Virtually everyone knows that it’s hard to square the differences between the Genesis account of creation and what we now know through science. For centuries, people believed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old, because the Bible doesn’t seem to go back any further than that. Now, geology, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, and astronomy agree that the earth (and our universe) is far, far older than that. Now, it’s certainly possible that God spoke everything into existence 10,000 years ago, but with the appearance that it had been here for billions of years. That’s what I believed when I was a Christian. Others think that the “6 days” spoken of in Genesis is figurative for simply “periods of time.” But even if one of those theories could answer some of the problems, it can’t solve them all.
The average person living at the time Genesis was written did not know that the earth is a sphere, or that the sun is a star, or that the earth is just one of at least 8 planets circling the sun. Of course, if God miraculously inspired the writing of Genesis, then it doesn’t matter what people understood at the time it was written, because God knew everything we know now, and more. But that’s the thing: Genesis has more problems than just the age of the universe. When you read Genesis carefully, you get a view of the universe much like the one depicted by these images:
Let’s look at some passages, and I think you’ll see the similarities. Take Genesis 1:6,7, for instance:
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
What? This is probably one of the most confusing passages in this chapter if you’re trying to apply it to what we know of the cosmos. What does it mean to separate the waters from the waters? And what’s this “expanse” that it talks about? Well, verse 8 answers that for us:
And God called the expanse Heaven.
In other words, the expanse is the sky. It’s not “Heaven” in the spiritual sense, as we’ll see from some of the other verses. But how does the sky separate waters? We learn more starting with verse 9:
And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
So the waters under the expanse (sky) are oceans, rivers, etc. What are the waters above the sky? We can’t say it’s water vapor for two reasons: One, it doesn’t make sense in the context of the passage. But the second and more important reason is explained here (vs 14-18):
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
According to this passage, the sun, moon, and stars are stuck in the sky — the same sky that keeps back the “waters above.”
Now look again at the two images I posted above. Genesis is describing a system in which the sky acts as a dome around the earth. This dome has pretty lights stuck in it to help us see, even when it’s night. The business about water being above the sky makes sense when you think about it — why else is the sky blue? And where do you think rain comes from? We see this in Genesis 7:11-12, when God decides to flood the earth:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
For people living at the time Genesis was written, this was not a bad job of explaining things. It explained why the sky was blue, where rain came from, and why we have the sun, moon, and stars. We can easily understand why they held these beliefs. However, in today’s age, the Genesis account is absurd. Efforts to make it fit with what we now know about the universe is a bit like trying to rationally argue for the existence of Santa Claus. Why not just put an end to all the mental gymnastics and accept that like every other religious text in the world, the Bible is just the product of mankind’s imagination? It may be a difficult proposition to accept, if you’re a firm believer. But I can tell you from experience that the whole thing makes a lot more sense when you stop assuming God had anything to do with the Bible.
Finding Truth 
Oh yeah, i wasn’t arguing with you at all. Paine was a Deist, certainly no christian. The bible is bogus – we’re in the age of reason after all.
LikeLike
Hi Rodalena,
I always like your comments – they are very insightful and make me think outside of the box which I like to do.
Your comment here reminded me of James McGrath, a progressive Christian who wrote here that young earth creationists believe in a God who is dishonest and untrustworthy. He went on to suggest that they believe in a God who is actually a devil. While I don’t believe in devils or gods I see his point as well as yours that a belief in this kind of God is a belief in a God who is so deceptive that it is hard to call Him loving or caring at all. And if a God like that really wanted everyone to come to Him it would seem a very strange way to go about that.
LikeLike
Seriously! Rodalena, what you said may be a good description of the way you feel, but it is not logical in any way. If it was true now, than it would have to be true for all time. So, when we thought the earth was flat, and when we thought there were only 1,100 stars in the sky, or any thing else that was once supposed, if God was good, he wouldn’t have deceived any of them? That is not logical. What we know now is light years ahead of what they new then, and in a hundred years the same will be said about us.
I believe the earth went through changes age after the flood, when the waters above where released. So what makes sense to science now, is irrelevant. The scriptures talk about at least three heavens, more of you believe Paul. Heaven is our atmosphere, the solar system, and the place where He dwells.
Through the ages man has read scripture, and learned important things by investigating it’s claims. The valleys and mountains in the ocean, the hydrologic cycle, fact that blood is life, Springs on the ocean floor. Some science we seem to take for granted, like it has always been known. It wasn’t until the 1800’s that Matthew Maury discovered the current, which the bible revealed, and the springs weren’t discovered until 1977. What we know in another 500 years may prove to be that much more amazing! The bible isn’t meant to be a science book, the reality of each generation changes.
