How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

by EndofMysteries 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sunny23

  EoM you need to read the other threads on this very topic like these two:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/287553/creationist-should-dismiss-genesis-quickly

  the above link is a response to this next links OP but you should read the responses there as well:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/287474/scientists-should-dismiss-genesis-quickly?size=10&page=11

  
  

  Eom as far as light creation and day and night occurring in Genesis, you claim the light could have come from stars before the creation of our sun and moon. However don't forget that each verse mentions having "evening", "morning," and DAYS before the sun and moon were created. How would far away stars that surround earth on ALL sides give Earth evenings, mornings, and days before the sun and moon??

  
  

  "The Hebrew word "yom" is translated as day in Genesis. Just as our word "day" can have different meanings based on its context, so can the word "yom". For example, in the Old Testament "yom" is translated to mean a 24 hour day 1109 times. It means a long, long period of time--such as an age--about nine times.

  However, every time the word "yom" is used with the term evening or morning in the Bible, it means a regular 24 hour day.

  Every time the word "yom" is used with a number, such as "40 yom" (40 days), it means a regular 24 hour day.

  What we now see is that in Genesis chapter one God is going out of His way to emphasize that each day is a normal 24 hour day. For example in verse five He says:

  "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

  Verse 8: "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

  Verse 13: "There was evening and there was morning, a third day."

  For each day of creation the pattern is the same: evening, morning, number, day. Just part of that pattern, for example using the words "evening" and "day" together, tell us it was a 24 hour day. But God tells us in three ways -- evening, morning, number -- that the word day means... an ordinary 24 hour day.

  God is making it very clear: He created everything in six ordinary days."
• 

  prologos

  Genesis 1:1 is wrong , unless you consider the "beginning" to be ~ 10 000 000 000 year long; because the Earth was NOT created in the "Beginning" as stated in the book, but it is only  ~ 4.5 billion years old, and made of stars that died in "overlapping" prior generations. In that vein, 

  By the way, expect the "beginning" of of the kingdom rule of 1914 to stretch a long way too. 
• 

  Bugbear

  The expression heaven´s (plural) is an ancient believe from the old Greek. They believed that the visible planets such as Mars, Venus, Saturn a.s.f  circled around the Earth in separate heaven´s (some scientists say they had 7 heavens (circles) . they represented different spheres. When a certain planet passed a certain constellation of “STARS” such as the “BigBear” “Scorpio , or Twins or Orion, some people would be doped by this and consequently should act so that his behavior  would be in line with the Gods will (often were the planets representing war God a.s.o.. So  “On the way out” you say quote”  

  “Generally accepted is that "the heavens" is all of space (and the contents thereof) outside of earth.”

  The Babylonians, the Greeks, the romans lived in an Earth centered world, not Helios-centered world. This mistake reflects very much in our bible today, and has caused  many humans to follow the false predictions. Astrology has always been based on false presumptions and even Bible figures like Daniel and or Joseph seems to have accepted “These facts from ancient” days..

  Bugbear
• 

  nicolaou

  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.

  What?!  Seriously, your writing is all over the place. Try to ask one question simply and clearly.
• 

  R. Jerome Harris

  Genesis 1:1 does not speak of a planet coming into being from a cloud of dust. No human knows how the planet came to be. Genesis 1:1 simply makes a statement as to "who" created the heavens and the earth.
  Genesis 1:2 and onward, focuses attention on the occurrences on THE EARTH (not anything in the heavens) and preparing the earth so that life can be here. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the surface of the planet being all water (no dry land). This also dismisses the notion that all of the water on the earth came from the flood of Noah's day. The water there at the very beginning. Later we see dry land come up out of the water.
  Genesis 1:3 speaks of "Let light come to be." This is NOT speaking about the creation of sources of light. As I said earlier, Genesis does not focus on how anything was created in heaven. It focuses on the creation of the things on then watery planet and preparing it so that life can be placed on it. One has to read Genesis Chapter One as if there was a person standing on earth observing all of it. IF a person was able to stand on the earth, he would be able to see light - NOT the source of the light - but light. The sun, moon, stars and other luminaries were already there. Now an earthly observer (if one could have been there) would see light.
  Genesis 1:4-5 speaks about light and darkness. The light was called day and the darkness called night. So if there were an earthly observer he would see that at certain parts of the day the earth was lit up and at other parts of the day it was dark. This is the sun rising and setting. Yet, an earthly observer would not be able to see the source of light (the sun) because the earth was covered with thick clouds because it was all water (water cycle). The sunlight would have been diffused. The earth would have resembled a greenhouse. Perfect for the vegetation that would come later.
  Genesis 1:6-8 speaks of an atomsphere (Notice that water is being spoken of as no dry land appears at this point. The part that sits above the water is called heaven. (Where the sun, moon and stars are). Technically, a micro-micro inch above the water is heaven.  From an ants perspective, the realm we walk in would be heaven to them. Heaven is ANYTHING "immediately" above the surface.
  Genesis 1:9-10 is where we see dry land appear out of the water. (Again, keep in mind the planet being prepared for life to be on it.). This dry land is called "earth." The water that is separated by the dry land coming up are called seas. This means that in those early days the planet was a very windy place (dry land not wet land) and a very volcanic place because land came up out of the water and eventually cooled to create dry land. Also, the atmosphere was hot and smoke-filled from all of the volcanic activity. This smoke-filled atomosphere and no life could exist in it; and it would have made it impossible to see the source of light, the sun directly.
  Genesis 1:11-12. Now that there was dry land, grass, vegetation, and trees would eventually grow on it. This implies that the smoke-filled atmosphere caused by the volcanic activity has subsided and that the volcanic activity was not as it was before. It also implies thick clouds, rain and diffused sunlight to sustain growth of the the vegetation.
  Genesis 1:14-19. Now if an earthly observer was on earth, he would be able to see the sun, moon and stars. Why, because the atmosphere would not be smoke-filled and the cloud midst would be thinner. This IS NOT the creation of the sun, moon and stars. They are already there. It is that now an earthly observer looking up can see them.
  
