How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

EndofMysteries

Unless I read and interpret things differently, it seems to have strong points. I'll add many things in the bible I don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books. Genesis however, does seem to have strong points.

Now to make sure I'm reading as closely to what is written in Genesis, I look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

So here is why I think Genesis has some strong points.

Genesis 1:1 states how the earth was vacany and chaos and is generally translated to being without form and void. The wording of it to me describes the birth of a planet, a cloud of dust.

Now the next part many claim proves it's all crap because it says light and darkness came and he made day and night BEFORE the sun and moon. That is because you aren't reading what it says. It doesn't claim the light is from the sun and that day and night are the result of the sun. (it claims the opposite later on, that the sun and moon are to SHOW or mark when it's day and night).

But back to the topic, the heavens and earth. What light is can be debated, if it's light from the other stars then speed of light can mean by this point the light has reached earth.

Next it says all the waters are moved to one place and dry land appears. To me that wording seems to imply one landmass. And it appears that at one point all of Earth's dry land was in one big landmass.

Next is says the seeds for plants are created, not full grown plants out of nowhere but seeds. This is confirmed in Gen 2:5 that explicitly states that all plants originated by seeds. The ground was seeded. I'll also remind that Genesis was NOT written in chapters and verses, but one big letter. Chapters and verses were inserted much later on. At Genesis chap 2:3 ends what was discussed starting in Gen 1:1, in Gen 2:4 it's a new topic, "The generations of the heaven and the earth", so when vs 4 says no plants yet, then vs 5 is talking about man, that's not saying that in the day God made seeds he also made man. (I've seen that mentioned and those people are assuming what is NOT stated).

Back to Genesis, after the seeds are made, then the sun comes. (no animals or water life yet because it would have been impossible. It's interesting how separated plants and then life is. It makes sense because before any plants there was no oxygen. Also the seeds needed sunlight, photosynthesis, so during this period of time the atmosphere and water is getting pumped with oxygen.

It's also interesting that recent studies have shown that some water on the Earth is OLDER than the sun. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/09/earths-water-is-older-than-the-sun Anyway after plants and sunlight THEN the first life mentioned is aquatic. Then birds and mammals.

Then man is last. Science has shown man was a late development.

Now if you ignore that a creator is responsible for everything in Genesis, with the description and order of things, what is wrong about it?

Viviane

Genesis 1:1 states how the earth was vacany and chaos and is generally translated to being without form and void. The wording of it to me describes the birth of a planet, a cloud of dust.

That's you interpreting it that way. That's not what it says. A cloud of dust that would eventually form the earth and other planets is not the earth. Besides which, Genesis also says God's spirit was hovering over the water ON the earth, which didn't exist or have water.

Now the next part many claim proves it's all crap because it says light and darkness came and he made day and night BEFORE the sun and moon. That is because you aren't reading what it says. It doesn't claim the light is from the sun and that day and night are the result of the sun

Not knowing that the Sun is what lights the earth proves Genesis is scientifically accurate? I don't think so.

What light is can be debated, if it's light from the other stars then speed of light can mean by this point the light has reached earth.

What light is isn't debated. What you are doing is attempting to inject something into Genesis that it never says rather than just read what it says.

Next is says the seeds for plants are created, not full grown plants out of nowhere but seeds.

Wrong again: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

Back to Genesis, after the seeds are made, then the sun comes. (no animals or water life yet because it would have been impossible.

So, plants, trees, etc., are possible but not water life without the Sun? All from starlight? I don't think so.

It's also interesting that recent studies have shown that some water on the Earth is OLDER than the sun.

It's interesting how? Is it your expectation that the newly born sun would have burned long enough to fuse oxygen? Even if it had, how does that relate to Genesis?

Now if you ignore that a creator is responsible for everything in Genesis, with the description and order of things, what is wrong about it?

Everything.

Finkelstein

If god was always in existence what was he doing before he created the universe ?

This ideology that a god created things on set time scale as a day or a thousands years equal to one day, is quite laughable.

I guess he did that because he foreknew that one day humans would be eventually writing about what he was doing ???

If that is also so, then he foreknew that the humans he was going to create were going to eventually sin and write the genesis account. .......ummmm ???

Got to admit that's one smart god !

OnTheWayOut

Even bothering with a discussion of the scientific "correctness" or "incorrectness" of Genesis is such a waste of time and energy. This is like discussing how possibly correct they were to not bother with enough lifeboats on the Titanic for all the passengers because the ship was unsinkable anyway.

Those who try to tie Genesis in with accurate science are so far from right that they cannot even arrive at "wrong" as a starting point.

EndofMysteries

Wrong again: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

Let the LAND produce seed bearing plants. It's done through seeds, but that is confirmed in Genesis 2:5 which you didn't read I guess. which says, "And every plant of thefield before it was in theearth, and every herb of thefield before it grew: for theLORD God had not causedit to rain upon the earth"

OnTheWayOut

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Generally accepted is that "the heavens" is all of space (and the contents thereof) outside of earth.
All of space and the earth do indeed exist. Going forth from that statement, everything in Genesis is interpreted. You might as well start with the Iliad or the Odyssey by Homer and interpret them in such a way to fit known science, proving Homer a prophet from the gods.

Finkelstein

If man was made in the image of god, then god must have had hands, feet, legs and a bum.

If he had all those working expenditures he must used them for holding and lifting items.

Knowing the fastness of he universe , that must have taken a really long time.

Viviane

Let the LAND produce seed bearing plants. It's done through seeds, but that is confirmed in Genesis 2:5 which you didn't read I guess

It says to produce plants that produce not, not to produce seeds that grown into plants. That something later says something different only shows a contradiction in the Bible.

Giordano

There are no End of mysteries

You have been trying to convince us that adjusting the deck chairs on the Titanic while the deck is seriously tilting is the smart way to go.

EndofMysteries

god was always in existence what was he doing before he created the universe ?
This ideology that a god created things on set time scale as a day or a thousands years equal to one day, is quite laughable.
I guess he did that because he foreknew that one day humans would be eventually writing about what he was doing ???
If that is also so, then he foreknew that the humans he was going to create were going to eventually sin and write the genesis account. .......ummmm ???
Got to admit that's one smart god !

This is sort of an example of where I think science only drops the ball. Not sure if the answer is a reason to dismiss that this kind of knowledge seems quite advanced for somebody in a desert 2500+ years ago.

We have 2 tools to learn or attempt to discover our origins, science and archaeology. And it's funny that scientists are so keen to look for life and other planets but ignore and look into if other life has visited us in the past.

If science is only looking at life originating here or the first intelligent life being humans, then if somehow the answer was that we originate from the destruction of another world, or brought or made from other life, if we were an experiment, etc.

If the knowledge and accomplishments of ancients is shown to be very advanced or knowing things they couldn't have known then, writing it off as not worth investigating because they believe in magic. If you could time travel, you may be written about as being a god if you brought and used some technology today.

Sodom and Gommorah - nuclear blast Materializing - teleporting Releasing a plague - biological warfare The vessel coming out of the sky unloading all sorts of animals on Earth in the vision of Peter - spaceship

The point is the true answers may or may not be found with investigating what the ancients knew, believed, and taught, but ignoring it all if they do have clues and what we are looking for is way different from the reality, then we will never know if we skip the paths that would have led to the answers.

How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

Share this