Genesis 1
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- To what “heaven” is this referring? It could be referring to our atmosphere, but if the Earth was “without form,” it wouldn’t be able to hold an atmosphere gravitationally. But of course, “heaven” might also refer to the empty space that fills up the rest of the universe outside of our planet. But if that is the case, then where did God exist before He “created” space itself? For that matter, where does God exist now?Possible Response:
God exists “outside” of normal space. God exists in the “spiritual realm.” God exists “outside of creation.”
Ultil someone defines the meaning of “outside creation” or “spiritual realm,” this kind of response is vacuous and is simply an appeal to emotion (namely grandioseness and awe).
- The “beginning” of what? What did God do before the beginning? Who created God?Possible Response:
Cosmological Argument: Everything in the world requires a cause. By induction into the past, there must exist a “first cause” that initiated all future events. This first cause is God.
Several objections can be made against this argument. Perhaps the strongest is that the universe does not necessarily require a creator. The universe may be “just there, and that’s all,” as spoken by Bertrand Russell, and may have always existed into the infinite past. The Big Bang theory suggests that our “local” portion of spacetime (the observable universe) had a “beginning” of sorts, but this in no way rules out the possibility of events occurring “before” the Big Bang, or other universes existing independently of ours.
In addition, who is to say that our perception of causality necessarily applies on a universal scale? Causality may very well be a completely subjective phenomenon, and need not apply to the universe itself.
- Why doesn’t the author provide the most rudimentary explanation of how God creates anything? Simply saying that God created something is essentially meaningless. It’s like asking someone how a microwave oven works, and receiving the answer, “It’s magic.” The Bible makes no mention of the actual physical processes that take place when God does his creating.
- Why does God need to create anything? By definition, a maximally perfect being must be eternally “complete.” That is, if God sees that something is missing and needs to create it, then it implies that this god is not perfect to begin with.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
- If the earth was “without form” and “void,” did it really exist yet? If it has been created, then it must have some kind of form by definition, or even God would not be able to distinguish it from space (which is truly void).
- The “face of the waters” clearly suggests that the earth had a definite “form,” which contradicts the first sentence of the verse. Did God create these waters, or did they exist all along?
- The concept of “darkness” cannot be understood without prior knowledge of “light,” which has not been created yet. If God didn’t know what “light’ looks like, then how could he know that it was “darkness” in which he was floating?
- What is the difference between “God” and “the Spirit of God”?
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
- For light to exist, there needs to be a light source. The light source in our solar system is the Sun, but the Sun has not been created yet. From where was this “light” emanating?Possible Response:
God is all-powerful. Surely he can create light without a light source. It can emanate from empty space, if he so wills it.
OK, God may be all-powerful, but, overlooking the fallacious appeal to authority in this argument, why would God go out of his way to create things in an order that is completely contrary to common sense?
- To whom is God speaking? If he is doing all the creating, why does he need to “say” anything? The act of speaking involves using one’s vocal cords to cause vibrations in the surrounding air. What did God speak with? What was the medium in which God was able to speak?
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
- This suggests that there was a chance that the light may have been “bad” instead of “good.” But how could a perfect being create anything bad? This could also suggest that God wasn’t sure if light was going to be good or bad. But then would this not question God’s omniscience?
- Why does he need to “divide” light from darkness? If light was “created,” then doesn’t this automatically define light as separate from darkness?
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
- Why does he need to assign them names if he doesn’t have anybody to tell about it?
- “Morning” and “evening” are defined by the apparent rising and setting of our Sun, respectively. However, the Sun does not exist yet. So what is the definition of “morning” and “evening” in this case?
- This is the first reference to God as “he.” Why does God need gender? If it absolutely must have gender, why is it male? How can God know about gender before he created animals that have gender and realized it was “good”?
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
- Our Space Program has proven beyond any doubt that no “firmament” exists, and that there is no second reservoir of water above the sky. Therefore, either this verse is untrue, or this “firmament” has somehow disappeared a long time ago. And if it disappeared, then why did God create it?
- The idea of a firmament that holds up a layer of water could presumably be used to explain rain (the firmament opens up and lets rain water through). However, today (in the 21st century) we know that water can evaporate, form into clouds, and then come back down as rain droplets. We can conclude that, either the human author of this verse did not yet have knowledge of evaporation, or God simply did not understand how his own planet worked.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
- Didn’t God already create a “heaven” in Verse 1? What’s the difference between the two?
- Once again, for this verse to make sense, the firmament would have to exist, but it doesn’t.
- And again, the Sun does not exist yet to account for “evening” and “morning.”
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
- This implies that there is a single continent and a single ocean on the planet, and yet we know that there are multiple continents and multiple bodies of water.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
- Again the author mentions that God saw that his creation was “good.” Was there ever a chance that it could have been “bad”? If not, then why does he need to “check” that it’s good?
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
- What does it mean exactly for the earth to “bring forth” grass? What did God do to induce the earth to spontaneously sprout off millions of species of plants simultaneously? Not only that, but “the earth” had to carefully select where to “bring forth” which plants, since certain plants can only grow in certain climates. Speaking of climates, we would surely need the Sun to regulate the climates on our planet. Sadly, the Sun still does not exist at this point.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
- Plants produce their energy through photosynthesis, where the plant converts water, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals into carbohydrates. But this chemical reaction could not take place without one thing: sunlight. Unfortunately for these plants, the Sun does not exist yet. It would be quite impossible for any plant to grow, much less “yield seed,” without any sunlight.
