gotten here. Try it - see if anyone objects to your saying that the story in Genesis is incorrect due to transmission corruption, something that most of us here agree with you on.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Deleted - double postEdited by Equinox, : -

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Veg = Kingdom
Fish = Class
Mammals= Class
Birds = Class
Animals = Kingdom
Humans = SpeciesThat’s so incoherent it makes my brain hurt. This guy clearly knows nothing about science.That, coupled with so many other really pathetic arguments (many so bad that creationists tell other creationists not to use them), make me think that “IAMJOSEPH” is an atheist who is intentionally trying to look stupid and pretending to be a creationist just to make creationists look bad. Look, he also made up bible verses about Isaac, and changed the name of his made up “scientist”, and so many other obviously intentional stupid things.If it weren’t for the fact that creationists often do nearly as stupid stuff, I probably would have caught on sooner. How about you, did he have you going too?-Equinox

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

PaulK-Thanks, that clarifies where the number comes from, and that it is irrelevant.And also, Dr. A pointed out that Gen 22:5 clearly shows that Isaac is a “boy”, a “child”, or a “lad” at the time, depending on your bible translation.Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Here is another one - He says the Dead sea scrolls don’t have changes, and doesn’t mention the literally thousands of differences between them and the current OT. I’ve got the DSS at home - they come in handy when inerrantists make this claim - Psalms is often a good place to start, with the new Psalms that are in there and the hundreds of other changes. Of course, even Isaiah, which the most similar, has hundreds of differences - and it’s even the one that inerrantists most often quote as being “identical”.This line was one of the things that made me suspect he’s faking this ignorance (though the new story about Isaac asking to be bound did a lot too).All the best-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

IAJ wrote: OK, it looks like I was wrong - or he’s decided to keep pretending to be really this misled.IJ, there are of course tons of links that say that - I’ve seen them too. They are part of this whole “fundamentalist Christianity” scam that is so effective in getting people to keep paying their tithe. Look, I have the DSS on my desk - I’ve looked over them, and the translators themselves comment on the removed verses, added verses, reworded verses, and on and on. For the book of psalms by itself - the scrolls have added a half dozen “new” psalms, have significantly reworded others, and even beyond that have rearranged them to be in a new order. Other books are like that too. If you don’t believe me, you don’t have to take my word for it, you can just get them yourself and have them to compare whenever you like.The upshot is that you’ve been lied to (repeatedly it seems), and now are repeating all kinds of stuff that is just plain silly, and only makes you look like an idiot. It really makes me mad to see a person so deluded - you didn’t deserve to be so messed up, what they’ve done to you is, in my book, simply child abuse. It’s amazing, reading your posts, to think that some people deny that religion hurts people.You can start your escape by checking the DSS yourself. Here they are: http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Bible-Translated...Good luck, you are in my thoughts-Edited by AdminAsgara, : Do you think we can all learn to shorten our long URLs?