The initial creation took place before day 1, but Genesis does not tell
us how long before. This means that the question of the age of the
earth (and of the universe) is a separate question from the
interpretation of the days... (pp 52-53).
I take the opposite view — that 1:1 is like a heading which introduces and summarizes the content below it:
We should note that the first sentence in The Bible—"In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth"—does not refer to the creation
of the Universe or of planet Earth. Rather, this initial sentence
summarises the creation story that follows. And upon reading onwards we
see that what we recognize as planet Earth already exists before the
start of creation! (#79)
Professor Paul Davies (1998) writes:
Biblical scholars tell me that…the opening line 'In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth' is not in fact the description of a
miraculous act, but a statement of the overall agenda that is itemized
in the subsequent verses.
This viewpoint, as Collins notes, seemingly leaves the Bible without
comment about the origin of the Universe and planet Earth. Newman &
Eckelmann (1977) similarly state: "...the origin of matter remains a
mystery or it is assumed that matter has always existed." (p. 68)
In response to this objection, perhaps the following verses allow for a
time before Genesis and imply creation of the Universe by God:
Psalm 8:3-4; Proverbs 8:22-23, 27; John 1:1-3; I Corinthians 8:5-6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:10-12; Revelation 4:11.
GENESIS 1:2 — EARTH BEFORE THE SIX DAYS
"...the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the
deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." (1:2)
(NRSV Bible)
Whether 1:1 is a quick mention of the creation of the Universe or
whether it summarizes the subsequent narrative, need not affect the
interpretation of the subsequent verses.
Verse 2 describes the world before the six days of creation.
Most Bible translations have "spirit of God" instead of "wind from
God". The translators assume in the word "spirit" a reference to the
"triune" nature of God officially accepted in Christianity in the 4th
century CE. Collins (2006) too supports "spirit of God".
I consider that the translation "spirit" is erroneous and conceals
scientific evidence supporting Genesis. The Hebrew word is "ruach".
When "ruach" occurs together with the word "God" the phrase is often a
figure of speech referring to a mighty wind or storm. I explained this
in Investigator #38, #79, #83 and #193. "Ruach" occurs 374 times in the
Hebrew Old Testament including about 15 occasions where in conjunction
with "God" it refers to wind.
During an ocean voyage in 1974 I read the book Bombarded Earth (1964).
This book proposes that strikes by giant asteroids influenced the
geology of planet Earth. I loaned Bombarded Earth to 23-year-old
fellow-tourist Rudolf, a science graduate of Flinders University. Our
meeting influenced me, years later, to also attempt University studies.
Meanwhile I wondered why impacts of rocks so huge that they changed our
planet get no mention in Genesis if The Bible is, as many claimed, the
"word of God".
The answer came after I understood the word "ruach". If "ruach of God"
means "mighty wind" then Genesis 1:2 says nothing about a supernatural
"spirit", but is a physical/oceanic/climatic description of Earth
before the six days.
The obvious question was, "Did Earth ever look like that?" Was our
planet ever lifeless, landless, water-covered, its surface so dark that
night and day were the same, and with mighty wind raging over it? If
so, "What could have caused this condition?" The obvious answer was,
the impact of a gigantic asteroid into an ocean.
With this reasoning Genesis 1:2 contained testable information which future science could either refute or confirm.
It is now estimated that:
In the last 650 million years, the earth had been struck by a "bolide"
(meteor or comet) large enough to form a crater at least 20 kilometers
(12 miles) in diameter about 355 times.
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/bolide.html
Bigger asteroid impacts occurred earlier:
... an enormous 3.26-billion-year-old asteroid impact on Earth that
boiled the oceans, turned the sky red hot, and generated a
half-hour-long earthquake that shook the planet… The gigantic object
was about 30 miles wide… The energy it released boiled the top layer of
the ocean and sent tsunamis hundreds of feet high through the remaining
waters.
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/giant-asteroid-impact/
On the Moon some impacts were so huge that the scars are still visible
from Earth to our unaided eyes. There were on Earth impacts that
vaporized entire oceans:
...a liquid ocean likely existed by ~4.4 Ga [billions of years] ago…
The estimated median age of the last impact big enough to vaporize the
entire ocean is ~4.3 Ga ago, which provides a crude upper age limit on
the origin of life… (Catling & Zahnle, 2020)
SCIENCE SUPPORTS GENESIS — FOUR EVIDENCES
1. Nowadays, in the 21st century, it is standard
science that Earth suffered many gigantic asteroid impacts. Planet
Earth probably looked as described in Genesis 1:2 more than once.
Some impacts raised tsunamis that circled the world, or splashed oceans
into orbit. The atmospheric debris circling the planet would have
rendered Earth's surface totally dark. This is one evidence for the
truth of Genesis 1.
2. That the whole Universe had a start — whether we cite Genesis 1:1 or
the other verses I listed — is also confirmed. The "steady state model
of the Universe" postulated that the Universe is eternal — no
beginning and no end. (See: Wikipedia) However, the "big bang" theory,
which implied a beginning, triumphed in the 1960s. The Bible
implies a start, and science now agrees. This is the second evidence.
3. A third evidence I presented in "Probability of a Living Planet"
(Investigator #194 & #195). Genesis implies that it required "God"
to make Earth a living planet conducive to civilization. Psalm 8:5-6,
furthermore, implies that humans are the highest form of physical life,
being in God's "image and likeness". (Genesis 1:26)
What are the odds of complex physical life, intelligence and
civilization developing without supernatural intervention? We can judge
the odds by looking into Space. Astronomers are now finding exo-planets
by hundreds. But so far no life of any kind is confirmed anywhere, let
alone intelligent life and civilization. Therefore, so far — by
observation — the odds are zero. Godly intervention, as Genesis
indicates, seems necessary.
4. Humankind's long-term goals include "subdue the
earth" (1:28) and develop technology such that "nothing that they
propose to do will now be impossible for them." (11:6). To allow time
to achieve such goals implies that Earth is safe for physical life
long-term. Reich (2006) reports:
Of all the threats to life on Earth, gamma-ray bursts are probably not
uppermost on anyone's mind... It seems that the very nature of the
Milky Way precludes these dangerous explosions from going off in our
galaxy, let alone anywhere near enough to obliterate us.
A long gamma-ray burst within 6500 light years of Earth could produce
enough radiation to strip away the ozone layer and cause a mass, or
even total, extinction... Only four have been spotted within 2 billion
light years of Earth...
New Scientist magazine says that Gamma ray bursts can sterilize whole
galaxies. (1999, January 23, p. 16) However, Earth and humans have
avoided them (and probably other threats).
SIX DAYS
Genesis 1:3-31 describes creation from the viewpoint of a hypothetical
observer. It describes what a person watching from ground level or sea
level could have seen.
The word "day" (Hebrew yom, Wigram, p. 508) occurs first in Genesis 1:5
where "God" says "Let there be light" and calls the light "Day", and
the darkness "Night." Here "day" is about 12 hours like when Jesus
said, "Are there not 12 hours in a day [or of daylight]?" — John 11:9
The next occurrence of "day", also in 1:5, says: "And there was evening
and there was morning, the first day." "Day" here evidently includes
daytime and night i.e. 24 hours.