- And, of course, let’s not forget that some plants are carnivorous, like the Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula). Why would God design a plant for “eating” organisms that don’t exist yet?
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
- Once again, the Sun does not exist yet to account for “evening” and “morning.”
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
- Well, finally we have some clue as to the meaning of “evening” and “morning.” (the verse even says so itself: “and for days”). So then what was the author thinking when he/she spoke of “days” in earlier verses?
- Didn’t God already “divide the day from the night” himself? (verse 4)
- “Signs”? Does God believe in astrology?
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
- This verse makes it sound as if the stars were created with the sole purpose of giving light to the earth. In reality, the light that shines on the earth from any star in the sky is about a billionth of a percent of the star’s total output. It seems that all this extra light is going to waste.
- There are millions of galaxies that are so far away that they can only be seen with the most powerful telescopes. There are also entire galaxies that only emit light in the infrared or even radio regions of the spectrum. Why were all these super-massive objects “created” if they serve no practical purpose as far as the Earth is concerned?
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
- The Sun is hardly a “great” star. It is, at best, of average size and brightness. An example of a “great” star would be the Pistol Star, which is 100 times more massive than the Sun, and 10 million times as bright.
- The moon is by no means a “light.” It is a satellite of the Earth that reflects light from the Sun.
- The Moon does not “rule” the night. It is visible during the day and night an equal amount of time. It would be more accurate to say that the Sun “rules” the night, because it is actually sunlight that is reflected by the Moon.
- Didn’t God create the stars in verse 14?
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
- Once again, for this verse to make sense, the firmament would have to exist, but it doesn’t.
- This suggests that stars are really small “dots” that hang somewhere above the ground. We actually know that stars are celestial bodies that are millions of times larger than the Earth, and extremely far away.
- These verses also suggest that the Sun is somehow different from “the stars” (since it was created separately), when in fact the Sun is just like any other star, except it is very close to us, which is why we are in orbit around it.
- God apparently also created several extra planets in our solar system that are completely uninhabitable, and thus totally useless. He also created thousands of asteroids of various sizes, many of which may pose a serious threat to our survival in the future.
- We have also begun to discover numerous planets in orbit around other stars. What possible use could those serve to God’s earthly creation?
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
- Didn’t God “divide the light from the darkness” himself? (verse 4)
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
- This is unclear: did God “create” the living creatures, or did he just cause “the waters” to “bring forth” the creatures? In other words, did God create the creatures, or did water? By what process did water “bring forth” the creatures? Surely not evolution?
- We can see very easily that “moving creatures” contain many other chemicals besides water. How can that be, if they were created out of water? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the earth “brought forth” living creatures?
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
- Why does God need to “bless” anything if everything he creates should be perfect by definition?
- What exactly is the meaning of “blessed”? Is God making something more “perfect” than it already is? Is God “blessing” things so that he would “remember” which things are better than others?
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
- When were insects created? I suppose we can consider some insects as things that “creepeth upon the earth.” But what about flying insects? Surely those are not “fowls”? And when did God ever create bacteria and viruses?
- Let’s also not forget that all animals are actually composed of smaller organisms called cells which, in principle, can survive on their own outside the body. Why is there no mention of this here?
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
- Exactly how many is “us,” and what does “us” refer to? Many believe that “us” refers to the Trinity (in fact, some versions of the Bible actually specify “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” next to “us”). Those who support this idea have to make up excuses for why God is sometimes one, and sometimes many, and resort to using embarrassing terms like “Godhead.” So what about religions that don’t acknowledge the Trinity, like Judaism? How do they explain “us”?
- Apparently, not all the animals realize that “man” has been granted dominion over them. For example, if we drop a person into a swamp with a dozen alligators, the alligators are likely to blatantly refuse the person’s dominion over them.
- The only way that humans gain dominion over other animals is by constantly outsmarting them. For a good example, visit your local slaughterhouse.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- “In his own image” — meaning what? Does it mean physical attributes, like arms, legs, eyes, genitals, rectum, etc.? If so, then what does God need with all those things? He doesn’t need a rectum because he doesn’t eat; he doesn’t need arms or legs because he is “invisible” and never interacts with our world; he doesn’t need eyes because he already knows everything that will ever happen, and therefore would have no reason to “see” it; and he certainly doesn’t need genitals because he doesn’t reproduce (except that one time, but we’ll get to that later!).
- If “in his image” really refers to physical attributes, then we might as well say that all animals were created “in his image,” because our anatomy is strikingly similar to other animals, and it’s virtually indistinguishable from mammalian anatomy. More advanced animals like chimpanzees can even produce facial expressions similar to our own.
- Moreover, let’s not forget that all animal embryos look absolutely identical, no matter what type of animal it is - bird, reptile, amphibian, or mammal, including human. These embryos, even human ones, have evolutionary echoes like gill slits and a long tail. What sense did it make for God to tack these things on to the embryo if they will never be used?
