The Genesis account is consistent with itself but not with science. Christians have their ways of reading Genesis but they have to be very doubtful of science to say the universe has been around for in 7 thousand years. The world would have to be irrational in a high degree for science to be wrong on this and why do Christians think their translations of ancient texts is more reliable than science on this? It doesn't make sense

Bottom line: study of ancient texts is not as reliable as the mountain of evidence science has that the world is old. The two fields of study are not *comparable* on this issue. Science is clearly more reliable

Some Biblical accounts may be allegorical. In which case they may still be compatible with science.

It may also be a matter of perspective. Science states that the earth goes around the sun, but everyday experience suggests that it is the other way around. One perspective is scientific, the other is psychological. Both of them are valid and useful for different purposes.

Genesis contains two creation accounts written at different times and later edited together. The accounts are not entirely consistent with each other. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

That is, no, the creation story is not internally consistent, regardless of whether it can be interpreted as being consistent with evolution.

You can reads the text as saying God formed every beast of the field every fowl of the air in anticipation of what Adam would need. After all, it is talking about the mind of God in the second account, not the literal series of creation as to the first. The two sections have different intents theologically

I have been searching for an answer, — FreeEmotion

In Genesis, God created Adam, as is, fully formed, from scratch, as intended, presumably immutable, with all the features of modern man, and so Adam's creation is taken to have happened around 4000-7000 years ago; yet, man is mutable and the evolutionary tree of life has been found. Also, we know how solar systems form, and our thriving planet requires a metal rich third generation star as our sun. Earth is in the Goldilocks zone, not too hot and not too cold, just as it should be for life to arise.

Adam didn't know what his genitals were for and so God showed him some visions of animals, but Adam wasn't all that attracted them. Then God showed Adam some visions of naked women and Adam then knew right away what his primary male part was for!

God then told Adam, "I can make you the perfect woman; she will do all the chores, including painting the ceilings, cleaning the litter box, cutting all the grass by hand with a scissors, cleaning the sewers, etc., and all that you ask her to do, with no complaints; however, she will cost you an arm and a leg!"

Adam thought for a while and then asked, "What can I get for just a rib?"

Hi Gregory. First of all, thanks for the civil response. I have been discussing these with various persons and I know the reactions that I get from deeply entrenched views in science. So we have agreed that the creation story is self-consistent. The scientific establishment has a different view.

The age of the earth has been a matter of debate from antiquity, and there are traditions where the universe was thought to be ancient, I think the Hindu traditions.

Time is not a straight line. Instead there are eternal cycles with universes being created, existing and dying, followed by recreation, existence and death. There is no beginning and no end. This is mirrored in the belief in reincarnation. — BBC

I would think it reasonable to assume that the writers of Genesis would have been aware of this concept. In fact, the eternal existence of God may have led some to believe that God created a universe very far back in eternity.

The study of the geological record, the finding of fossils and the theory of evolution all supported a different view of the origins of the earth and life on earth. It is hard to see how this could have been postponed indefinitely!

"The world would have to be irrational in a high degree for science to be wrong on this and why do Christians think their translations of ancient texts is more reliable than science on this? It doesn't make sense "

This is a good question to ask. Let me quote you something from the Stanford Encylopaedia of Philosophy:


"Creationism
First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018
At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. Such a deity is generally thought to be “transcendent” meaning beyond human experience, and constantly involved (‘immanent’) in the creation, ready to intervene as necessary, and without whose constant concern the creation would cease or disappear. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense."

The reason for the belief is based on what are considered ancient texts, and considered the very word of God. There are reasons for belief. Given the existence of God, it seems natural to reason that the Universe was created by Him.

The difficulty lies with harmonizing the scientific theory of origins with the religious claims of origins. There are several approaches, and I will discuss these next, however, I need help in analyzing these claims for rationality and for logic, since both religious and scientific thought can rule out irrational arguments.