Each of the six days of creation ends with: "And there was evening and
there was morning, the first [second, third , fourth, fifth, sixth]
day."
What came about before each "day" is:
1 Light (1:3-5)
2 The "dome" between the oceans and the "waters above" (1:6-8)
3 Dry land, vegetation, trees (1:9-13)
4 Lights (sun, moon, stars) in the sky (1:14-19)
5 Ocean life and winged creatures (1:20-23)
6 Land animals and humans (1:24-31)
How could Sun, Moon and stars appear three "days" after light on Day 1?
Remember that creation (and atmospheric and astronomical phenomena) is
depicted in the Bible according to what hypothetical observers could
have seen. Light would have appeared after the Earth-circling debris
from a giant impact began to settle. And by Day 4 it settled
sufficiently for Sun, Moon and stars to become visible. Compare cloudy
days when we have light but cannot see the Sun nor (at night) the Moon
or stars.
Could trees (Day 3), especially fruit trees, grow in diffused light?
Perhaps some could. However, Newman & Eckelmann (1977) propose that
creation did not stop when "God" declared each creation "good" but
continued until the "day" of rest. (p. 84) Trees that require full
sunlight could therefore have arrived late in the time of creation.
Another observation is that the numbers "1" to "6" might not refer to
sequence but have some other purpose. Many interpreters have noted that
creation of Day 4 explains the light of Day 1; Day 5 complements Day 2;
and the Day 6 events happened after Day 3. This would mean that the
Sun, Moon and stars appeared after Day 1 before the "dome" and dry land
of Days 2 and 3.
"Dome" refers to the atmosphere and how it appears to our eyes. It's not something hard, but soft where birds fly (1:20).
EVOLUTION
Three of the statements of "God", prior to the third, fifth, and sixth days, are:
• "Let the earth put forth vegetation..." (Genesis 1:11, 12);
• "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures..." (1:20);
• "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind..." (1:24)
Collins (2006) notes: "nor do we learn how the earth "brought forth
vegetation" or how the animals appeared in their respective
environments." (p. 44) Since we're not told "how" the earth and the
waters "brought forth" it could be by the processes that promote
evolution.
We should consider here another scientific idea — Chaos Theory:
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the study of chaos
— dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and
irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and
deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions...
The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a
small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can
result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is
sensitive dependence on initial conditions). A metaphor for this
behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a
hurricane in China... (Wikipedia)
Hall (1994), cites physicist Paul Davies: "We know from chaos theory
that the tiniest change even among atoms is going to change the way
very large phenomena occur."
Examples of small changes developing into colossal events might be the
Universe from something smaller than an atom, and World War II from a
sperm cell in 1889 that became Adolf Hitler. With this thought in mind,
the supernatural interventions prior to each "Day" could have been
small, but so precise as to naturally amplify into the consequences
"God" wanted.
Lee Strobel (2000) writes:
...what is encoded on the DNA inside every cell of every living
creature is purely and simply written information. We use a
twenty-six-letter alphabet in English; in DNA, there is a four-letter
chemical alphabet, whose letters combine in various sequences to form
words, sentences and paragraphs. These comprise all the instructions
needed to guide the functioning of the cell. They spell out in coded
form the instructions for how a cell makes proteins. It works just the
way alphabetical letter sequences do in our language...
Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all
thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica ... it's the unmistakable
sign of an Intelligent Designer. (pp153-155)
Strobel is using "DNA ... language" as an argument against evolution
and for God's existence, whereas I would propose it as a "small" change
or "intervention" that facilitated evolution.
Genesis 1:21 adds: "So God created the great sea monsters and every
living creature that moves, of every kind...", and 1:25 "God made the
wild animals of the earth of every kind..." This still omits details of
how God "created" and "made", and therefore allows for "God" making
essential starts and natural processes amplifying them.
After the animals but still during the creation period of Day 6 came humans, whom we'll consider below.
HEBREW WORDS
The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, lists all Old-Testament occurrences of Hebrew words, including:
• Create [bara] (p. 270)
• Make/Made [gahsah] (p. 981)
• To form [yatsar] (p. 556)
• Brought forth [yahtsah] (p. 548)
The word "created" [bara] occurs in:
• Genesis 1:1;
• Genesis 1:21, Day 5, when God "created" ocean creatures and birds (or winged creatures);
• Genesis 1:27, Day 6, creation of man (1:27); male & female (5:1-2);
• Genesis 2:3 — all of "creation".
"Bara" is used only of God; never of human work. God's "rest" on Day 7
differs to human rest since Psalm 121 says He "neither slumbers nor
rests". The human work-week differs further to the creation week
because humans rest every day not only on the 7th.
The things "God made" [gahsah] were:
• The "firmament" or atmosphere(1:7)
• Two great lights (1:16)
• Land animals (1:25, 31; 3:1)
• Adam/Man (1:26)
• Helper for man (2:18)
• All his creative "work" (1:31; 2:2,3)
• The earth (2:4)
And fruit trees "make" [gahsah]:
• Fruit (1:11-12)
Things humans "made" include:
• Aprons from fig leaves (3:7)
• Disobedience to God (3:13-14)
• Murder (4:10).
The things "God formed" (yatsar) out of the ground were:
• Man (2:7, 8)
• Animals and birds (2:19)
Things "brought forth" (yahtsah) by the earth were:
• Vegetation/plants (1:12)
• Animals and creeping things (1:24)
Some interpreters distinguish "create" and "make" as different
activities, where "create" might refer to origin or a fresh start, and
"make" to working on something already in existence. (Collins 2006, p.
67)
But it's not clear-cut. "God" made (gahsah) Adam (1:26) and created
(bara) Adam (1:27), but also formed (yatsar) Adam (2:7-8) from "the
dust of the ground" (2:7). Later, "God" created (bara) and formed
(yatsar) the nation of Israel (Isaiah 47:1, 7) from Abraham and his
offspring. |
SEVENTH DAY
The seventh day when "God rested" makes no mention of "evening and morning".
Long-day creationists interpret this absence as implying that God's
rest continues indefinitely. It's not avoidance of all work, merely
rest from creating, since Jesus said, "My Father is still working,
and I also am working." (John 5:17)
The events of days 1 and 3 to 6 are declared "good" — Genesis 1:4, 10,
12, 18, 21, 25, 31. But this evaluation or refrain is missing
from Day 7.
Collins suggests, "the lack of refrain on the seventh day leads
us to wonder whether that day is open ended — which would mean that the
rest of human history takes place during God's Sabbath." (p. 74)
My preferred understanding, that six literal days were separated by
long time periods, implies the 7th is literal too (although Hebrews
3:18 – 4:11 would need explanation).
Note also that "God rested". It's the past tense. (Genesis 2:2; Hebrews 4:4)
SECOND CREATION STORY?
The next section (or "pericope") begins:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were
created. In the day [Hebrew yom] that the LORD God made the earth and
the heavens... (Genesis 2:4) (NRSV)
Critics often interpret Chapter 2:4-25 as a second story of creation by
a separate writer which a later editor tacked onto the first story. The
NRSV Bible translation actually subtitles this section "Another Account
of the Creation".
