jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (43 posts)

The Science of the Biblical Genesis

  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    Andrew Parker, in his book "The Genesis Enigma" posits that if the biblical account of the creation of the universe and the subsequent explosion of life (specifically on earth) IS interpreted not  literally but metaphorically, then it would jibe neatly with what we now scientifically theorize as "The Big Bang" and  "Darwin's Evolution". He details exactly whence and where the  congruence occur, so the question arises: How did the ancient writers/detailers of Genesis knew  with certainty what they were writing about? Was it pure luck/guesswork, or were they divinely inspired? Parker is of the opinion that luck had nothing to do with it. Parker, a scientist of some renown, has been a non-believer all his adult scientific life, so now that he has injected God into the empirical model ....is almost  too stunning to comprehend.
    There could in fact be other explanation(s)  aside from luck and Divine Intervention. Knowledge is neither solely derived nor is it purely a product of scientific/empiric examination and Divine intervention. A considerable amount  of what we know and how we consequently act, is based upon intuition, instinct and imagination. The ancients must have had an abundance of these for them to write a Biblical narrative full of wisdom and great poetic beauty.

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A Villarasa, one man looked up toward the heaven where Light is,
      Another looked downward into the deep where darkness is.

      Both ask the same question and both received their answer.
      Each with his own answer have gone separate ways, for the answers lead to contrasting conclusions.

      Now when you consider the nature of a lie, if it was complete without an iota of Truth, it will not serve it's purpose as a lie. So therefore it must imitate and integrate Truth to itself, so as to establish itself as a lie with intent to deceive.

      I tell you, that any who understand the concept of origin, will not find it necessary to recount the event as an alternative, with the view to clarify or explain the genesis account. For  genesis is the most complete and simplistic account ever written, and any who tries to better it, usually would find themselves merely repeating it.

      I therefore tell you again, that those who postulate theories (modern or otherwise) despite of and in spite of the genesis account. Postulate their theories because they have not understood the Genesis, and they have understood the Genesis because they do not have a clue concerning Origin.

      Finally, remember this statement, " A man never understands until he does understand"  so therefore "Genesis is never understood until it is understood".

      Seeking after Theorist usually hinders the way of understanding.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quick! Explain how a floating sphere of water (a.k.a. the firmament) could possibly exist and/or how it didn't immediately turn the Earth into an uninhabitable sauna!

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          quick! run back to kindergarten and ask what holds up the moon.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @kess:
        You seem to adhere to the strict literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. However the geologic/fossil record of earth just does not support, time-line wise,  the narrative of an earth that is only 6000 years old, as the literal interpretation of Genesis I and 2 would lead us to believe.
        Thus the truth of  the Biblical Genesis could only  be found in its metaphorical interpretation.
        Empiricists (linguists and social psychologists) have long recognized that cognition is inherently perceptual and the actions directly emanating  from those perceptions are derived from the brain driving and controlling the actions of the rest of the body, thus it could be said that the mind (brain) thinks in EMBODIED METAPHORS. There is growing recognition that embodied metaphors provide a common language of the mind, and that conceptual derivation leads up both literally and metaphorically.
        In humans cognitive operations typically and mostly leads to us solving certain adaptive challenges of the physical environment (objective reality) and embodied metaphors are the building blocks of perception, cognition, and action.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think it is presumptuous of you to conclude the way did concerning my interpretation of genesis 1+2, simply because I responded to your query, which was not exactly asking how genesis should be interpreted.


          Nevertheless, how ever it is interpreted, the literal interpretation at least should be valid.


          Consider these few things:


          Whose record of an event is more believable, the one closer to it or the one further away?


          What it's time?


          How can one accurately determine time line when they themselves are within out and whilst using the things that are found therein?


          What is the length of a day?

          Was it determined by the things accomplished or the things accomplished determine the day...


          How do you determine the difference between the age of the first tree and the first tree that came from it's seed?


          You see my friend lots of hole can be seen, which raise doubts as to the conclusions which the modern man makes concerning history, especially since the nullify/ modify the record of the ancient historians. Who were in the best position to record history.


          You see Villarasa timelines of the nature as you inquired, cannot be determined unless you understand time and get outside of it.


          Vibrating rocks and heavenly bodies can help, but their story will be limited until you know what time is.


          I will ask you again, how long is a day?

          If you answer referencing a ticking clock or revolutions of the earth, it means you did not understand the question.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Kess:
            Your point is well taken. But going to your question:"How long is a day?  Should I answer that metaphorically or literally.?

            1. kess profile image60
              kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              To be honest I was not really expecting a response, but since you soak my curiosity, I would like to here what you got to say metaphorically and/or literally.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    "Science" and "Biblical Genesis" have no business being in the same sentence, unless the sentence is "There is no logic, reason, or science in the Biblical Genesis."

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Zelkiiro:
      There you go again making blanket statements. It might be to your intellectual advancement if you open your eyes/mind to other points of view that are to say the least challenging. But I suppose you are not into bending your preconceived ideas/ideologies once in a while. A pity.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This argument is so nonsensical, I'm not even going to use anything serious and I'll still debunk it.

