Genesis - Does it need to be supported by science?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
The Genesis narrative, has a few stops and starts in the first two chapters. It goes from sweeping to more and more detailed.
Gen 1:1, then Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:3 for the days. Then Gen 2:4 reverts back to Gen 1:26, with more detail, and concludes in Gen 2:25. The chronological narrative then picks up in Gen 3:1 and continues from there. Gen 1:2-3 is day one with God having created light, Hebrew word is אוֹר
which has many connotations, but Gesenius's Lexicon refers to it as "light everywhere, diffused, such as daylight or sunlight." Hence God created the sun right after he created the earth, still on day one.
Now look at day two, v6-8, God makes our atmosphere. NOT as we have today, but as He originally created it on that day, it was the planet covered with water(v2), then God put the atmosphere between a layer of the water and pushed THAT layer up so it was earth, surrounded by water, surrounded by atmosphere(vault/expanse/sky), surround by water. From a side view it looked like a five ring bullseye with the fiery core being the center and the outer envelope of water being the fifth ring.
Then we get to v16, where God creates two great lights. The Hebrew word here is מָאוֹר and means "luminary", so what was it if the sun and planets were already created? At the end of v16, it says, "He also made the stars." We know the sun is a star so is this another flashback to v4 to provide more detail? I don't think so because it clearly says this is day 4, not day one. It also talks about a second great light, which most people will probably agree is the moon, except we KNOW today that the moon is NOT a light. We had to have sunlight already as vegetation was growing in vs11-13, which is the 3rd day. Or did it? If God created a fully mature earth, then He could create the vegetation one day and the light the next day. So what did God create on the 4th day?
I believe that God created refraction in the water to act a certain way, and as we orbited the sun and the earth revolved, that refraction created light that was strong during a certain period of the day so fully illuminate the part of the world it was near, and at night the diffusion was much less, but still enough for people to see a little bit. The stars is another matter and I have no idea if God just put small ones in the actual sky, or if they we viewable through the water that surrounded the earth. It will be neat when I meet Jesus and ask him though.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why would an inspired story need to be proved scientifically?
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
God made His perfect creation at Gen.1:1, but then it became a waste and an undistinguishable ruin per the Hebrew of Gen.1:2. That's when Satan's original rebellion took place, and God destroyed that time, Peter's "the world that then was".

Past Gen.1:2, God is fashioning this present world we live in today, i.e., "the heavens and the earth which are now" per 2 Pet.3. The time prior to Noah's flood is included within this present world timeframe, for God only receded the waters of Noah's flood.
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
We do not need the sun to have light. Light is a separate entity . Light could be created one day , and the sun created the next. No problems in the Genesis account.

The moon does bring light to the earth. It is a reflected light , but light nonetheless.

The stars were probably already producing light before God spread them out in the universe. The light beam was there from the start , move the star as far away as you want and the light beam will still be there from the beginning.

Mankind makes a mistake thinking the stars were placed first , then began making light , that is why (by our measurements) it would take millions of years for the light to reach earth.

To answer the original question "Genesis - does it need to be supported by science" ..... I look at it this way ......:

(Originally) science started out as a search to determine how the Creator made things work. I think that is still the proper approach. Every day we discover something new.

Science and scientists are not all that smart in the big picture. the Creator is the smart one. We are just observers ... and our knowledge is still quite limited ...

The mechanics and functions of DNA existed all along. It did not just come into existence when the scientist discovered it.

The power of the atom existed all along. The scientist thinks he is pretty smart because he discovered it.That amounts to (mankind) priding ourselves higher than The Creator.

in modern day , most so called "science" has kicked The Creator right out of the picture and replaced it with the theory that ..... "nothing became everything over millions of years by random chance"

Thinking like that belongs in fairy tale land , not within the realm of science.

If the scientific approach is incorrect , the results will be incorrect.

Genesis is skimpy on the details but it remains correct and always will.
 

Jon-Marc

New Member
Jun 8, 2007
850
9
0
78
Jacumba, CA
NO scripture needs to be supported by science, but science needs to be supported by scripture. If science disagrees with scripture, then science is wrong.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
NO scripture needs to be supported by science, but science needs to be supported by scripture. If science disagrees with scripture, then science is wrong.

So. are you against blood transfusions?
 

Jon-Marc

New Member
Jun 8, 2007
850
9
0
78
Jacumba, CA
So. are you against blood transfusions?