Collins (2006), however, finds that Genesis is not a paste-together job
but displays a unity and structure that suggest one story, one author:
"on the literary level, the book displays unity." (p. 102)
The phrase "These are the generations of..." occurs in Genesis 2:4;
5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2; Numbers 3:1; Ruth
4:18; I Chronicles 1:29.
Collins (p. 40) says this phrase "functions as a heading that
introduces new material". Kidner (1967) similarly says, "…this phrase
in Genesis always looks forward, introducing a new stage of the book."
(p. 59)
"Generations" translates the Hebrew "toledot" (Wigram, p. 1341) meaning
"offspring", "family history", "descendants". Genesis 2:1 says "the
heavens and the earth were finished". Therefore 2:4 "These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth" introduces what
metaphorically are "offspring" of the "heavens and the earth".
The new material is not a new creation story. Day 6 finishes with
everything that "God" had made being "very good". (1:31) This included
the creation of man and woman. But Chapter 2 says "Then the LORD God
said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone...'" (2:18) This
suggests that Chapter 2 jumps back to 1:27, where God creates man, to
explain how Adam's creation became "very good". Collins (2006) says:
"Genesis 2:4-25 fills out events of the sixth day..." (p. 74)
Genesis 2:5 "no plant of the field was yet in the earth" refers to
agricultural plants since "field" [Hebrew sadeh, Wigram p. 1197] refers
to land owned and/or tilled. And "God had not caused it to rain upon
the earth" is not planet Earth but an area of land during the rainless,
dry season.
Events supplementing 1:27 in Chapter 2 include:
... the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
(2:7)
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden... Out of the ground
the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and
good for food... (2:8-9)
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. (2:15)
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and
every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would
call them... (2:19)
The phrase "Formed
[yatsar] man" in 2:7-8 corresponds to "create" [bara] in 1:27.
Verses 2:20-23 describe the creation of Eve, and Adam saying "This at
last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh..." where "at last"
implies that Adam's time alone had been lengthy.
"Long-day" creationists argue that forming, planting, tilling, growing,
naming all animals and feeling lonely is too much for 24 hours, and
therefore Day 6 and the other days represent long eras.
My proposed interpretation, whereby creation is lengthy but occurred
before each day, has no problem with how long the events that ended
with Day 6 took.
However, the description of Adam and Eve's creation looks like a "hands
on" job, a product done quickly, not by evolution.
In Genesis 1:24-25 animals are created before humans but Genesis 2:19
says: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field
and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man..."
Some argue that "formed" in 2:19 should be translated "had formed". This would resolve the seeming inconsistency.
Alternatively, 2:19 could refer to natural births. The same word
"formed" is used in Amos 7:1 where God is said to be "forming locusts".
This raises the question of biblical causation. Hundreds of Bible
verses speak of God forming/making/doing such things as lightning,
rain, drought, night, fetal development, peoples' thoughts, death,
deception, earthquakes, poverty, affluence, calamity, fire from the
sky, wisdom, the Moon, the result of casting lots, protection, food,
etc — it goes on and on.
The Bible's ancient readers knew nothing of modern science or
scientific causation. Therefore everything mysterious or inexplicable
the Bible attributes to God — sometimes in the sense that God
supernaturally acted, and sometimes in the sense that God permitted it,
i.e. did nothing. Therefore "out of the ground God formed every animal"
could refer to natural reproduction.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Many English Bibles refer to "the first day", "the second day" and on
to "the seventh day — each with the definite article, the word
"the". The Hebrew actually omits "the" for days 1 to 5, but uses
it for days 6 and 7. A better translation would therefore be "a first
day", "a second day" on to "a fifth day", followed by "the sixth day"
and "the seventh day".
Might this be important? We've already seen that
improved understanding of just one word, "ruach", can alter
interpretation and predict scientific discovery, and Genesis may have
other insights not yet noticed! (Ecclesiastes 8:17; 3:11)
The Bible's creation story was originally written
for people lacking modern scientific knowledge. Imagine a scientist who
meets a native who knows about nothing outside
his hunting grounds and tries to describe to the native the development
of huge cities like London. For the explanation to make sense to the
native would require such drastic simplification as to make it useless
to students studying the same topic at university.
Genesis may be
similar — a style of writing that made great complexities
understandable to ancient audiences comes across today as error or myth unless
studied carefully.
REFERENCES:
Freeman, J.M. 1972 Manners and Customs of the Bible, Logos International, p. 429
Marchi, S., Bottke, W.F., Elkins-Tanton, L., Bierhaus, M., Wuennemann,
K., Morbidelli, A., & Kring, D. A. 2014 Widespread mixing and
burial of Earth's Hadean crust by asteroid impacts. Nature 2014, Volume 511, 578-582
Catling, D.C. & Zahnle, K.J. 2009
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/Catling2009.pdf
Catling, D.C. & Zahnle, K.J. The Archean atmosphere,
Science Advances 26 Feb 2020: Vol. 6, no. 9
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/9/eaax1420
Collins, C. John 2006 Genesis 1 — 4, P & R Publishing
Davies, P. 1998 The Fifth Miracle, Penguin Press, Page xxi
Hall, N. Staring into the mind of God, Focus, February 1994, pp 74-76
Investigator #38, September 1994; #79, July 2001; #83, March 2002; #193, July 2020
Kidner, D. 1967 Genesis An Introduction and Commentary, Inter-Varsity
Lennox, J.C. 2011 Seven Days That Divide The World, Zondervan
Newman, R.C. & Eckelmann, H.J. 1977 (Reprint 1981) Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, Baker Book House
Reich, E.S. Earth escapes gamma-ray-disaster, New Scientist, 22 April, 2006, p. 12
Strobel, L. 2000 The Case for Faith, Zondervan, pp 153-155
Wigram, G.W. Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, Samuel Bagster & Sons
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
Zahnle, K.J. et al Creation and Evolution of Impact-generated Reduced Atmospheres of Early Earth, The Planetary Science Journal, 1:11, 2020 June
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ab7e2c/pdf
http://www.sci-news.com/geology/earth-hit-asteroid-3-5-billion-years-ago-03871.html
A Rationalist Commentary on Genesis
Kirk Straughen
(Investigator 201, 2021 November)
There is no
basis for believing Genesis gives us an accurate account of cosmic
origins. The Biblical story is a myth — sacred account that embodies
the cultural values of an ancient people. It is not, nor was it ever
meant to be a scientific description of the emergence of the Universe,
Life and Humanity.
That Genesis is
of purely human invention rather than an infallible divine revelation
is proven by the fact that it contains two different creation stories:
The first story (Gen. 1- 2:4a) is the priestly version of creation, and
dates from about the 6th century BC. The second version, (Gen. 2:4b-25)
which scholars call the Yahwist-Elohist version (a joint work of either
two schools or individuals) is the older story, and was probably
written in the 8th century BC. Both accounts were written by unknown
persons, and were probably combined into the final form before 400 BC
by another unknown author. These stories draw their imagery from older
Mesopotamian ideas of which the Garden in Eden is an example:
"Recent Sumerian
studies have shown that the conception of a divine garden and of a
state when sickness and death did not exist and wild animals did not
prey on one another is to be found in Sumerian mythology. The
description of this earthly Paradise is contained in the Sumerian poem
which Dr Kramer has called the Epic of Emmerkar". (Page 114 in Hooke,
Samuel Henry: Middle Eastern Mythology.)