The West has a very linear idea of time because of the influence of Genesis and Revelation in the Bible. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament had a particular culture they were keeping intact. I think the Christians ran with the Jesus legend and basically appropriated Judaism for a global religion and added tons of stuff that orthodox Jews did and do believe is inconsistent with the spirit of their religion

Yes, this is one approach, which is not without difficulty, but one that has been adopted by many denominations.

OK I will look at these.

I really need your views on how to handle irrational, attacking, dogmatic views on both sides of the debate. I do mean both sides. This is a real concern now.

The *likelihood* that we can translate the Bible with enough accuracy to really understand what was written is *far* lower than the likelihood science is wrong in saying the world is very old. Science does a much better job with clarity than texual scholars

Well I would not call it a Jesus Legend. Also, the accounts of creation seem to be different on further examination, and there are contradictory statements there, thanks for pointing that out. The secret seems to be the courage to admit the truth, which Christians are supposed to have, fear God and having nothing left to fear, even Biblical texts!

In the area of Biblical translation, actually, the problem is fairly straightforward. The translations are in front of us now, and with the additional assumption that we can read and understand English, we are can easily ascertain what it means. There is the issue of cultural context, which is linked to the linguistic context, but this is easily overcome by using a hypothetical approach: If the Bible has been translated correctly, and if the text is this, then we have these sets of meaning we can draw from the text. If this meaning is taken, then this is the conclusion. I will elaborate, but a dispassionate analysis of the text is possible, I think.

Any acceptance of the Biblical account as being a true account of creation has to be accompanied by a harmonization of the scientific theories of evolution and the geological record. There are various ways of doing this. I should, by the way, state that I do not make any of the claims that the Scientific American article states, except for the fact that no one knows how life began.

So how does one harmonize the accounts? John F. McArthur of Grace Community Church calls the creation event a miracle. The creation of the heavens and the earth, in effect the universe and everything there is, and the creation of the earth, moon, animals, plants, and human beings takes place a week-long miracle. The creation story ends at Genesis chapter 2, but followed by a flood event which creationists interpret as a literal account. It is possible to harmonize the flood account as a local event, but it is not possible to find any corresponding body of evidence in the geological record, according to geologists. This must remain a mystery, at least from my point of view because I have no access to the geological record or any means of interpreting it in accordance with the story of a flood. There are flood myths that exist in communities worldwide, but that is all that the scientific community will admit.

The question is then, is there anything logically inconsistent in considering the creation account as a miracle, like the miracle of turning water to wine, or parting the red sea? Again, I make no other claims that Creationists make. Of course from the scientific point of view, taking the Biblical record or the any other accounts of creation as fact is problematic. There is nothing to prevent scientists from staying away from commenting on any religious accounts, no matter how well accepted by most of the world.

Any ideas on harmonization?

The two sections have different intents theologically — Gregory

Correct. When taken at face value the two accounts may be thought to be mutually contradictory. But there is no reason why it should be impossible to harmonize and amalgamate them into a single coherent account.

Well I would not call it a Jesus Legend. — FreeEmotion

Much of the Gospels seem to be history, except for the raising of dead people and the virgin birth and stuff. At least, it's asmuch history as any ancient texts can be assumed to be. Language has changed so much we can't be sure what miracle claims were meant to say back then. What does giving a blind man his sight mean to someone in ancient times? That why I said the study of ancient text is not very reliable for literal truth. The way we write history today may not be the same as how they wrote stuff back than. This was 2000 bloody years ago for christ sake. I think Jesus did and said much of what the Gospels say, but his followers obviously added some things that, if taken literally, make the Gospels religious texts and not history as we now understand that

What we follow is the received text, to be blunt, no matter how inaccurate it turns out to be. There are some reasons to have confidence in the text, but if this is again a matter of opinion, that is OK as well.

If we believe in miracles, or to be more exact, for people who believe in miracles, what are the options? Surely they are not unlimited.

It is possible to harmonize the flood account as a local even — FreeEmotion

Noah landed on the "mountains of Ararat". So the flood got very very high. How could a local one do this?