        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/9064530.jpg
        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/9104770.jpg
        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/8935768.jpg
        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/10303388.jpg
        http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/9913776.jpg

        And so on and so forth...

        1. A.Villarasa profile image78
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Zelkiiro:
          The last poster above  may actually make sense (no matter how much you say it as non-sensical). According to what Professor Parker is proposing in his book, the "first" day of creation as per the bible,  involved God saying: "Let there be light"...: which ties neatly with the scientific theory of the Big Bang... an event so  blindingly and energetically  explosive that even now (some 13.5 billion years later)  we are still able to detect remnants of that explosion, not with our own eyes but with devices that measures the spectroscopic signature of the light and energy that emanated from that explosion.
          About our eyes....Professor Parker theorizes that the living entities that started to colonize the water on earth (pre-Cambrian period) did not have eyes(visual acuity) , thus even if there was a light source i.e. the sun, during the day; the moon and stars during the night, it would not have been perceived and interpreted by those living entities as light. It was only during the immediate pre-Cambrian period ("Day  4") that those entities started to develop vision (thus perceive light) that then led to them and evolving  into more complex entities... a period on earth that we now scientifically term as the Cambrian explosion of life on earth.... billions of years  before the first dinosaurs ever made their appearance... and  way down the line mammals including humans.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The 5th Day had birds and fish. And, if I recall, the Cambrian Explosion was during a time when the Sun's UV radiation was still too high for anything to really survive outside the ocean, so...the fish are obvious, but where were the birds?

            Also, Old-Earth Creationism clashes with the genealogy of Genesis, which is where the laughable 6,000 year timeline comes from. So, by accepting the fact that the Earth is much older than that, you've already accepted that the Bible is full of crap.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image78
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @Zelkiiro:
              Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not one of those who insist that the Bible should and could only be interpreted literally. In fact  that's the major point in Prof. Parker's book that he emphasized i.e. if you interpret the Bible(Genesis I and II) literally, then you could and would not be able to reconcile it with the earth's fossil record. Thus his insistence that Genesis, at least, be interpreted metaphorically.... and when you do that the bible and science are in congruence.

              1. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, but can Prof. Parker explain why the Creator(an omniscient being) would deliver his message in the form of metaphors instead of just being forthright?  Or do you think something may have gotten lost after the many translations?  Was it fallible human's fault?  Is the Creator omniscient, and capable of creating perfect humans but, instead, created defective humans, who had to decipher metaphors....in order to find Him? Or do you see God as just a maladroit Extraterrestrial, who botched His science project(us) ...however, He's still mightier than us.....so we'll call Him....GOD, and worship Him?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                  A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  @getitrite:
                  Rhetorical  questions may deserve rhetorical answers... unhappily I don't deal with those. But here's a thought: When the Omniscient Being that you were  referring to in your first question got to decide to create the universe and everything in it (seen and unssen; perceived and unperceived; imagined and unimagined) he let loose the laws of nature that ultimately resulted in life in all its simplicity, then complexity, and everything else in between from the perfect to the imperfect, from the literal to the metaphor. It is for us, human beings,( of all the living entities that have and will inhabit earth) having developed the cerebral capacity to ask rhetorical questions to look for answers to those questions anywhere you may find those answers, be it in religious/philosophic  belief or in scientific relief(empiricism).

                  1. getitrite profile image79
                    getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In other words, you choose to evade facing the plethora of questions that you have produced by your assertion that the bible, when taken metaphorically, is somehow in sync with scientific facts.



                    Yet you have absolutely no evidence to support such an elaborate, whimsical assertion. Good try though.  But truthfully, this is just based entirely upon your indoctrination, which states that you must accept the ancient imaginations of unknown writers, and instead of questioning them, objectively, you must  MAKE this fairy tale corroborate REALITY....no matter what!  Metaphorically?!  What a fantastic delusion.

  3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago

    I think that one can sum up the book by looking at this quote in the chapter on birds: "When the biblical text is taken literally, it is left in the wake of an advancing science. But when it is read figuratively, as here in the case of birds, it becomes a great unknown in the way it keeps pace with modern science". In other words, "I will interpret the text in such a manner as to agree with my thesis, and ignore the obvious problems with a literal reading."

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well, yes.  As soon as we decide that the bible is full of "metaphor" then it can actually mean anything.  Anything at all with just the right twist to the metaphor.

      Which is, of course, the only way it can be considered to be true and real.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @wilderness:
        I noticed that you did not write:"...the bible is ALL of metaphor" , which leads me to conclude that you do agree that some of it could in fact be interpreted literally. So is there really a conundrum? If moderns scientific explanation run smack against  a literal interpretaion of those parts of the bible, then a metaphorical explanation could and should be adhered to... unless one believes that the Bible is a total lie and fabrication of deluded ancient minds. Which I seriously doubt.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
          DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If Science doesn't match something in the bible and the literal has to be made metaphorical for it to match...Then it stands to reason that the whole of the bible (message wise) is metaphorical and can be interpreted to match whatever agenda placed beside it.