Moreover,
the two accounts of creation contradict each other as the following
table (based on Hooke’s: page 105-106) shows.
Gen. 1-2:4a |
Gen. 2:4b-25
|
Original state of Cosmos
Watery chaos.
Elohim creates in 6 days |
Original state of Cosmos
Waterless wasteland, no vegetation. Yahweh Elohim creates.
No timeframe given.
|
Order of Creation
1. Light
2. Solid Firmament or heaven.
3. Dry land.
4. 3 orders of vegetation.
5. Sun, moon, stars.
6. Birds, fish.
7. Animals and humans. Both male and female created together. |
Order of Creation
1. Man out of dust.
2. The Garden in Eden.
3. Trees.
4. Animals, beasts, birds.
5. Eve, from Adam's rib. |
These different
creation stories reflect the different stages in the development of
Israelite religion. The reason why they were joined together despite
their contradictions is probably due to both being so well known that
the final editor felt neither could be left out.
The ancient
Hebrews, along with most of their Middle Eastern contemporaries, viewed
the Earth as a flat disc overarched by a solid vault to which the
celestial bodies were attached:
Jews simply
adopted or accepted the cosmologies of the various civilizations in
which they lived... The cosmological picture in the Bible, for
instance, clearly owes much to the Mesopotamian cosmologies, especially
the Babylonian. The universe is conceived of in geocentric terms. The
earth has the shape of a flat disc. (Page 102 in Jacobs, Louis: The
Jewish Religion).
The essentials
of this mythical cosmology can be glimpsed in the order of creation as
described in Genesis, which is illustrated in diagrams 1 to 4:
1. Watery chaos (Gen. 1:2)
2. Separation of waters by firmament (Gen. 1:6-7)
3. Appearance of dry land (Gen. 1:19)
4. Creation of sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:14-19)
The illustration as shown above delineates this mythical process of
creation, whose order makes sense in the light of common underlying
assumptions concerning the primordial state of the universe as
conceived by most ancient Middle Eastern cultures such as those of
Mesopotamia, Egypt and so on.
The idea of a
watery origin for the cosmos may have arisen from observations of
floods and swampland. From the chaos of the flood, earth slowly emerges
as the waters subside, and new life arises from the formless mud. The
Cosmos,then, was possibly thought to have arisen by a similar analogous
process behind which stood the controlling divinities responsible for
the emergence of cosmic order.
That the Hebrews
were influenced by other surrounding cultures and borrowed aspects of
their creation myths is quite plausible when we consider that no Middle
Eastern civilization stood in isolation from its neighbors, for all
were linked by trade routes along which not only goods, but also ideas,
could travel. Furthermore, that Genesis is most likely a compilation of
various creation myths has been deduced by researchers in the field of
Biblical literature:
"The basic
document [of Genesis] is now normally called ‘Priestly’, since its
features suggest that it derived from a circle of priests and highly
educated people, whereas the older document (normally called J, or
Yahwist, because God is normally indicated by the name he had among the
Hebrews) is more anthropomorphic in outlook. In the one the picture is
wider, embracing the general problem of the origin of the Universe,
while in the other the horizon is restricted to man and the question of
his duties, his purpose, and so on. Moreover, the cosmology in the
Priestly account is dominated by the element of Water, regarded as
something hostile to man, to the point at which conquest of cultivable
soil consists in redeeming it from Water. But in the Yahwist version
the dominant feature is a desert which has to be made fertile by rain
and springs, even though these waters too must be regulated by man
before they can take proper effect.
What we have
said so far may help in identifying the provenance of the two accounts,
the older of which may be placed in Syria and Arabia, the later in
Mesopotamia. As to date, the Yahwist version may be ninth or eighth
century BC, the later version belongs to the late seventh or early
sixth, but the data on which its priestly writers worked are distinctly
earlier. Links with the cosmology of other eastern Semitic peoples are
many and obvious." (Page 246 in Pareti, Luigi: History of Mankind:
Cultural & Scientific Development, Vol. Il, part I).
In my opinion it
is reasonable to conclude that the authors of the Genesis creation
myths borrowed ideas from other prevailing cosmic origin stories,
modifying them in the light of Hebrew monotheism. The consensus of
Biblical scholars suggests the conclusions presented above are most
likely true.
The suggestion
that Genesis somehow prefigures scientific discoveries rests, in my
opinion, upon questionable interpretations of Scripture. Indeed, with a
little imagination, the ‘scientific accuracy’ of non-Biblical
cosmogonies can also be ‘proven.’ To illustrate my point, consider The
Song of Creation, (a hymn from the Rig Veda) which is:
"One of the
oldest surviving records of philosophic doubt in the history of the
world, [and] marks the development of a high stage of abstract
thinking, and it is the work of a very great poet, whose vision [is] of
the mysterious chaos before creation, and of mighty ineffable forces
working in the depths of the primal void." (Page 249 in Basham, A.L:
The Wonder that was India.)
Please note: My
exposition of The Song of Creation is purely illustrative of the fact
that sacred literature can be interpreted in a way that creates the
illusion of scientific accuracy. I am not seriously proposing that it
prefigures modern scientific discoveries.
The Song of Creation
1. Then
was not nonexistent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky
beyond it.A What covered in, and where?B And what gave shelter?C Was
water there, unfathomed depth of water? D
Commentary:
Modern cosmology envisages the Universe emerging from a state of
nothingness. This is expressed poetically by the series of negations in
1A This nothingness is further emphasised through a number of
rhetorical questions (1B and 1C) that illustrate this non-spatial
state. The poet then closes by questioning a common assumption (1D)
that the Universe emerged from a watery chaos, which is a frequent
theme in creation stories.
2. Death was not
then, nor was there aught immortal:A no sign was there, the day’s and
night’s divider.B That one thing, breathless, breathed by its own
nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.C
Commentary:
2A — the
symbolism of death and immortality are used to represent time (death =
cessation; immortality = unending duration). This becomes clear at 1B
where reference is made to the non-existence of the celestial bodies:
there is neither night nor day — a timeless existence. This is
scientifically accurate because time is a property of the universe, and
did not exist before the beginning. At 2C we have a reference to the
instant of creation — that indefinable moment when the universe burst
into being. The imagery here, which is consistent with modern
cosmology, symbolises the fact that the emergence of the universe is
not dependent on any known antecedent causative agency. The cosmos
emerges of itself from an ineffable unknown and unknowable.
3. Darkness
there was: at first concealed in darkness, this All was indiscriminate
chaos.A All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power
of warmth was born that unit.B
Commentary: 3A —
a reference to the chaotic state of the early universe and the fact
that it was opaque, or dark (about 300,000 years after the Big Bang,
the universe was cool enough for electrons and protons to form
hydrogen. Light could now travel long distances without being
scattered.) This state, and its origin, is further emphasized at 3B —
the universe is born of the Big Bang (by the great power of warmth was
born that unit — viz, the incredible temperature of the early universe)
and, at that time, had none of its current organization.