LikeLike
Hey Portal – Hope things are going well for you also and I hope the break from blogging was good for you. It’s good to see you back and commenting again.
LikeLike
Rodalena, when I said “seriously!”, that was not directed at you, but Nate, William, and Howie.
Sometimes it seems that these men of science can be very unscientific when it suits, and maybe not notice it!
I do enjoy reading your comments, although we will never agree.
LikeLike
Laurie, i think the first paragraph of your latest comment is missing the point, but i’m not intending on responding to that. It really speaks for itself, i think.
Your second paragraph, though… genesis 1 places the sun and moon in the same sky as the birds (see verses 16, 17 & 20). Science proves that is incorrect. Do you believe the space program is a hoax, and genesis is correct?
And your third paragraph is a stretch. If you cut something and it bleeds out, it always died. No one needed the bible to say blood was the source of life – which is still not completely correct. living things die without air, die without water, die without protein, etc… It’s actually a long list. The bible or anyone could name anyone of those life sustaining things and claim they “are life.” It doesnt make them a prophet, a scientist or even that observant. Same with currents, etc.
And for every bible science “fact” there are bible science errors. Hares dont chew cuds. if a seed dies, it wont grow (contrary to jesus’ claims).
You’re right in saying the bible isn’t a book of science, but since it speaks of a few things that we can (in)validate through science, we measure them accordingly and see how it plays out. of course the believer can always revert back to the default, that god can do anything, even the impossible or the absurd, so then any “explanation” “works out” with enough faith. Nothing is impossible for god after all. And strangely, if that’s true, then why couldnt it be possible for a perfect god to make mistakes – since nothing is impossible for him?
LikeLike
Yes Laurie, I believe we all fall into bias traps Laurie – I’m always the first one to admit that one, but I had biases when I was a Jewish believer as well as a Christian believer – we all need to search ourselves for being consistent and honest – you’re denial of so many findings of the consensus of science looks a bit suspicious to me in this regard as well, but only you can figure out for yourself if you have biases.
LikeLike
“Sometimes it seems that these men of science can be very unscientific when it suits, and maybe not notice it!”
you’re free to point out the unscientificness.
LikeLike
You missed the point William. The scriptures may not be a science book, but with each new generation, we learn something about science. It may seem obvious now, that if you cut yourself and let it bleed bad things can happen, but there was a point in time where we thought the opposite. The was also a point in history where we thought we could get out hands clean in still water.
LikeLike
So when the Bible states things that have since been scientifically verified, it’s a sign of its divine inspiration, but when it states things that are scientifically inaccurate, that’s only because God was accommodating the less educated people of ancient times. Is that how the dance goes?
LikeLike
I think you’re mistaken. The loss of blood is the entire reason people devised sharp edge weapons. They werent trying to heal each other with cuts.
Some people no doubt didnt understand currents, but people show spent their time in boats did. And yes, we are still learning things, and most of those things show the bible is incorrect. I think it’s you who’s missing the point.
Again, ignoring everything else, is genesis 1 correct about the solar system, or is science? This isnt a “theory.” It’s not speculation or improvable. Which is correct? again, take a close look at verses 16, 17 & 20. the sun, moon and birds are all hanging out in the same sky, beneath the same blue waters above.
LikeLike
Good points William.
And also Laurie, if we were being consistent with the reasoning you use we could declare the scriptures of all religions to be correct. That Jesus came to America doesn’t match up with archeological findings – well archeology changes daily, how can we deny the truth of the book of Mormon then? in 100 years we could find that there really is evidence that he was here.
We’ve got to do our best on determining what is true given what we find with objective methods. That there is uncertainty in this is simply something we have to live with. If things we find in science do not line up with what scriptures say then it only makes sense to doubt the veracity of the scriptures. We’re not talking about complete certainty in anything we investigate, we’re talking about coming to fair conclusions given evidence and reason.
LikeLike
“we’re in the age of reason after all” – well, some of us are, and then there’s Marc and Laurie, trapped forever in the Bronze Age, like a mammoth in Siberian ice —
LikeLike
Howie, Google or Wiki Marcion, a Gnostic who believed there was a creator god, who was basically evil, and a more personal god, who was beneficent.
LikeLike
I believe in science, I just happen to look at it from both sides, while you seem to only look at it to prove evolution correct. There are many unanswered questions, that need to be answered before science will prove Evolution.