- But suppose that “in his image” means that our consciousness (or “soul,” if you prefer) is like the consciousness of God. Still, it can be easily argued that every aspect of our consciousness is shaped by our interaction with our environment. First of all, consciousness would not exist without a body. It is only because of the complex organization of our brain cells that consciousness is possible. Secondly, all of our thought patterns are based on our observations of real-world objects and phenomena. Without all of these stimuli, consciousness (if it would exist) would have a completely different shape, a completely different image. How could God’s consciousness be like ours before he even created the world that would later shape our consciousness?
- Consider this: the “consciousness” of an adult chimpanzee, or even a parrot, is much more sophisticated than that of a human infant. Does that mean that these animals are more “in his image” than human babies?
- Any way we look at it, it would not be possible for God to “look” anything like us (physically or otherwise), because our body and our consciousness are so intimately linked with the world which we inhabit. How could God have resembled our “image” before he created the environment that made our image possible?
- Notice that this particular creation story suggests that God created multiple humans (not necessarily two), and allowed them to multiply. No mention of Adam, Eve, or anybody else from other Biblical stories. (Compare this to Chapter 2)
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
- Again, if we place a human being into the heart of a jungle, the other animals will probably have a different opinion of who has “dominion” over who.
- The command “be fruitful and multiply” might work for non-intelligent animals that develop a natural equilibrium with their environment. But it’s a pretty bad idea for humans, which, like parasites, consume all natural resources and still continue to multiply. Today, overpopulation is a very serious problem in many countries, where infants and toddlers die every day by the thousands, despite the Christian Children’s Fund. And we’ve only started thinking about conserving natural resources just a few decades ago.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
- Every herb and every tree? What about things like hemlock, baneberries, oleander, and so many other poisonous plants? Thanks a lot! There are also many poisonous mushrooms, like the Death Cap (Amanita phalloides), although God apparently never took the time to actually create mushrooms.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
- If all the animals were originally herbivorous, then why give the lion such huge teeth? Or the bear such huge claws? Or the snake such deadly venom? Just imagine it: lions, sheep, and tyrannosauri prancing merrily together in an open field, chewing on flowers.
- What about life forms that are parasites by nature, like tapeworms, mosquitoes, and flesh-eating bacteria? What did they survive on?
- The only reason that cows can survive on an all-plant diet is because they have a four-chambered stomach that can gradually extract what little nutrients plants contain. Animals like lions and bears would never survive on plants, because their single-chambered stomach is expressly intended for digesting meat. If they only ate plants, they would die very shortly while having long and painful bouts of diarrhea. As an experiment, try eating nothing but lettuce for a month. You’ll be simulating the conditions of “heaven,” but you’ll be in too much pain to realize it.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
- Let’s clarify something: have the humans already multiplied and filled the earth? (Verse 28) If so, then what is the rest of the Bible talking about? As far as we know, this is now a complete creation story, and not a bad one at that. Is there a need to go any further? Six days of “creation,” and the world is complete, and here we are. If only the author(s) would have just left it at that. But, alas, it goes on.
Final Thoughts on Chapter 1
If I lived 3000 years ago, had the same knowledge of how the world works as the greatest minds of the time, and had the desire to write a creation story, this would probably be it. So what is the big deal? Why is this creation story considered sacred in any way? This story simply embodies the sum of human knowledge at the time of its conception, and the conclusions at which the authors arrived based on their knowledge.
Believing that the Earth is the center of the universe (indeed, that the Earth is the universe), or that the sky is enveloped by a solid canopy (from which stars are suspended) is perfectly excusable for an ancient culture thousands of years ago. However, it is absurd to continue to hold such beliefs in our modern age.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:01 am
2 comments on Gen 1:2.
It claims the Spirit of God moved on the face of the WATERS. In the emptiness of space, with no light, those waters should have been ice. Having water implies that light already existed, but Genesis doesn’t say so until verse 3.
In your response, you say:
Keep in mind, that this was written afterwards. When you’re recounting a tale, in hindsight, you can describe things you didn’t know about at the time. I think this is a weak criticism.
Great commentary!
August 17th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
God is light, it is a part of His very nature. You perform exegesis on scripture by looking at a translation, rather than the original text written in ancient Hebrew. Yes, even the most knowledgable scholars will admit that something gets lost in the translation. In your conclusion you compare the first chapter to “Believing that the Earth is the center of the universe.” What scientific “evidence” do you have to support any other theory about the creation of the universe? You can quote hypothesis, but not theory. Yes, I agree that the creation story is itself only a hypothesis. So, how do we find truth out of hypothesis that can never really become law since no one can experiment or demonstrate the big bang? Truth still eludes us. If I were to take a trip to Russia (a place I’ve never been, I’ve only heard about from others), where would I receive information on how to get there, where to eat, what language to speak, etc? I would have to depend on another person’s experience or word. I would need to have faith that the person giving me this information was being truthful and not manivolent (Descartes already discussed this in great detail). Similarly, if I want to know the truth, where do I go? Jesus claimed that He was the “way, the truth and the life.” He is refered to as the Word of God that became flesh. The Bible cites that God’s Word is truth. The Son of God is the embodiment of the truth of God. He is the Word that spoke “let there be light.” But I digress. I believe that true science and Christianity can and should be able to co-exist. Proving the earth is not the center of the universe does NOT dispute the Bible. Human superstition and a priori beliefs kept us in the dark ages. But when the scientific establishment analyzes fossil and geologic records through humanistic biases (Can’t believe God did this because that is a matter of faith, not science, so don’t even consider it), than the hypothesis is slanted in one direction. Young scientists don’t dare deviate from this pattern or face the consequences of being banished. http://www.answersingenesis.org helps to provide a biblical perspective to the fossil and geologic evidence. It is considered foolishness to mainstream science, but I though science was supposed to be unbiased. How can you be unbiased and ignore another viewpoint? To them that are perishing the cross is foolishness, but to them that are saved it is the power of God.