4. Therefore
rose desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of
spirit.A Sages who searched with their heart’s thought discovered the
existent’s kinship in the non-existent.B
Commentary:
The primal seed
4A or, poetically speaking, Desire, symbolises the laws of Nature that
guide the development of Creation. 4B:
An accurate observation that our
understanding of Nature and ourselves depends on our understanding of
cosmic origins, inasmuch as it is humanly possible. In this case
"non-existent" refers to the unfathomable causeless emergence of the
universe.
5. Transversely
was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what
below it?A There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action
here and energy up yonder.B
Commentary:
5A: This
paragraph refers to the inflation of the early universe, and 5B to the
birth of matter when the energy driving inflation was transformed into
particles and antiparticles that annihilated each other, releasing
prodigious amounts of energy.
6. Who verily
knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes
this creation?A The gods are later than this world’s production.B Who
knows, then, whence it first came into being?C
Commentary:
The poet reminds
us that scientific explanations are not ultimate truths 6A, and that
the gods, or our concept of them, are of human origin: 6B.
Consequently, religion can't provide us with ultimate explanations
either because it is the product of fallible human minds. 6C
7. He, the first
origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or
perhaps he knows it not.
Commentary:
The final
paragraph serves to reinforce the previous one — even if God exists,
there is no guarantee it has answers that are any better than our own.
In conclusion:
The scriptures
of Judaism and Hinduism are the product of pre-scientific people. The
accounts of creation found within them represent early attempts to
explain the existence of the world and the human condition. They were
not intended to be (indeed, they cannot be) scientific theories of the
world’s origin, and to impose modern meanings upon them is to
misrepresent the intentions of their authors.
Bibliography
Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1967.
Blackburn, S. (Ed.) The Big Questions: The Universe, Quercus, London, 2010.
Fohrer, G. History of Israelite Religion, S.P.C.K, London 1975.
Hook, S.M. Middle Eastern Mythology, Penguin Books, England, 1981.
Jacobs, L. The Jewish Religion, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 1995
Pareti, L. History of Mankind: Cultural & Scientific Development, Vol. II, part I), Unwin Brothers Limited, London, 1965.
GENESIS, CREATION and EVOLUTION
Part 2
Anonymous
(Investigator 202, 2022 January)
CREATION STORIES
Barbara Sproul (1980) in Primal Myths supplies the text of many creation myths from
Africa, the Middle East, Europe, India, Eastern Asia, North and South
America, the Pacific islands and Australia.
The difference between the Bible and myths of ancient cultures is that
Genesis, after a little analysis, as in Investigator 199, can be taken
literally yet agrees with science, and even predicts some scientific
truths that the whole world now accepts. This makes Staughen's (2021)
claim that the Genesis creation story is "purely a human invention"
wrong.
TWO CREATION STORIES?
Straughen's main back-up argument is that creation in Genesis 1 & 2
was originally two stories that someone cut up and combined together.
This is part of the "Documentary Hypothesis" which states that the
first five books of the Bible originally consisted of a P (Priestly)
author and a J (Yahwist) author, which R (an unknown "Redactor")
spliced together. Other versions of the Hypothesis claim that the
original creation stories numbered three or four or more.
Even if this Hypothesis is correct it would not necessarily make Genesis false, although Straughen seems to think it would.
Scholars routinely write articles that include dozens of quotes — in
effect produce a "story" by trimming and combining dozens of others.
Nevertheless the single, composite result is not necessarily erroneous
but sometimes groundbreaking.
Straughen's paste-together claim is of doubtful relevance for another
reason, which is: It is a hypothesis, not a fact, and is disputed.
The "dozens" of references a scholar might quote can be consulted and
checked and dates and authors' names confirmed. Straughen in contrast
cannot show us any separated-out ancient copies of the alleged creation
stories, and he only guesses at dates of compilation, and has no
authors' names.
Any story can be split into multiple stories. I own a book about World
War II, the worldwide story of the conflict. I could pull out chapters
dealing with Europe, the Pacific, Africa, etc, and claim that these
chapters existed, prior to the larger story as separate books and the
author of World War II combined them. Even if such an amalgamation of,
or plagiarism from, previous books occurred, it would not prove that
WWII never happened.
Straughen provides a table of "contradictions" between the alleged
creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2. This is the same mistake as
listing differences in the chapters of World War II and calling them
"contradictions". The differences are different events in different
areas of the war, not "contradictions".
Straughen's table shows that Genesis 2 makes no mention of the creation
of light, sky, dry land, Sun, Moon, stars and fish. With almost all
creation absent, Genesis 2 cannot be a rival creation story.
Correct is that Genesis 2 jumps back to the creation of humans (Genesis
1:27) to add details about the Garden of Eden and explain how the human
creation went wrong. The phrase "These are the generations of..." in
2:4 occurs regularly in the Old Testament to introduce new or
additional information.
My book on WWII has an introductory chapter outlining the entire
conflict, followed by chapters that return to earlier stages to add
details. That is what Genesis does with creation: The entire story
comes first (Genesis 1 to 2:3) after which Genesis 2:4-24 returns to an
earlier stage to zoom in on the first humans. Without Chapter 2 readers
would not know how the human race went corrupt, and the rest of the
Bible, which describes humanity's pathetic situation and God's agenda
to restore perfection, would lack meaning, context and foundation.
BEGINNING OF WRITING
The earliest versions of the Documentary Hypothesis, centuries ago,
accepted Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and speculated about
what sources Moses used. Then came the theory that the Israelites/Jews
did not adopt writing until centuries after Moses may have lived. This
implied that Genesis is of later origin than Moses, and also gave extra
centuries for legends from other cultures to reach Israel and influence
Jewish authors. Straughen (2021) suggests Genesis was written around
400 BCE.
However, recent archaeological discoveries show that Jewish writing is
more ancient than critics assumed. Richelle (2020) writes:
According to the current consensus among scholars, it was in the eighth
century B.C.E. at the earliest. Indeed, in archaeologist Israel
Finkelstein’s words, "Writing is not in evidence in Judah before around
800 B.C.E." Likewise, biblical scholar John Van Seters wrote a few
years ago, "Not until the late eighth century was Judah sufficiently
advanced as a state that it could produce any written records." Similar
doubts concern the kingdom of Israel, so it looks as though we have a
relatively precise terminus a quo (earliest possible date) for the
composition of any Hebrew literature.
However, current knowledge in epigraphy and archaeology leads us to
call this conventional wisdom into question. Indeed, the main reasons
that underlie it prove ill founded.
An important reason for postulating late dates for Genesis is therefore in retreat.
DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS
I investigated the Documentary Hypothesis in Investigator 153 and
showed that most of its variations are defunct. Present-day versions
too are breaking down. Wikipedia says:
The Jahwist, or Yahwist, often abbreviated J, is one of the most widely
recognized sources of the Pentateuch (Torah), together with the
Deuteronomist, the Priestly source and the Elohist. The existence of
the Jahwist is somewhat controversial, with a number of scholars,
especially in Europe, denying that it ever existed as a coherent
independent document. Nevertheless, many scholars do assume its
existence, and date its composition to the period of the Babylonian
captivity (597–539 BCE) or perhaps somewhat later. The Jahwist is so
named because of its characteristic use of the term Yahweh (German:
Jahwe; Hebrew: יהוה) for God...