  Genesis 1:20-23. Now aquatic life appears in the seas and rivers. This implies that the water temperature is such that it can support life and that there are minerals in the water to sustain that life. As well as birds. There was dry land now and trees for the many variety of birds.
  Genesis 1:24-26. We see animals appearing on the dry land. The dinosaur was in this time period (day). The animals would fertilize the dry land.
  Genesis 1:27. We see the formation of the man from the dry land. Man did not crawl out of the ocean onto dry land. The first man CAME FROM the dry land (earth). (Genesis 2:7)
  The days of the creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth was not as it is now. And besides, why would recogning of a 24 hour day be needed as no man was around and no time pieces (clocks or watches) existed. The days of creation were "epochs of time" (time periods) each day spanning many 1000s of years. The expression "day" should be understood in the context of "my grandfathers day" or "in the day of the horse and buggy." Not a literal 24 hour day.
  Also notice that with reference to the 7th day (in which God rested or stopped creating), the statement "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a seventh day" has not been made. Why not? Because we are in that "day" at present.
  When God's kingdom comes down to the earth, it will then be stated as with the first six "creative periods," "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a seventh day." 
• 

  Village Idiot

  R. Jerome Harris: 

  "Genesis 1:1 does not speak of a planet coming into being from a cloud of dust. No human knows how the planet came to be."

  Yes they do. Scientists can deduce how the earth came to be by watching, through telescopes, the birth of other stars which themselves come forth from large dust clouds. You can see the dust clouds in various stages of their formation.

  "The days of the creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth was not as it is now. And besides, why would recogning of a 24 hour day be needed as no man was around and no time pieces (clocks or watches) existed. The days of creation were "epochs of time" (time periods) each day spanning many 1000s of years. The expression "day" should be understood in the context of "my grandfathers day" or "in the day of the horse and buggy." Not a literal 24 hour day."

  How did you reach this conclusion about the length of the creative 'days'.

  "And besides, why would recogning of a 24 hour day be needed as no man was around and no time pieces (clocks or watches) existed." 

  One does not need any time measuring devices to discern what a literal day is.  
• 

  Caedes

  RJH,

  How are you deciding that the days clearly referenced are allegorical but the other details are not? 

  How are you deciding that genesis 1:14 that clearly states god made the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day is allegorical.

  As has already been pointed out the use of the word day in the original language is consistent with the meaning of a 24 hour day not an age or period of time. What exactly in genesis suggests that it not be read as it is written?  

  What is your criteria for accepting certain statements in genesis at face value and not others? It sounds to me like you are accepting the statements that confirm your existing bias.

  The simple fact is that the genesis account is at odds with science regarding how the earth formed (long after the stars and long after the sun) which would suggest that the entire genesis passage is at best allegorical in it's entirety. 

   
• 

  sunny23

  RJH:The days of the creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth was not as it is now. And besides, why would recogning of a 24 hour day be needed as no man was around and no time pieces (clocks or watches) existed. The days of creation were "epochs of time" (time periods) each day spanning many 1000s of years. The expression "day" should be understood in the context of "my grandfathers day" or "in the day of the horse and buggy." Not a literal 24 hour day.

  I said earlier:
  

  "The Hebrew word "yom" is translated as day in Genesis. Just as our word "day" can have different meanings based on its context, so can the word "yom". For example, in the Old Testament "yom" is translated to mean a 24 hour day 1109 times. It means a long, long period of time--such as an age--about nine times.

  However, every time the word "yom" is used with the term evening or morning in the Bible, it means a regular 24 hour day.

  Every time the word "yom" is used with a number, such as "40 yom" (40 days), it means a regular 24 hour day.

  What we now see is that in Genesis chapter one God is going out of His way to emphasize that each day is a normal 24 hour day. For example in verse five He says:

  "And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

  Verse 8: "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."

  Verse 13: "There was evening and there was morning, a third day."

  For each day of creation the pattern is the same: evening, morning, number, day. Just part of that pattern, for example using the words "evening" and "day" together, tell us it was a 24 hour day. But God tells us in three ways -- evening, morning, number -- that the word day means... an ordinary 24 hour day.

  God is making it very clear: He created everything in six ordinary days."

  RJH you have not given any sound reasoning to justify your claim that the creative days definitely would not have been 24hr days. Maybe you would have a better argument if the verses read: "there came to be many evenings and many mornings, a second "yom." However it doesn't.

  Also note:
  

  Genesis: (Third day)

  "And God said, 'Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed and fruit trees bearing fruit.'"

  Science:

  This section of Genesis' third day is out of sequence. Plants, grass, and fruit bearing trees, did not appear until AFTER sea creatures! Although microscopic single cell algae (bacteria or archaea microbes) are a plant and appeared at this time, it is not the advanced forms of plant life described in Genesis. Again, the appearance of flora did not take place at this time according to contemporary science.
• 

  Simon

  God had not caused it to rain upon the earth"

  When it rains today do you believe it's god pulling levers or is it just a natural process?

  The bible story is superstition to explain what was unexplainable to the gullible and stupid. Now we have scientific explanations but sadly, also, still lots of gullible and stupid people as well.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Creationists will believe in ancient mythological story telling but they refuse to believe in human ignorance in the history of mankind,  a fact realized by practical evidence .