August 17th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
You said - Why does God need to create anything? By definition, a maximally perfect being must be eternally “complete.” That is, if God sees that something is missing and needs to create it, then it implies that this god is not perfect to begin with.
God is perfectly complete. There was nothing missing. Where do you read that God was insufficient in Himself? Where do you read that God saw something missing (before He got started)? It isn’t there. God is perfect and sufficient (Jehovah means “all sufficient one”). But He is a God of relationship and He desired to have a relationship with beings of His creation that would “choose” to relate to Him. We chose not to and turn from Him. But before the foundations of the world were laid, Christ was destined to die for us. A married couple experiences a completeness and fulfillment when the relationship is harmonious. They decide to have children, not because there is a void to fill, but because they wish to share that harmony and pass on a legacy. God desires to have a relationship with you, but you must break through the human pride that separates us from Him and believe.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
You speak of God as a god of “relationship.” Let’s consider what constitutes a healthy relationship for a human being. Perhaps the most important thing in any relationship is communication. Open, two-way communication is essential to the survival and growth of a good relationship. Through communication, two people can gain trust, understanding, compassion, and love for one another. Also, a good relationship benefits from social and physical contact. Being with a group of friends or spending time with a loved one makes a person happier and more functional.
What aspects of a healthy “relationship” does God provide, aside from a bottomless mail-slot for prayers?
You said that we chose not to have a relationship with him. I personally don’t recall making a decision one way or the other. Besides, how can I choose whether or not to have a relationship with something that doesn’t exist?
August 18th, 2005 at 2:20 am
I suggest that you go to Dr.Dino(Kent Hovind) on google and have this christian man give you some of the answers you seek. This man is very intelligent and has good insight into the creation of the world and everything within it. I hope and pray that your curiousness is your spirit seeking the truth. Asking God into your heart and praying for understanding while being genuine to hearing his Word will also allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the Truth as well. Peace be with you and God bless.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I Think those who believe in the bible should start with Exodus, completely editing Genesis out. We never hear why plants are created before the Sun from apologists or why God needs to rest, or any good reasons for a lot of the problems for chapter 1.
I have heard that the firmament disapeared after the flood, and, following the flood, we get our continents and mountain ranges and canyons, etc. No proof of course, but there you go.
August 24th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
No thanks; I’d much rather schedule myself for a lobotomy. “Dr” Kent Hovind is an embarrassment even to some of his creationist colleagues. All of his claims border on nonsense and have been thoroughly refuted (with little effort) by numerous individuals (just search on Google!).
As far as “seeking the truth,” that’s all I ever want to do in life. So, in a sense, that is what my “spirit” seeks. And if God ever enters my heart, or any other organ, I promise you’ll be one of the first to know.
August 24th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Nice commentary. One nitpick to your response to 1:12 though: If I remember correctly, carniverous plants do not actually require meat to survive. The trapping of insects is an adaptation to nutrient poor soil. The dead insects generally fall to the ground to provide rich compost.
October 12th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Science isn’t a belief system, although the way some rationalists behave you would never know it. It is a method for garnering information on the processes at play in the universe or multiverse or on the flat earth or wherever we are. Science involves basing hypothesis on observations, then testing as many of those hypotheses as you can in the most rigourous way possible. And disregarding them as they inevitably come up short, replacng them with something more accurate.
How does the website you posted explain the dinosaur skeleton that was found holding an “end nuclear testing now” placcard.?
October 20th, 2005 at 1:53 am
What you are all failing to understand is that MAN WROTE the bible. Contradictions and wrong doings are the errors of man not God. Just like it says in the bible that women should not speak in church because it is shameful. It also states that women should be ruled by their husbands. This was written by men who are control freaks.
Lets also look at the fact that God was to have tempted Abraham to kill his only son. Lets now look at the definition of tempt. TO PERSUADE OR ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING WRONG. That to me sounds like man NOT GOD.
Again, believe what is in your heart not what you read out of a BOOK THAT WAS WRITTEN BY MAN.
The bible was written by man NOT GOD
October 20th, 2005 at 7:16 am
So… if the Bible was written by man, and the Bible is what tells us about God… then what does that say about God?
November 4th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Dr Kempert,
If you think that humans have childdren because there is no void to fill then you are much mistaken. First, it is a biological drive to reproduce and continue the species that causes most women and men to “feel” the need to have children. And men not only want to leave a legacy but men and women just happen to really like sex. Ask a women who can’t have children and wants one and you will find that she does experience a void in her life.