No, why would I be unless scripture says not to donate blood, and I haven't seen that. Lev. 17:11 says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That tells me that donating blood is important in helping to save lives that would otherwise be lost simply through loss of blood.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, why would I be unless scripture says not to donate blood, and I haven't seen that. Lev. 17:11 says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That tells me that donating blood is important in helping to save lives that would otherwise be lost simply through loss of blood.

It is a medical procedure supported by science, but not supported by scripture.

Lev. 17:11 is concerning animal blood, not human blood. God doesn't allow any Israelite to remain clean if they have touched a corpse our anything that has touched a corpse.
 
Jul 6, 2011
447
12
18
aspen2,
Why would an inspired story need to be proved scientifically?
Its not so much an inspired story, its revelation from God. Jesus refers to it as in Genesis.
Now as to the creation account, well actually its pretty much the same order as scientific evidence provides, but of course the key test of faith here is to remember that if God is actually God and created the universe then the scientific laws wont necessarily apply. Many people place their faith in science and not God and His word.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
aspen2,
Its not so much an inspired story, its revelation from God. Jesus refers to it as in Genesis.
Now as to the creation account, well actually its pretty much the same order as scientific evidence provides, but of course the key test of faith here is to remember that if God is actually God and created the universe then the scientific laws wont necessarily apply. Many people place their faith in science and not God and His word.

Since when is a revelation from God, literal?

Science evidence does not support a 6 day creation.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
Since when is a revelation from God, literal?

Science evidence does not support a 6 day creation.

-- Science also does not support the Catholic claim that their Communion becomes the actual body and blood of Christ, either.
Your faith in science seems rather.....selective.


Are you really going to say that science is the final say in what is and what isn't possible, what can and what can't be done?

One would think God would take issue with that. He has - on multiple occasions - done things that run contrary to science.

In my years as a Christian I have seen many miracles God has done that both Science and Medicine say are absolutely impossible.

Science has been declaring absolutes for centuries.....only to see those absolutes corrected or made void later on.



.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- Science also does not support the Catholic claim that their Communion becomes the actual body and blood of Christ, either.
Your faith in science seems rather.....selective.


Are you really going to say that science is the final say in what is and what isn't possible, what can and what can't be done?

One would think God would take issue with that. He has - on multiple occasions - done things that run contrary to science.

In my years as a Christian I have seen many miracles God has done that both Science and Medicine say are absolutely impossible.

Science has been declaring absolutes for centuries.....only to see those absolutes corrected or made void later on.



.

I never claimed that science is the final authority. Science is based on theory, not absolutes.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
I never claimed that science is the final authority. Science is based on theory, not absolutes.

-- Yet fallible science is good enough for you to determine that what the Word of God states happened didn't really happen.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- Yet fallible science is good enough for you to determine that what the Word of God states happened didn't really happen.

science is only one indicator that the Creation account is am inspired story or mystical vision.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-- Really....how exactly does science show something to be a 'mystical vision?'

I will rephrase my post

science is only one indicator that the creation story is not an accurate account of the manner in which the universe formed.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
I will rephrase my post

science is only one indicator that the creation story is not an accurate account of the manner in which the universe formed.

-- Science is also an indicator that the Catholic Eurcharist does not actually become the actual body and blood of Christ.


But I got, don't worry. It doesn't matter that God could have done it exactly the way it is said in the Bible.
If fallible science doesn't indicate that it happened that way then it doesn't matter WHAT the Bible says. You choose not to believe it.

You are qualified to pick and choose which actions credited to God in the Bible did happen and which didn't.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am being honest about my beliefs, I am not flipping a coin.

If I was teaching my opinion as fact and insulting everyone who did not share it, I could understand your concern, but I am not
 

Arnie Manitoba

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2011
2,650
137
63
72
Manitoba Canada
Sometimes we need to appreciate that Genesis is simply a quick overview of Creation and we are not given the details of how it was accomplished.

Probably some good reasons for only giving us the abreviated version.

There is a profound statement in the bible which says that if everything Jesus did was written down , .... the whole world could not contain the books.
 

Stan

New Member
Jul 19, 2012
391
5
0
70
Calgary, Alberta, CA.
Thought I would drop in on my OP.

Aspen2, you either believe God's word or you don't. There is no need for scientific justification in believing and having faith. BTW, much science is based on absolutes, just not ALL of it. Like for instance evolution.

Hi Arnie, I think the details were not something mankind in Moses age would even slightly comprehend. We have much more knowledge today, and understanding of things. I love that statement in John about the books. Makes you wonder all the things you don't hear about, or are not told.