Darwin did not know anything about genetics. He believed that if an animal gained a physical characteristic it could pass that on to its progeny. That is not what science had proven. Even if it’s phenotype changes is genotype remains the same. And that’s a big if. Mutation as observed by science is almost exclusively negative. When mutation happens, disease happens. Positive mutations have not been observed.
I believe our scientific view will change over the course of history, in what way I can not be sure. But you have just as much faith in evolution as I do in God.
LikeLike
Not true. Look into Richard Lenski’s ongoing experiment. Also check out this article, which talks about crickets losing their ability to chirp, which protected them against predators. There’s also the silver fox experiment.
Are there still unanswered questions about evolution? Of course! But it’s the scientific consensus for a great many reasons. You don’t have to believe it, but the weight of evidence is substantially against you right now.
LikeLike
As I previously stated, I believe the universe changed after the flood. And because I believe in an all powerful being that creates, I am at liberty to believe that.
But what you believe, does not grant you that same liberty. You have to side with science, and unfortunately that is not always what they teach in college. They still yeah things as fact that science disproves
LikeLike
laurie, I’m not talking about evolution right now. I havent spoken about it at all. I’m talking about about the solar system (the topic this blog post is on). Care to address my questions to you regarding that?
LikeLike
So science departments at universities are deliberately teaching things that have been proven false? Do you have evidence?
LikeLike
I wasn’t ignoring you, but by the time I post, there are ten more posts, and my comment is out of date!:-) I have to read the comments at the bottom and then scroll through 300 comments to get back to the top to reply. It takes forever!
LikeLike
I believe I do, but I need a computer. Give me a day and I will get to one tomorrow. Gotta run, life is moving along here with out me!
LikeLike
Normally, I’m all over Laurie’s statements, but once in a while, one is so over the top that, yes Laurie, I’m left speechless. Such was the case this time.
However your statement, quoted above, isn’t entirely accurate, as I mentioned on another of Nate’s topics that I couldn’t expect you to have read. The Hebrew Torah was translated in Alexandria, Egypt – (actually, a small, nearby village) – into Greek, called the Septuagint, then later, into Latin, called the Vulgate. The problem lies with the King James Version – mine says exactly the same thing as yours – that the birds flew above the earth, in the heaven – but think about it, you and I walk the earth, in the same air the birds use for flight, are we not walking in Heaven? No, because there was a mistranslation of the Latin into the English of the King James:
Then from the Vulgate:
Translated, – and yes, I’ve studied Latin – the “bolded” portion says: “over the earth under (not “in”) the firmament of heaven” – “super,” meaning “above,” “sub,” meaning, “below.”
These two copies of the King James Version of The Bible have incorrectly translated one Latin preposition, “sub,” to read, “in,” thereby changing the context of the entire sentence, placing heaven inside Earth’s atmospheric envelope.
Your statement William, that the Bible is incorrect, is, in a sense, correct itself, but the REAL scary part, is that from a supposedly inerrant book, that was written in Hebrew after 2 or 3 thousand years of passing down stories by word of mouth (and who hasn’t played, “Telephone,” aka, “Chinese Whispers“? ), then into Greek, then into Latin, then into English – with such a glaring error in the very first Chapter, who can say how many others there may be? And why did no one catch that error before I did?
LikeLike
I must confess to being extremely crushed at being excluded from your insult, it was as though I wasn’t even important enough to insult, but your statement, above, left me wondering – with exactly whom DO you agree?
LikeLike
I dont want to exist in an echo chamber and I want to learn and correct misconceptions or errors I have, so thanks for the correction, Arch. I’ll have to check into that – I have no doubt that you’re correct.
I do typically read the king james version, for no other reasons than it’s the one I have, the one I grew up on, and the one that many fundamentalists swear by. When I first noticed the genesis 1 issue that nate wrote about here, i did go to an interlinear bible (years ago). Of course, i am not a hebrew scholar so i was probably only verifying the word for “firmament” and didnt pay attention to the surrounding words as much.
And the fact that my head’s in the air and birds fly in the air never stopped me from calling myself a land dweller or birds creatures of the air – but i get your point. And even if I am incorrect about genesis’ portrayal of birds and the sun being in the same place, that still appears to be all I was wrong about here – although i now feel compelled to reread the entire passage in other translations and go back to the interlinear sources.
let that be a lesson for the rest of you. measure twice, cut once.
LikeLike
@William – do you mean she hasn’t told you about the 3000-year old T-Rex? Ask her for evidence – let’s see if she gets back to you with it any sooner than she did me, which so far, is never.
LikeLike