Second, Many children are born by accident not choice. And unless you don’t read the papers there are many bad parents out there who shouldn’t be having children and abuse their children terribly. Third world countries are awash the least able to support the huge numbers of births that they have and yet usually have the highest birth rates compared to that of so-called developed nations. So much for wanting harmony.
Third, just wanting some harmony and compnanionship in your life is not a good reason to have a child. In fact given the current state of human affairs it is down right irresponsible.
And lastly, humans are not perfect beings so your analogy of a couple wanting children does not answer the question as to why a perfect (and presumably) complete being would want to create us humans. What is the point? Some grand horrible experiment to see how much we can take and still be loyal to an obviously capricous God who hides behind faith and refuses to intervene on even something as horrible as the Inquisition and the Holocaust. What is the point??
November 4th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
If “something” gets lost in the translation then what is the “something”? How can I trust the Bible to be accurate if the translation is not accurate. What is the reader of the Bible expected to do? Should he or she learn the ancient Hebrew and then read the Bible in English?
Also, you compare a trip to Russia in which you will need to have faith that the information that you are receiving is accurate.
But, you are confusing what should be rightly called trust in that circumstance with what the religious practice which is blind faith.
If the evidence does not match the facts you must not trust that source any longer. The religious refuse to let facts sway their faith even when the contradictions are overwhelming.
Biblical scholars place the age of the earth at 10,000 years old based on the “information” in the Bible yet the scientific evidence shows the Earth to be billions of years old. That’s quite a difference. The scientic method used to to determine this is accurate because it can determine the age of things that we know the age of. So, the Bible must be wrong. Yet the religious refuse to acknowledge that fact. This is just one of many many inaccuracies in the Bible. Not to mention that the text contradicts itself many many times. Yet blind faith prevails.
You claim the young scientist don’t deviate from “this pattern”. What pattern?, using the scientific method? Of course human scientist approach evidence through humanistic biases because he or she is human!! It is not biased (as you claim) to reject a viewpoint that provides no evidence and cannot be tested. Your so-called hypothesis that God created something is rejected because there is no evidence for this and cannot be tested.
The scientific method has advanced human knowledge and understanding for mostly the better and sometimes worse. But the blind faith in the Bible and the erroneous “information” in it has done nothing to improve society and has been the basis for so many human atrocities such as the Holocaust, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Not to mention the condemnation of Galileo who postulated the the Earth was not the center of the Universe as the Catholic Church claimed on what?…..yes the BIble.
And when you claim that scientists are discouraged from deviating form the status quo how dare you!! Try deviating from the religious status quo and tell people the truth. That the Bible is full of errors and contradictions and most importantly that one does not believe in God. You will know true banishment then.
Lastly, you obviuosly know nothing of the way the scientific community operates because there are people who have sceince degrees and deviate from the group by questioning scientific knowledge and go so far as to embrace faith. Moreover, built into the Sceintific method is the practice of constantly questioning itself and the attribute of self correction.
November 4th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Good Point db.
November 7th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I do NOT fail to realize that Man wrote the Bible. But the Bible is the document that is used as the source to know and understand God. If it is flawed because it was written by man then it is a source that cannot be and should not be trusted. In addition, how do you know that there is a God in the first place if you use a flawed source for that belief. And most importantly, the Bible may have been written by man but it was supposedly inspired by God so why would God allow it to be wrong in the first place??
November 26th, 2005 at 10:19 am
I certainly have my question about the genisis story, and came to this site because I was LOOKING for it. But the permeating disgust and sarcasm throught is just too annoying to continue reading. I mean to say, I may agree with much of what you say, but how you are saying it is obnoxious. Also while your observations are valid, and I agree with them the logic used in many of your comments to support them is fallacious. i think you are RIGHT, but your methods and how you get there…are just showing of a personal ignorance of the author and an overwhelming confusion of ridicule verses making a rational case of points. This means you are either preaching to people who are as fanatical as you in your contempt, and alienating everyone else including those who actually agree with your points but not your manner of presentation.
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Outside of time.
Yes, christians are fond of this one. It is also used to explain man’s free will; How can God know what the future holds, if man has free will? God is of course, “outside of time” and can see all future and past at a glance. Assuming christians are right and “outside of time” has some meaning, it would also mean that the words “before, after, then, when, created” etc. would be meaningless when talking about god and his actions. This is an interesting topic to bring up if you are ever caught up in the endless arguments about the trinity: Is jesus actualy “God” (=co-eternal with the Father) or was the pre-easter Jesus created by God? Of course, most christians (except 7th dayers) believe Jesus is God, and has existed with god forever. However, if the outside of time stuff is true, then god could have created a jesus without a beginning, thereby satisfying the co-ternal requirement. Actualy, its kind of fun to think like this, not worrying about logic or sense…maybe I should start a religion.