The explanation called the documentary hypothesis dominated much of the
20th century, but the consensus surrounding this hypothesis has now
broken down. Its critics suggest that contemporary upholders tend to
give a much larger role to the redactors, who are now seen as adding
much material of their own rather than as simply passive combiners of
documents.
The simple form of the documentary hypothesis has come under criticism
from within its own constituents as well. The most notable revision in
recent decades has been to suggest that the individual E and J
documents are irrecoverable altogether, major parts of them having been
scrapped by the first JE redactor; or that the E document was never
independent at all, but rather is a part of the J document.
Garrett (1991) says:
The time has long passed for scholars of every theological persuasion
to recognize that the Graf-Wellhausen theory, as a starting point for
continued research, is dead. The Documentary Hypothesis and the
arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars
from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise...
Many scholars are exploring the inadequacies of the Documentary
Hypothesis and looking toward new models for explaining the Pentateuch.
Collins (2006) describes a new version formulated by Friedman (2003)
but concludes: "For each feature that is brought forward to support the
source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical
considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow
of the narrative."
IMAGINATION
Straughen's other main argument is: "with a little imagination, the
'scientific accuracy' of non-Biblical cosmogonies can also be
'proven'."
He illustrates this premise by quoting The Song of Creation from India.
He treats its phrases as poetic and symbolic and then finds parallels
in modern astronomy.
The difference with Genesis is that I took Genesis literally and
nevertheless predicted (decades ago) several future discoveries. Even
the Genesis "days" can be taken literally by noticing that "creation"
occurred outside of the six days. The numbered days were when God, in
the narrative, declared major results "good". Even evolution can, to a
large extent, be accepted by noting that "the waters" and "the earth"
are what "brought forth" living things in great variety. (1:11,12, 20,
24) It would not be amiss for an evolutionist to phrase his belief in
these same words.
What the Bible writer(s) did, which no one today can replicate, is this:
a) Write a creation story for people who have never
been to school and know nothing about science or the wider world.
b) Limit himself to using the vocabulary that they
use and employ their words literally so that they understand the story.
c) Within these constraints include scientific
information that scientists will discover thousands of years
later.
In #199, page 30, I listed four discoveries in which modern science agrees with Genesis.
Another, or fifth, scientific discovery is the close genetic
relatedness of all people. The whole human race has a common origin,
which Genesis calls Adam and Eve. This makes racism and belief in the
innate superiority of certain nations crap. Therefore racial
discrimination and many wars, genocides, and crimes, lose their
justification. Perpetrators and victims together numbered billions. The
perpetrators were misled by fantasies which they could have avoided by believing Genesis! Bible critics should consider that.
INDUCTION
Bible critics whose main evidence is the Documentary Hypothesis seem to
assume that theologians are always right. But are they really?
Faulty theories previously endorsed by some theologians but now defunct, or nearly so, include:
• Exodus and Deuteronomy have two conflicting versions of the Ten Commandments.
• Theory of "Corporate personality" — that ancient
Israelites had pre-logical thinking which did not distinguish
individuals from the group.
• The Babylonian exile is a myth.
• There was no King Belshazzar (Daniel 5).
• 1st and 2nd Chronicles were written in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).
• The Gospel writers were inspired by hallucinogenic mushrooms.
• The "Tubingen theory" that the New Testament
documents are products of a struggle between Jewish and Gentile
Christians.
• The Book of Acts is a 3rd century CE fraud.
• The resurrection narratives cannot be reconciled.
• Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and fathered three children.
(See Investigator #71 for more detail)
We notice here a trend of the Bible getting progressively confirmed in
theological points and criticisms being exposed as faulty speculation.
Elsewhere I've shown similar trends in other areas of science such as
archaeology, astronomy, biology, history, ethics, etc — Bible
statements, thought to be erroneous, became facts as science made new
discoveries.
To extrapolate this trend, and expect further vindications of the
Bible, is the same logic everyone uses every day — called inductive
reasoning or inductive logic. If a source of information is regularly
correct, for example an encyclopedia or a doctor diagnosing illnesses,
people trust that source rather than trust a critic of it.
CONCLUSIONS
The Documentary Hypothesis implies that unknown "redactors" were so
skilled that they changed the religious scriptures of a nation and got
away with it, yet were so incompetent that modern critics easily expose
it.
The New Testament's claim that "All Scripture is inspired of God"
is
consistent with writers consulting prior sources or having prior
knowledge. Therefore, although most versions of the Documentary
Hypothesis are defunct, the Bible is not disproved if a future version
finds that Moses consulted other creation stories. The test would still
be "Is what the Bible teaches,
accurate?" — which Genesis in testable points is.
REFERENCES:
Collins, C. John 2006 Genesis 1 – 4 A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary, P & R Publishing, pp 225-231
Friedman, R.E. 2003 The Bible With Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses, HarperCollins
Garrett, D. 1991 Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch, Baker, USA
Human Genetic Variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
Investigator #199; #153; #71
Richelle, M. Epistles: When Did Literacy Emerge in Judah?, Biblical Archaeology Review 46:2, Spring 2020
https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/46/2/21
Robinson, H.W. 1980 Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, Fortress
Sproul, B.C. 1980 Primal Myths, Rider and Company
Straughen, K. A Rationalist Commentary on Genesis, Investigator # 201, November 2021
REPLY TO ANONYMOUS ON GENESIS
Kirk Straughen
(Investigator 203, 2022 March)
I have read Anonymous’ analysis (Inv. 202 pg, 8) of my article A
Rationalist Commentary on Genesis (Inv. 201). I found what he had to
say interesting, and thank him for taking the time and effort to
provide me with this information. Regrettably, I am unable to agree
with him.
With regard to Anonymous' interpretations of scripture: On page 12 he
says that he took " Genesis literally." That is fair enough, but to
take Genesis literally gives us insights into the ancient Hebrew’s view
of the world, (not modern cosmology) which was a flat disc overarched
by a solid firmament. This idea of a solid firmament is also seen in
other parts of the Bible such as Job 37:18: "Can you like him [God], spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?"
For those interested in the ancient Hebrew view of the universe (which
is still believed in today by some evangelical Christians as shown in
the third link below) I offer the following links, which give a more in
depth exposition:
• https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
• https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/18/flat-earthers-keep-the-faith-at-denver-conference
Certainly, there are always going to be disputes and disagreements
among theologians concerning the literary origins of Genesis and how it
should be interpreted. However, the general conclusions I have reached
from long years of research is that:
(A) The majority view
of theologians is that Genesis reflects the pre-scientific ideas that
prevailed in the age it was written.