If we believe in miracles, or to be more exact, for people who believe in miracles, what are the options? Surely they are not unlimited. — FreeEmotion

What limits? There are miracles claims being claimed this very day across the world. It depends on what you want to believe.

If we believe in miracles, or to be more exact, for people who believe in miracles, what are the options? — FreeEmotion

1) Jesus could have been akin to a Hindu guru, thinking he and everyone were one with God. Maybe everyone's atman (soul) is united in a sense with Brahmin (God) and anyone can do miracles with enough faith. That is one *religious* way to understand the Bible. Latter believers made Jesus into the "one" God

2) Any power, good or bad, in the universe could have given Jesus powers. I don't see performing miracles as a likely thing that could happen, but if someone did there is no way to tell where the power is coming from. The problem with Christians is there narcissism in thinking that God is always giving them signs

As an answer to the question posited in the title, it depends on our idea of language and meaning. Obviously, as a purported description of actual empirical events in the past, it is totally absurd if taken literally. Nope, as far as we can reasonably know, and that is really, really far, the world was not created on a rainy Tuesday afternoon 6127 years ago.

In the first creation story God created light before the sun, as well as plants. This obviously doesn't make sense from a pure natural sciences perspective. "Days" are themselves meaningless with no sun; this was readily apparent even in antiquity.

Thus, delimiting creation to 144 hours never made sense.

The Bible is a humanist story functioning on several symbolic levels. The creation story pairs things created on the Earth and things created in the heavens. So, each Earthly thing has a counterpart creation in the heavens. The next organizing principal is that each thing created as more freedom than the next. So plants come first as a fixed form of life, as do the immovable heavens. Creates progresses in levels of freedom, so for example, beasts have more freedom of movement and decision than plants, the stars move throughout the night sky and have more freedom in their relative paths and so come later. This culminated in man, having the most freedom due to access to reason coming last.



This book has a good breakdown of the symbolic linkages and ways the creation verses split into pairs.

You can reads the text as saying God formed every beast of the field every fowl of the air in anticipation of what Adam would need. After all, it is talking about the mind of God in the second account, not the literal series of creation as to the first. The two sections have different intents theologically — Gregory

If you begin with the position that the document was written by God, then you are forced to make sense out of it, even if it's jumbled nonsense.

Let's look at the flood story, for instance. It lasted 40 days at Genesis 7:17, but 150 at Genesis 7:24. Noah took aboard one pair of each animal at Genesis 6:19, but at 7:2, he was said to have taken one pair of the clean animals and 7 pairs of the clean.

40 days of a certain activity and 110 days of a different degree of activity. I don't see your three examples as contradictions. Noah had a different ritual for the each selection of animals. It about ritual renewing of the earth

My argument is that the flood was about 30 feet high according to Genesis and the ark 600 ft long. And this ark lands on a mountain. Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. Unless, of course, the base of the mountain is part of the mountain. I find the Bible completely ridiculous, to be clear, and I don't believe believing in God makes someone wise

My argument is that the flood was about 30 feet high according to Genesis and the ark 600 ft long. And this ark lands on a mountain. Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. — Gregory

I don't see that in the story. The flood was 15 feet above the mountains at Genesis 7:20. I don't see a problem with a 600 foot boat landing on a mountain.

I find the Bible completely ridiculous — Gregory

I don't. I see it at least 4 different books pulled together into one, and, if used to provide guidance and wisdom can have some purpose, but I don't see how it can be taken literally in a serious way.

I don't believe believing in God makes someone wise — Gregory

Not sure that was ever argued here.

I don't see your three examples as contradictions. — Gregory

Genesis 7:17: " And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."
Genesis 7:24: "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Genesis 6:19: "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.
Genesis 7:12: "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

1) the Flood was most intense during 40 days out of 150. That's how people read religious text

2) with the clean animals, a pair was consecrated as special while the other 6 others entered as well. Reconciling verses in this way is what religious interpretation is about

Why is the Christian view always off the table in these discussions? He could have been the Son of God for Christ's sake!