February 5th, 2006 at 2:10 am
The Bible is a symbolic thing. There’s no point in scrutinously examining every subsequent detail taken face value. For example, of course meaning by “speak”, God didn’t create acoustic vibrations in the air, and it is paradoxical to assume that he was actually referring to someone, i.e. an entity or thing other than himself in second person that way. Perhaps there would have been more sense in trying to interpret what the Bible truly meant into more plausible terms. Suppose God could not create light without a light source - but since this book remained largely unchanged for 2000 years, how could the people of that time have had such an extensive knowledge of the universe as we do today? Otherwise, wouldn’t the Bible have surely contained a more thorough and understandable explanation of such things as “why” and “how”? If everything in the Bible is taken at face value, then what was the point of Man’s technological and scientific development within the past 2000 years? Trying to logically ridicule every excrept from the Bible as you here appear to do, will only get you angry replies from fundamentalists and general acceptance from everybody else. Well, good luck, it was an entertaining article nonetheless.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Jools said - “How does the website you posted explain the dinosaur skeleton that was found holding an ‘end nuclear testing now’ placcard.?”
This something that hasn’t happened in reality (in case you hadn’t guessed already). It is in fact a bit of the story from a science fiction/fantasy novel by Terry Pratchet called “Strata”, but then again if you can believe that the bible is true then it doesn’t take much of a leap to believe that a novel is factual and to then start quoting bits of it as an argument for creation (or some other bizzare theory).
June 18th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Let’s make a new, short, universal bible! We can do it by wiki!
September 7th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Hi…
The write up was very enjoyable because of your humor!
Disproving the translation of the Genesis doesnot necessarily disprove God…God is a personal phenomenon and each person’s approach to Him may be different. What works for one maynot work for another.
Here are some points of observation (I am not siding you nor the Genesis, just a few general comments!):
a. 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If it was one place where the water was gathered why is it mentioned in plural in the next verse? (Something that you may want to mention)
But as for your comment on there being many planets: In the beginning all the planets WERE one…Please refer Vituvuis’ book on Architecture where he talks of the earth. (Something that you may want to reconsider).
b. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
If God created man and then he created male and female, what is the difference between ‘man’ and ‘male’? (Something that you may want to mention)
But your comment (4th) on consciousness doesnot exist without body cannot be tested and hence cannot be accepted as fact. Example: If Mr.A doesnot have any physical flaw he will never experience the heightened hearing of the blind or the superior spatial sensitivity of the deaf and dumb…they will be mere concepts to him and he maynot accept them for his flawless body limits his mind. I am not saying that we should lose our body to ‘feel’ the ‘soul’…just that the limitations of the human brain itself may sometimes be the barrier.
Keep writing,
Wishing you the very best.
Paddy.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I totally believe this is a literal creation account, and there are logical explanations/answeres for each (legitimate) question. However, I also think that this ‘nitpick’ should be read and the questions researched/answered by every person who claims to be a Christian. This is awesome and really makes me work to think about why I believe, and how to defend it.
January 4th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
The thing is, ‘Creation’ is not ’science’, and neither is ‘evolution’.
They are belief systems scientists use to explain the past, based upoon present data. Neither belief can be tested, observed, or repeated so why is one accepted as fact and taught in the public school system, while the other is ridiculed as some fairy tale believed only by backwoods ignorant rednecks?
The tenets of evolution are far less believable than those of Creation (and I’m not takling ‘Intelligent Design, either–ID is just a wussified, watered-down interpretation of Creation). We all have the same data and facts (fossils, geology, biology and so forth), but they are merely interpreted in different ways based upon the subjective beliefs of scientists.
(and I misspelled ‘answers’ in my previous post)
June 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I think that it is great that you get together and try to better yourselves, but I think that it is really a waste of time due to lack of progression in any one direction. I do believe in the Bible and in God as the supreme creator. I do so because of the Bible and hot it came together.
There is a lot of discussion and questions here, and that is always good as it exercises the mind, but there are no real answers. People will always try to explain the miracle of creation, even though we can’t understand it. What is simple for God, the creator of everything, to understand will be the most impossible thing for us. We are a learning sort of people, always striving to do more. 800 years ago flying would have been an impossibility to even fathom the thought. Now it is an everyday occurrence that we take for granted. We will never have an answer for this discussion because there was no video tape to go to. Even if there was, some would not believe it was a genuine recording.
As different people with different backgrounds we all have a different view of what is common sense. It is those different views that keep our race (the human one) growing.
When you really get right down to it, it is a matter of belief. On any view of this topic of creation you must believe something you have no solid scientific proof of.
Me, I choose to believe in the Lord God, and all the wonders that He does, then and now, the ones I understand and the ones that I don’t.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
A comment on 1:1: Whatever else this verse says you must agree that it also says that there is a being, a god if you will, (God) that created the universe and everything in it. This would include everything from the smallest atomic particle to the farthest star. He would be the architect of the physical laws that hold the universe together. All of this created out of nothing.
Such a being, if he existed would have power enough to maintain water in a liquid state even in the vacuum of space, wouldn’t you agree?
If you took this first statement as a hypothesis and assumed it to be true, would have the same questions and comments? Could you disprove the hypothesis? If you don’t take the statement as truth then, of course, the whole rest of the Bible is non-sense.