(B) Although the Documentary Hypothesis Anonymous refers to is rejected
by conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews its basic conclusion of
multiple authorship is still widely accepted by contemporary biblical
scholars. The Documentary Hypothesis has its critics, true, however:
"Thus the very correct
criticisms of anti-documentary scholars from the earliest days of the
theory until our own time are not necessarily grounds for dismissing
the whole hypothesis; they are, rather, a call to refine and revise the
methods employed by scholars when describing and applying the
hypothesis. When such refinements and revisions are undertaken, as they
have been recently, the Documentary Hypothesis regains its place as the
most economical, comprehensive explanation for the literary phenomena
of the canonical Pentateuch." (1)
Unfortunately, the validity (or otherwise) of the Documentary
Hypothesis isn’t going to be settled by either Anonymous or myself.
That is a matter for experts in the field. However, for those
interested in more information on the Documentary Hypothesis I offer
this link which gives a greater in depth explanation:
• https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Documentary_hypothesis
The idea that Genesis in some way prefigures discoveries in modern
science hinges in my opinion on questionable interpretations of
scripture. From what I have seen most apologists tend to assume that
the bible is true and then work their way towards proving that it is.
This is usually done by reinterpreting passages of scripture so they
align as much as possible with scientifically obtained facts.
The method of biblical interpretation is called hermeneutics.
Naturally, the method used to interpret the bible will determine to a
large degree the outcome. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how
the bible should be interpreted. Some of the methodologies, for those
who may be interested, are outlined below:
• "Of
course, there is no agreement about the best hermeneutic approach to
the Bible. Should Biblical passages be taken literally or symbolically?
Should prophecies be interpreted in a preterist sense (referring to
events going on in the prophet's own time) or a futurist sense
(predicting events that happen centuries later or on Judgement Day)?
• Catholic Hermeneutics: The Catholic Church bases
its teachings on TRADITION. This means that Catholic hermeneutics are
free to reinterpret the Bible in new ways, so long as they stay within
the traditional teachings of the Church. An example of this would be
the way Raymond E. Brown (a Catholic priest) interprets the Fourth
Gospel as an allegory for the Johannine Community's expulsion from the
Synagogues.
• Traditional (Protestant) Hermeneutics: Protestant
Churches base their teachings on "Sola Scriptura" ('Only Scripture'),
which means the word of the Bible rather than traditions. Because of
this, Protestant interpreters are more likely to treat the Bible
literally and regard the four Gospel-writers as independent
eyewitnesses, rather than redactors. An example of this would be Morna
Hooker's rejection of Wrede's theory of the Messianic Secret in Mark.
• Liberal Hermeneutics: Liberal Christians (often
from the Protestant tradition) are sceptical about the supernatural
elements in the Bible and interpret miracles naturalistically. They are
less likely to view the Gospel-writers as eyewitnesses and more likely
to view them as redactors who have brought together different sources
or constructed a narrative out of pericopae (textual units) from an
earlier oral tradition. An example of this would be Rudolf Bultmann's
idea that the Bible should be demythologized (stripped of its
supernatural elements) to reveal its moral teaching." (2)
Interpreting Genesis using each of the above methods will yield
different results with each proponent no doubt vigorously arguing that
their conclusions are correct. Considering interpretations more broadly
— globally, there are 45,000 different Christian denominations, many of
which have arisen from different interpretations of scripture. (3)
Often I have found Anonymous' explanations, which attempt to reconcile
biblical contradictions, simply too convoluted to be convincing.
Indeed, to me it seems in many instances an attempt to fit a square peg
into a round hole. In my opinion there is no sound rationale for many
of his assumptions except that by assuming certain things a saving
explanation appears to be provided.
For example, on page 12 he says of the biblical authors that they would
"Within these constraints include scientific information [in Genesis]
that scientists will discover thousands of years later."
The assumption here is that the authors of scripture possessed such
scientific information. But what evidence is there that this is in fact
the case? Just because it is possible to reinterpret passages of
scripture to give the appearance of scientific accuracy doesn’t mean
that the authors of scripture intended this interpretation.
Unfortunately, they are long dead and we cannot ask them. Nor do we
have a hotline to heaven whereby we can phone God and ask him to
clarify the situation.
The bible is a product of a pre-scientific culture. Its authors knew
nothing of modern science. Apologists may argue that such knowledge was
divinely granted to them. But again this is an assumption for which no
sound evidence is given. It is an act of faith, not fact.
My comments are not intended to belittle Anonymous’ efforts or insult
or offend, and I apologize if they seem this way. Anonymous is
dedicated to defending the truth as he sees it and I respect him for
it. We simply have different and probably irreconcilable world-views.
Despite these differences I wish him well in his efforts to validate
his beliefs.
Additional References
• https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/bad368008
• https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/ways-of-interpreting-scripture.html
• https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html
GENESIS, CREATION and EVOLUTION
Part 3
Anonymous
(Investigator 204, 2022 May)
INTRODUCTION
Regarding Part 2 of "Genesis, Creation and Evolution", Mr Straughen
says, "Regrettably I am unable to agree with him." (Investigator #203,
p. 14)
In Part 1 I supported the interpretation that the "six days" of Genesis
Chapter 1 were literal days on which "God" declared various results
"good". Creation itself mainly occurred outside of the 6 days. It
proceeded by the laws of chemistry, physics, geology and biology as
taught in textbooks, and needed only occasional supernatural
assistance.
Creation is therefore comparable to a garden which a man establishes
and leaves to itself, visiting it only occasionally to maintain it and
announce "It looks good."
I also listed four points in Genesis that anticipated discoveries in modern science.
IS THE SKY HARD?
Straughen's first regret is Job 37:18. He apparently assumes that an error in the book of Job would make Genesis wrong also.
Straughen says that ancient Hebrews [= Abraham's descendants, in
particular Israelites] believed the world is "a flat disc overarched by
a solid firmament". We discussed that topic previously in Investigator
#52. We learned that "circle of the earth" and "circle of the sea" in
the Bible do not refer to flat discs but to the circular horizon. Some
translators actually translate it as "horizon". (e.g. Life Application
Study Bible, Tyndale House Publishers, Proverbs 8:17)
Furthermore, what ancient Hebrews believed is not always what the Bible
teaches. This is particularly obvious in the case of idol worship
which, as archaeology confirms, was popular in ancient Israel although
condemned throughout the Bible. Compare modern "Christian" nations
where many people have non-biblical beliefs.
Job 37:18 at first sight seems to support the "solid firmament" idea:
"Can you like him [God] spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?" (NRSV)
"Hast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass." (King James Bible)
Ancient mirrors were metallic, made of a mixed metal, mainly copper,
therefore "hard" or "strong", and in size and shape resembled modern
hand-mirrors. (Freeman 1972) The speaker in 37:18 is "Elihu", the
youngest of five men who were arguing about the fairness of God, given
that one of them, Job, who claimed to be totally innocent, was
undergoing terrible suffering. God's answer to this puzzle is in
Chapters 1-2 and 32-37.
We would expect "God" to get all his facts right, but not necessarily
the five humans. However, regarding Elihu's sky-and-mirror comment, he
is correct. The problem is translation.
JOB 37:18 ANALYZED
The Hebrew shachaq occur 21 times in the Old Testament and in the King
James is translated: cloud 11 times, sky 7, heaven 2, small dust 1.
