by Amha·aret 2 Replies latest jw friends
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/08/reconciling-religion-and-science-and.html
"Not only is the sequence of events in Genesis scientifically correct but some of the events themselves are really quite precise, which would have been impossible for a human to know at that time. You have to conclude that either the author made extremely lucky guesses or something strange was going on: divine inspiration."
Quote coming soon to a WT or Awake near you!
They've already used that quote or a similar one... they used it in that [SARCASM] extremely well researched and honest publication called Life How Did it Get Here - By Evolution or By Creation? [/SARCASM] and it's complete and utter bullsh!t. The sequence of events in Genesis IN NO WAY resembles what we know from science. The very title of that book betrays a complete ignorance of science and what evolution is.
First of all Genesis says the earth was created before the sun. It even has light appearing before the sun. Another example is that it describes fruit bearing trees as coming before animals, when in fact fruit trees were rather late arrivals (AFTER dinosaurs!) on the scene. These are just a couple of the numerous problems with the Idea that Genesis "got it right" somehow.
If we are to grant that to Genesis, then we must also say that the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Creation Myth) "got it right" because it shows a similar progression of events. In any case, either myth can be "massaged" "rationalized" and "stretched" to fit a few cherry picked "facts" that have also been "massaged" "rationalized" and "stretched" untill... viola! You've got God revealing the order of creation to the Babylonians, errrr... I mean Hebrews.
If we are to grant that to Genesis, then we must also say that the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Creation Myth) "got it right" because it shows a similar progression of events.
Good point. I'll have to remember that one.
I think the quote you're talking about in the Creation book was by Wallace Pratt. His quote was made in the 1920s I think. Whereas this book I mentioned in the original message was only published July 09. So therefore it's "new light"!