But then, in that case, so is any reality; because it means that you and I are just accidents in time. It means that there is no evil or good in the universe but only random events. It means that Hitler and the “Twin Towers” were results of random events. It means that Mother Teresa and your loving mother are also results of random events.
I prefer to take that first verse as truth. I do believe there is good as well as evil in the universe.
September 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
For light to exist, there needs to be a light source. The light source in our solar system is the Sun, but the Sun has not been created yet. From where was this “light” emanating?Possible Response:
God is all-powerful. Surely he can create light without a light source. It can emanate from empty space, if he so wills it.
OK, God may be all-powerful, but, overlooking the fallacious appeal to authority in this argument, why would God go out of his way to create things in an order that is completely contrary to common sense?”
You’re thinking too much like somebody educated in the twentieth century. We can see elsewhere in the Bible that their primitive concepts of the earth and the cosmos were totally off-base (convoluted attempts by apologists at reconciling those views with actual cosmologic relationships notwithstanding). It takes a certain degree of accuracy in understanding the cosmos to get your principles of cause-and-effect correct. The “common sense” you talk about is modern common sense, informed by a scientific cosmological model. For us today, who have grown up learning modern concepts from an early age, the first explanation we hear of day and night is that it’s the result of the rotation of a spherical world; the side exposed to the sun experiences daylight, while the opposite side falls in the sphere’s own shadow, or night. We also learn that the sun is many times the size of the earth and that it’s a great distance away. To make “sense” of the Genesis 1 account of the origins of day and night we need to try forgetting about the knowledge (”common sense”) we possess today and make some “primitive” observations of our own. I think what we can find from such an exercise that what we’re seeing in Genesis 1 is a cluelessness that the sun causes daylight.
Some “primitive” observations: Anyone who is up before sunrise knows that the sky is already light by the time the sun appears on the horizon. Likewise, in the evening the sky remains light for a while after the sun drops below the horizon. Furthermore, entire days may pass without the sun being visible at all from the ground when the sky is cloudy or overcast, or in the presence of fog, for example. Granted, the day is not as bright without direct sunlight, but there’s still plenty of light, and it’s unmistakably daytime. Inside a hut or tent or the entrance of a cave we may also be cut off from direct sunlight, but the interior can still have plenty of light, depending on the nature of any openings to the outside. Similarly, at night there are differing degrees of illumination, depending on the phase of the moon, or whether it is visible in the sky at all. The sun will cast shadows, but so does the moon. A full moon seems very bright in the night sky, yet it is night nevertheless. Often the moon is visible in the daytime along with the sun, although not nearly as bright. The sun and moon also appear to be the same size.
So, without knowledge of the real cosmological relationship between the sun and Earth, our observations might tell us that the sun merely accompanies day, without causing it, reasoning as follows:
1. It can be daytime without the sun being visible in the sky. This can result from cloudy, foggy, or overcast conditions, or with the sun obstructed from sight by a mountain, a forest canopy, or the side of a ravine.
2. Daytime lasts longer than the time the sun is visible in the sky. It begins a while before the sun rises and ends a while after the sun has set.
3. Interiors of huts, tents, caves, gorges, forests, etc., can be illuminated from skylight. It is not necessary for sunlight to shine directly on something to have sufficient illumination to see it.
4. It is brighter in the daytime when the sun is visible, but it is also brighter at night when the moon is visible (and brightest at night when the moon is at its fullest).
5. The moon may appear in the daytime as well as at nighttime. On some days it appears both in daytime and at night, so there’s no apparent cause-effect relationship between the moon and night.
6. The sun may provide light and heat, but so does a fire. A fire can even provide more heat than we feel from sunlight. Yet a fire does not turn nighttime into day. Why should the sun, being of a lesser intensity than a fire, be expected to do so? We know from our experience with campfires, torches, and oil lamps that heat from a fire is most intense in close proximity, and the warmth drops off with distance. Therefore, the sun must be pretty close, since we can feel its warmth.
7. The sun occupies a very small area of the entire sky dome, yet the sky is uniformly lit on a clear day. Why should one assume that a tiny spot in the sky is responsible for lighting the entire expanse?
Might we not conclude from simple observation that daytime and sunlight are two separate and distinct phenomena, just as nighttime is separate from moonlight? And just as a fire can provide light and heat, yet not change night to day, cannot the sun be merely a supplement to daylight and daytime warmth–a “greater light to rule the day”–but not a cause of the day, while the moon provides light at night without causing the night?
From a primitive perspective it could very well seem that day and night could exist without need of the sun. And if your creator neglects to inform you about the proper arrangement of the cosmos, you’re likely to make up a creation story with a few of these misconceptions included.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
In the entire history of the human race, this (the bible) must be the most disputed and most written about work of fiction.
Why not accept it for what it is, a (decent but not great) book no different than The LOTR trilogy (Tolkien is more imaginative and consistent though).
Interesting writeup though. Kudos
November 12th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“1:2 … And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
* What is the difference between ‘God’ and ‘the Spirit of God’?”