Young's Concordance gives the basic meaning as "thin cloud". (It is a
different word to the word for "heavens", shamayim, translated
"heavens" 398 times and "air" 21 times.)
Elihu refers to clouds in verses 15,16 and 21. This provides a context
that suggests shachaq in 37:18 is better translated "clouds" which is
also its most common meaning instead of "skies":
"Can you like him spread out the clouds...?"
"Hard" or "strong" is the Hebrew chazaq, translated in the King James:
strong 28 times, mighty 20, sore 3, hard 1, hot 1, loud 1, impudent 1,
stiff-hearted 1. (Young's Concordance)
Elihu's point seems to be that clouds are "strong" or "mighty" as
evidenced by the lightning they emit (v. 15), and their "balancings"
(v. 16) perhaps a reference to the water they hold up. The comparison
object, the metal mirror, is "strong" in that it does not break easily.
Elihu's comment in 37:18 points to mysteries about clouds but expresses nothing contrary to science.
QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE
Straughen finds "questionable" the "idea that Genesis in some way prefigures discoveries in modern science..."
I listed five "prefigured" discoveries (Investigator #199 page 30 and
#202 page 12) besides stating, "Even evolution can, to a large extent,
be accepted by noting that 'the waters' and 'the earth' are what
'brought forth' living things in great variety."
Straughen is doing what people who jumped into a conclusion from
prejudice or misinformation often do. When faced with scientific
challenges, they deny the science or quote someone else who denies the
science.
SOME MORE POSSIBLY-TESTABLE POINTS
Genesis has many more scientific points than the ones mentioned in #199 and #202.
Genesis 2:6 says it had not rained (in Eden) but "a mist ... watered
the ... ground". Is that possible — can a mist (or fog) without rain
supply enough moisture for plants including fruit trees to grow? This
is an objection I've heard.
Is the reaction of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), after their disobedience
was exposed, psychologically plausible? Here we could consult
psychology, perhaps the topics blame-shifting and guilt.
The narrative implies that Adam and Eve would never die provided they
avoided the fruit of a certain tree; nor would women experience pain in
childbirth. From this the implication follows that the original human
genome or genes allowed humans to live forever, disease-free, and with
incredible self-healing abilities. If the Genesis story is true then
future medical science including genetics may be able to restore humans
by "genetic engineering" to the physical condition of Adam and Eve.
After all, in Genesis 11:6 it says: "nothing that they propose to do
will now be impossible for them." A further implication from Genesis is
that foods may interact with the human genome and produce genetic
change.
Some early, but suggestive, reports into these possibilities are:
"Scientists have found a whole family of genes that appear to control lifespan…" (Radowitz 2005)
"By removing a gene, biologists have created mice whose wounds heal
more than twice as fast as normal, opening up the possibility of drugs
that vastly accelerate healing in humans…" (New Scientist 21 August,
1999, p. 10)
"Researchers in Germany claim that DNA fed to a mouse can survive
digestion and invade cells throughout its body. Because food contains
DNA, this may be a way for species to acquire genes, they argue."
(Cohen 1997)
"genetic material in food survives digestion and circulates through the body…" (Jabr 2012)
These discoveries may be the start of future scientific confirmations
of parts of Genesis. My science examples in #199 and #202, however,
were of Genesis claims already confirmed.
HERMENEUTICS
Straughen also summarizes different "Hermeneutics" — which refers to
different approaches, including different starting assumptions, to
interpreting the Bible. "Liberal Hermeneutics", for example, often
start by rejecting Bible statements that refer to "eye witnesses" and
anything supernatural.
Of course if there were eyewitnesses or amazing events that seemed
supernatural, and the interpreter begins with the assumption that there
weren't, then his starting assumptions will lead him to false
conclusions. It's similar to a historian who starts with the assumption
that Germany won World War II — many of his conclusions about WWII are
going to be either wrong or very suspect.
My "hermeneutics" for the purpose of investigating the Bible is, as
I've often stated, "Test what is testable and generalize the result."
This method compares the Bible with the discoveries of science. Whether
any biblical claims about, for example, the presence of "eyewitnesses"
and occurrences of supernatural events are correct, or whether
present-day Bibles perfectly reflect the wording of the original
ancient scrolls, are points to be investigated and not assumed one way
or the other.
Investigator #202 p. 13 has a short list of conclusions that
theologians who followed biased hermeneutics got wrong and which
subsequent theologians refuted, thereby vindicating parts of the Bible.
Hermeneutics based on dubious assumptions can make the Bible seem
wrong. But to "Test what is testable" omits dubious starting
assumptions and lets the Bible be correct when it is correct.
WRITERS' INTENTIONS
Straughen says, "Just because it is possible to interpret passages of
scripture to give the appearance of scientific accuracy doesn't mean
that the authors of scripture intended this interpretation."
Modern science was not known to the Bible writers, therefore they
obviously did not have the intention of conforming to it. When I "test
what is testable" I'm investigating the claims that "All scripture is
inspired by God..." (II Timothy 3:16) and that "Every word of God
proves true..." (Proverbs 30:5) The Bible writers themselves did not
always understand what they wrote, therefore speculating on their
intentions is sometimes unhelpful.
What is helpful, and what I try to do, is find statements in the Bible
that can be checked by consulting the scientific literature and check
them.
EVIDENCE FROM SPACE
As argued previously Genesis implies that it required "God" to make
Earth a living planet with intelligent life and civilization. I
considered the odds of life and civilization developing without
supernatural intervention and found that so far, as judged from the
discoveries of exoplanets, the odds are zero. That's zero out of 5000
planets. But 5000 is a small sample and bigger numbers might be more
convincing.
Earth's radio and television signals have travelled about 100 light
years into Space. Any alien civilization as advanced as us or more,
would presumably be doing the same, leaking weak signals onto Space,
but also deliberately beaming powerful signals directly toward
plausible targets.
Current estimates for our Milky Way galaxy are:
• Diameter, 100,000 light years
• Number of stars, 200 billion
• "Sun-like" stars, 20 billion
• Planets approximately the size of Earth, 5 billion
• Potentially habitable planets, 300 million.
So far no signals of intelligent origin have been received. The odds of
an advanced civilization developing without God's help appears so far
to be zero out of billions. Godly involvement in Earth's development,
as Genesis teaches, seems necessary.
CONCLUSION
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series I suggested that Genesis describes
Earth's development in a way that made sense to primitive tribal
people. Genesis employed their vocabulary, and the literal meaning of
their words, yet includes scientific insights that scientists would
confirm far in the future. Could any human write like that?
REFERENCES:
Freeman, J.M. 1972 Manners And Customs Of The Bible, Logos International, p. 75
Cohen, P. Can DNA in food find its way into cells? New Scientist, 4 January, 1997, p. 14.
Jabr, F. Eating greens alters genes, New Scientist, 1 October 2011, pp 10-11
Radowitz, J. von Biological controls for a long, happy life, The Advertiser, July 30, 2005, p. 65
Young, R. 1939 Analytical Concordance To The Holy Bible, Revised Eighth Edition, pp 470; 897, 942; Index-Lexicon, p. 11
https://earthsky.org/space/earth-like-exoplanets-orbit-one-in-four-sun-like-stars/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence