Genesis, myths and miracles

[steveandersen]

Of course we find the traces of Noah’s flood - every inland desert on the planet is abundantly littered with the fossils of salt-water ocean dwelling creatures. How did these legless, lungless, salt-dependant creatures get over the mountains and travel 3,000 miles over land and fresh water - unless there was, at some point in history, a world-wide flood?

That doesn’t follow.

That we find marine fossils in deserts (or mountain tops) in clear evidence that those particular areas were under water at one time but it is not evidence that they were all under water at the SAME time. Plate Tectonics and Geology paint a fairly complete picture of the movements of continents, the rise and fall of mountains, and the appearance and disappearance of seas.

If a single flood deposited fossils in the dessert they would all be sorted by mass which is not the way they are found.

In addition to that, every culture old enough to go back that far has a “flood myth,” in addition to a “creation myth” that gives the same order of Creation as the first chapter of Genesis - first the water, then the sky, then the land, then the sea dwelling creatures, then the birds, and then the land creatures, and last of all, the people. The details change, of course, but the main ideas do not.

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:*


Floods are fairly common events especially before the invention of modern flood control and weather prediction. Early cultures tended to arise in areas such as river valleys that were suitable for agriculture because of regular inundations.

 

[Orogeny]

That doesn’t follow.

That we find marine fossils in deserts (or mountain tops) in clear evidence that those particular areas were under water at one time but it is not evidence that they were all under water at the SAME time. Plate Tectonics and Geology paint a fairly complete picture of the movements of continents, the rise and fall of mountains, and the appearance and disappearance of seas.

If a single flood deposited fossils in the dessert they would all be sorted by mass which is not the way they are found.

To add to what Steve has said, the problem with the flood scenario is that the fossils aren’t just laying on the ground. The fossils are actually in the rocks, not just laying on the surface. That alone discounts the flood idea.

Bottom line is that geology absolutely refutes the idea of a global flood unless one wants to make the argument that God has intentionally tricked us by removing ALL the evidence of a recent, massive, planet changing event.

Peace

Tim

 

[Philthy]

This is Tylers conversation but in support of him til he returns. Consider that God is the sustainer of life, when the sun dies as it should as other suns have, then what?

Then the term “day” as we currently understand it will have little meaning. However little it means, however, will be considerably more than what it meant during the days of creation which preceded the suns existence.

kitty:

The sun and all of it could die and if God sustains life then none of it is necessary.

No problem - just dont pretend its still a “day”

kitty:

Im not sure people allow God to be God enough sometimes.

Agreed. Not really relevent to my point, however.

kitty:

Because you are opposing yourself when you say Gods omnipotence has nothing to do with it.

I never meant to say that His omnipotence had nothing to do with it. What I was trying to say was in response to TylerAlex who skirted the “day” issue by claiming that he wasnt “interested in the HOW God does it”, with the implication that my argument stemmed from the fact that *I *was interested in the HOW issue. I’ll repeat what I said: It’s not a question of the HOW God does it - we all accept that He can do whatever He wills (omnipotence) and so to claim that my failure to accept the creation account as TylerAlex does is unfounded. I simply dont accept TylerAlex’s insistence that the use of the term “day” in the creation account corresponds to the use of the word “day” in denoting the length of time it takes for the earth to revolve relative to the sun. Its really very simple.

kitty:

Then argue with a human meaning of day. Consider what God said in detail was what was important to us. That which is “mysterious” or not as straight forward as we want is either too hard for us to comprehend or simply not important we have the whole picture.

I agree.

kitty:

Exactly how long a day is or how many animals on the ark are simply not as important as Love your neighbour as yourself, as I have Loved you. At some point there is a trust that has to be formed. Just as we trusted our parents when we didnt know all the details, the same is with God. (personally I think He made us parents so we could get a glimpse of it)

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Many cultures explain thunder by having a thunder god - Zeus with his thunderbolts, Thor with his hammer and so forth. Since then science has replaced the original explanation with something better.

rossum

I agree that scientifically, the theory of a global flood fails, but I cannot agree that the Genesis account is purely myth. It seems that dismissing it like that is a cop out. I agree that it has an element to it that is like ancient myth, but it also goes beyond that.
It tells us things that are scientifically testable. First and formost- that space, matter and time have a beginning. No one in ancient reliegions or in much of science believed this untill Einstein and Edwin Hubble came along. Until then Christians had to take it on faith.
If we understand the context of the Genesis writings, we can also make some predictions that align with science. When the spirit of God is hovering over the surface of the deep for example, we need to understand that vantage point. So that when the sun and moon and stars appear, it is not the same creation from nothing as the moment when God created the heavens and the earth (a euphamism in ancient hebrew that meant ‘everything’). This appearance of the sun was when the sun became visible. It describes the atmosphere changing from translucent to transparent. That is why there can be light first with no sun. And this does align with a researched understanding of the evolution of the earth’s atmosphere.

My point is that I am not willing to dismiss the creation story as myth. It relegates it to equallity with the epic of Gilgamesh or the Vedas. It is something more than that. It is our misunderstanding of the text or the data of nature that leads us to theories not connecting. God’s word comes through nature and through Moses.

When you speak about science overriding Zeus and Thor you are onto something. Science is a set of theories. Thunder could be explained by Thor, but it is better explained by rapidly expanding heated air. This theory explains more, not less. The question of why is there thunder turns into; why is there air?, to why is there anything at all? And to this you can only go to a being who is uncaused, and who planned air, and created it with care for a purpose. This is a better explanation yet.