The word translated here (and elsewhere) as “spirit” simply means “breath,” and may be found translated as such elsewhere, depending on context. This is most likely an equating of breathing with being alive or animated. When a person or animal is dead, their breathing stops. Any living being is filled with “spirit” or “breath.” The same word is sometimes translated as “ghost.” When a person or animal dies, he/she/it expels its dying breath, or “gives up the ghost.” For lack of a scientific explanation, ancient peoples no doubt regarded breezes and winds as the breath or spirit of god. Therefore, “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” was likely a description of the wind blowing across the waves.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Inasmuch as movement was associated with being alive, it might also be said that the movement of trees, bushes, grasses, flowers, clouds, water waves, etc., caused by breezes or wind was viewed as the spirit (breath) of life imparted to these objects by God.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Consider also the common ancient practice of burning the deceased or a sacrificed animal. The resulting smoke is the body being transformed into a “spiritual” state and rising heavenward.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I am amazed at this site. I find it very entertaining and education. I know that the author is using sarcasm so it doesn’t bother me a bit. At best we can say that the authors of Genesis tried their best to explain their world. The Bible is not the words of a perfect, loving all-knowing god. It is oral tradition of Middle Eastern peoples written down on paper that happens to be very popular. Science can prove some things but faith has a function in the human reality as well. Claiming the Bible as fact is ridiculous as the fact that there are many denominations prove. It is just folklore but it is fun to critique.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
No person walks around with a void that the Genesis creation myth fills. No person rejects the Judao/Christian godhead they don’t know or acknowledge. Whatever society a person is born in has a ready-made mythical theory as to how things got here.
The trouble with the Christians is that they believe that they are being saved from something that either never happened or at least has been explained badly. The explanation that the “original” version in Hebrew has the accurate answer is embarrassing. Since when did Moses speak and write in Hebrew? That means that English readers are wasting their time.
You can tell that Genesis is fiction by this simple fact: If Moses wrote the first five books that means that
a) Adam and Eve was invented (or inspired) during the time of Exodus which means that no other human being ever head of the them or
b) Adam and Eve was a derivative of Egyptian myth that Moses just copied upon. Since Moses was Egyptian born and educated then this is more plausible.
Jews claim that their monotheistic religious model is original but it is not. See Akhenaten of Egypt. Genesis is made for young children, the young-minded, and for people who disregard proof.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I believe that Genesis is the inspired word of God. I also believe that your analysis is biased in favor of an irrational belief in the current state of science. In the late 1960’s Hoyles’ Steady State theory of the universe went out of fashion and the Big Bang theory became popular among scientists. If you had written your nitpick of Genesis in 1961 (the year I was born) would you not have arrogantly stated that the primitive theory that there WAS a creation flies in the face of modern science? Ah, but there never was a headline in the New York Times that said “Genesis was right!”
And, yes it is impossible (or nearly so) that Genesis is literally true. Surely God did not stand(?) in space and start talking. Speaking us into existence is useful analog, though, because it approximates what creation must have been like for God. Speaking is a human way of transforming thought into a physical reality. God had the idea for existance, and spoke it into existence.
1:1 God created the heavens and the earth could mean the big bang happened. Who can argue that the heavens and the earth did not exist in that expanding sphere of energy?
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.In the period of expansion of the Big Bang, Earth WAS without form and since it was too hot for light, this description accords with modern scientific theory. And the reference to the spirit of God moving upon the face of the water is likely a very significant event. Since water has no face, this cannot be taken literally. But maybe God was setting the cosmic constants to their present supremely unlikely settings and thereby making us and this possible. Who knows?
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.NYT headline: Bible knew there was a time in the history of the cosmos when light did not exist, beating scientists by nearly three thousand years.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.hmmmmm. What madern scientific theory postulates dark matter? I suppose it is just a silly superstition.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Modern scientific theory says first there was light, then, after things cooled a bit more, there was matter. As to what is meant by “above” and “below” may are may not be important.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
After a few billion years, after some heavy elements had been created in the center of stars, water and land were created. This was well before the Sun was created.
1:11,12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.Life was created elsewhere first. Not only life, but sex. What? You thought only you could believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe?
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
So now our planet and its environs are created.
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Now this is interesting. First, we have “Let the waters bring forth…” then “Let the earth bring forth…”. And that disagrees with modern evolutionary theory how?
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Okay, so how did Moses know that Man came last after all the other animals? Was this somehow obvious 3,000 years ago? And which part about man here is incorrect? Do we not have a God-like power to create? Is there not a little voice inside your head that tells you right from wrong? Is it not likely that we are not built to apprehend reality any more so than an ant can understand the Internet? God is speaking to us and guiding us and the Bible is one of the ways he does it. But just because we don’t understand something does not make it untrue. Science sometimes forgets that.And there are more beautiful stories that follow this one that teach us things that are not obvious about ourselves. Adam represents mans transformation from animal into human and knowledge represents that blessing and that curse. It also takes us to Abraham. Great stuff. You guys (and gals) should give it a whirl.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Ah yes, the old “science requires faith too” argument. Once again, people who do not understand the subject. Gotta love ‘em.
Science does not ever claim correctness. It claims possibility. Even then, it only continues to claim possibility until impossibility arises via contradiction. It also requires that possibility be corroborated. Evolution, for instance, is not the “truth” as is claimed of the Bible. It is a corroborated possibility. Someday it may be contradicted.