          And just like any other fiction book...There are bits of truth in each story as this help solidify the base of the story.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're getting into matters of opinion here, but I'll give you mine.

          When you decide the bible is true as written until proven it is not, then deciding what is written is a metaphor describing what is actually true, you have a major problem.  The entire book is not only suspect, but cannot be relied on for any truth at all, while at the same time you are making excuses for believing it to be true.

          IMHO the bible is either taken as the word of God, true as written, or every word is suspect and may or may not have a connection to truth.  And I will go so far as saying that deciding false statements were meant as metaphors for something that is actually true is crap.  Such a call is nothing more than a rationalization, a game played to show the bible is true rather than a lie.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @wilderness:
            You should direct your accusative arrow to Prof. Parker, since he was the one who opined or theorized, in his book, that interpreting the Biblical  Genesis as metaphor is a way to come to the truth of Creation. Of course, another way  is scientific empiricism, but that was obviously not a tool that the ancient writers had when they wrote the verses. Luck and guesswork? perhaps, but improbable, as Prof Parker insisted. So he came to the conclusion/opinion (stunning to atheists and empiricists alike, since Prof. Parker is one of them) that those ancient writers were Divinely inspired.
            The question now is:, Does Prof. Parker have the science to back his opinion up? That's for you to decide after you read his book.
            IMHO, one could take the middle road and say that neither science nor Divine inspiration has the sole purview on how humans gain knowledge of his existence and the world around him. Man has developed the cerebral capacity to instinctively, intuitively and imaginatively come to grips with the reality of his existence.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Does Prof. Parker have the science to back his opinion up?"

              I simply do not recognize that "science" has anything to do with deciding that a writers words do not mean what they say, but something else instead.  Therefore, science does not accommodate the idea of changing the words in the bible to more properly align with reality and truth, while still calling the book truth OR divine inspiration.

              If the book is wrong, it is wrong.  If it is right, it is right and does not need modified to become so.

              Finally, divine inspiration has never been shown to provide ANY knowledge whatsoever, mostly because it cannot be shown to exist at all.  Nor has man "developed the cerebral capacity to instinctively, intuitively and imaginatively come to grips with the reality of his existence"  - while man can certainly imagine possible answers, and even intuit them, he cannot use any of those things to find truth.  Only rational thought, coupled with experience, can provide knowledge of what is and what is not.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:
                What good is rational thought and experience if they are not undergirded or subsumed  by instinct, intuition and imagination. If you are proposing that instinct, intuition and imagination are irrational, then I suppose, we are all irrational beings because evolutionary theory tells us that the reason why humans evolved the way they did was because of their  instinct, intuition, and imagination. Making evolutionary theory irrational, by the  logical extension of  your proposition.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ungirded.  As in controlling?  No, rational thought does not need to be controlled in any way by imagination.  Or intuition or instinct.

                  Those things are not irrational, but neither do they necessarily produce truth, even when used correctly.  That's what thought and experience are for.  One could for instance, imagine flying on a broom, Harry Potter style, but it is not truth and never will be.  Thought tells us that and thought is correct.

                  Humans evolved to grow brains because of their instinct and imagination?  Or have ears on the sides of their head because of instinct?  Somewhere along here we are simply not communicating.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Wilderness:

                    We humans, of all the living entities on earth,  evolved with a brain that is the most  neuronally integrated because our hominid ancestors instinctically intuited into that cerebral mass their experiences (positive or negative)  dealing with a not too friendly world.  Having to deal  with a hostile world demanded  that a  comparatively frail and  fragile hominid anatomy from the neck down, develop something from the neck up that would in fact  accomodate their survivalist instincts and insure that  the specie not only thrive, but actuallydominate the natural landscape. The instinct, the intuition, and the imagination to survive has been ingrained experientially into that brain , down the generation of hominid specie , that in turn made homo sapiens, .....the ultimate  hominid  specie,  one of the most succesful in terms of modifying its environment according to its  specific needs, not only to surivive but also to explore beyond what is immediately inferred by out 5 physical senses.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    It would seem simpler to just say there is reality and there is perception, and perception is sometimes biased or otherwise flawed.  But perception does not "create" some parallel kind of reality. 

    Reality is shared.  If your perception of some concrete aspect of the world (like whether a 6 foot rabbit is currently in the room) is unique to yourself alone, it is by definition not reality but a delusion.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +100

      Why is it so difficult to understand that simple concept?  The "spiritual", with their dozens/hundreds/thousands of different perceptions and delusions, all calling it a different "reality", just don't make sense.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @Psyche:

      When I write/talk about imagination I am referring to that which is securely attached to  reality, and by reality I mean substantial and subsistent factuality. Imagination   that is unhinged from reality is delusion. What might be factual  reality for one might be delusion for another, thus there is no absolute truth or reality to existence except as it relates to the subjective  perception or interpretation of that existence or reality.

 
working