Peace in Christ,
-Justin

 

[AlmostCatholic]

As to the order of the first chapter of Genesis, it is immediately contradicted by the second chapter of Genesis: did the beasts come before or after Adam?
rossum

This is interesting because I never saw it as a cantradiction. But I looked it up and saw that it might have an issue in continuity. I did some research and found a simple explanation.

I will quote from Hugh Ross’ book "The Genesis Question:

“Biblical Hebrew has only three verb forms. They express completed action, action not yet completed, and commands. The verb in Genesis 2:19 appears in the first form and simply indicates that the creation of the beasts and the birds occured sometime in the past. The text says nothing about when such creatures were created relative to the creation of the first man… Sequencing of physical events is not the purpose of Genesis 2. That purpose has already been acheived in Genesis 1, and the writer clearly has laid such issues to rest…”

I think it is interesting to discredit Genesis as myth because of so small an issue as this. If this is the case then we ought to discredit the gospels because none agree about how many women were at the tomb.

Peace in Christ,
-Justin

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Philthy

On the “day” issue I want to be clear and not frusterate you. Im sorry If I have, sometimes these threads roll quick.

Im totally in the deciding section, I hear the different arguements and its actually frusterating thats why I take the ok God will tell me when I get there, so I was happy to see Tyler with that outlook, its sorta rare.

I cant quote it all but see reasons for a day “proper” and isnt it said a day is like 10 thousand yrs?? Then I think well our calendar isnt even what it was in Jesus time whatever was it when it began? so that starts shooting the day thing.

Maybe thats it, we simply dont know what a day is, sunset to sundown? or those long days, when your dealing with God who doesnt own a clock its hard,

Then I think, and correct me if Im out to lunch, but Gods logical, He invented science so is familar with it. I wonder if He created using science principles and such, in which case it would take a while. Or He created and it happened instantly. Somewhere in there is the day answer.

Then again IF we knew His timing then wed be counting down on the other end trying to figure out His return, perhaps thats why He wont let us find out???

Hope this makes sense just typing as I think, which could be scary. Once again sorry if I was awful, when I dug this up I instantly felt bad.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I couldn’t agree more. I would take God’s Word well before any scientist. After all, who’s more likely to be right, the Creator of the universe, or the created? That’s a no-brainer.

So Kitty Chan, you want the big bang in a nutshell, huh? How’s this:

Big Bang = God creating the universe

If you’re looking for something a bit more specific, then let me try this:

1. The universe didn’t exist
2. Something made a gigantic explosion
3. Time, Space, and Matter all popped into existence. Scientists don’t know how, naturally, although Judaism has had the answer for the past 10,000 years or so
4. Galaxies, stars, and planets started forming.

I can get even more specific if you’d like, I just don’t want to bore you with the details

There’s one thing I like to share with people, which I really find very interesting. Before the big bang came around, pretty much every scientist there was assumed that the universe always existed, always would exist, and was essentially unchanging. Naturally, this view was completely contrary to the Bible. When scientific evidence for started accumulating for the big bang, and an actual beginning to the Universe, almost all scientists (including a very famous Albert Einstein) completely rejected the idea out of hand because it presented, as they put it, a smoking gun pointing to the existence of God.

Imagine the irony. Almost every scientist around when the big bang was proposed rejected it because they truly believed it was far too much evidence for the existence of a God, that they really didn’t want to believe in. Instead, most of them spent many decades finding ways to tweak the theories and push back the beginning of the universe to an infinite time ago, and thereby removing God very thoroughly from the equation. Of course, they failed, and we know now that the universe had a very firm beginning about 13.5 billion years ago. However, everything else has been turned 180 degrees around on it’s head. Instead of the big bang being firm evidence for a creator, it is now used by atheists as proof that God doesn’t exist, and rejected by many Christians because they think it is anti-God. Personally, I liked the original viewpoint much more.

Anyway, if you guys want to know more, check out www.reasons.org. I particularly recommend creation as science and fingerprint of God.

What I don’t understand is, why there is any confrontation between science & faith at all. The 1920s must have been like this.​

The isolation of the earth was used in the 1940s to disprove the Incarnation. Nowadays, the fact (?) that there are millions of planets full of life i is used to disprove the Incarnation.

The only answer to such foolery is the “folly” of the Cross

 

[jmcrae]

Sequencing of physical events is not the purpose of Genesis 2. That purpose has already been acheived in Genesis 1, and the writer clearly has laid such issues to rest…"

I think it is interesting to discredit Genesis as myth because of so small an issue as this. If this is the case then we ought to discredit the gospels because none agree about how many women were at the tomb.

I agree with this.

It seems to me that Genesis 2 is more focused on the creation of the Garden of Eden than of the whole world, in any case, and as you say, it doesn’t indicate that the animals and plants are being created for the first time; only that they were being introduced to the Garden at that time.

As Catholics, we are required to believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I agree with this.

It seems to me that Genesis 2 is more focused on the creation of the Garden of Eden than of the whole world, in any case, and as you say, it doesn’t indicate that the animals and plants are being created for the first time; only that they were being introduced to the Garden at that time.

As Catholics, we are required to believe that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

And that clears things up for me too! That makes sense, Im going to check out a little more of that site. Actually anyone who claims faith in Christ should believe Adam and Eve are first parents. Im not correcting btw, just a awful protestant agreeing with a awful catholic. Can the world survive ???