The Seas: in Science and in Genesis

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, consistent with scientific understanding.

2. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”





3. Rene Descartes postulated that, rather than a rapid seven day timeline, the sequence that resulted in the formation of the earth was far more eventful.
“1637. Rene Descartes: Discours de la Methode. Descartes constructed a history of the Earth which was quite influential; it was the starting point for many later cosmogonies. Some of the main points of his system were that the Earth formed as a fiery ball, that when it cooled a crust formed over the abyssal waters, and that this crust collapsed, releasing massive volumes of water.”
Changing Views of the History of the Earth

a. Interestingly, Descartes continues to see the hand of God in the creation. In chapter six of ‘Le Monde,’ he states that at the first instant of creation, God provides the parts with different properties, and after that He does not intervene supernaturally to regulate same.
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08972/sample/9780521808972ws.pdf

4. Descartes’ approach, it seems, is more in line with modern religious thinkers; for most, the Bible is read metaphorically in parts, leaving only fundamentalists to treat it literally.
“…let us be clear what is meant by "metaphor": the word means "a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance as `A mighty fortress is our God'.… Much of the language of the Bible is obviously metaphorical (e.g., hands, eyes, feet of God, etc.). The Bible has both history and metaphor. ”
Truth of Metaphor

a. Comte de Buffon provided the data that Descartes’ theory needed.
“It is not possible to doubt…that the have occurred an infinity of revolutions, of upheavals, of particular changes, and of alterations on the surface of the earth…the actions of rains, of frosts, of running water, of winds, of subterranean fires, of earthquakes, of floods…” and went on to explain how fossils of sea animals could be found on mountain tops. And Still We Evolve, Section 2: Early Modern Geology





5. Some may see a change in the religious view is an admission of error, a retreat….but this is only true if science’s similar admission is the same. For example, Newton had claimed that physical laws of motion were the same everywhere in the universe. Contemporary physicists have postulated a ‘multiverse’ in which we can find every permutation of the physical laws we find here on earth. The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine





6. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page.
Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.”
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54.
What a coincidence….or confluence.

a. Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis.

Must be a coincidence….
 
The Bible was written by people for people at that time. To speak in terms of the universe or trillions of years would have been completely meaningless to those people. The essence of the science vs. religion debate is how people deal with the unknown: Scientists implicitly believe that human beings are the highest intelligence in the universe who will eventually figure every thing out, whereas Religionists believe that some things are beyond human understanding. Given the current state of human intelligence, I hope the Scientists are wrong...
 
The Bible was written by people for people at that time. To speak in terms of the universe or trillions of years would have been completely meaningless to those people. The essence of the science vs. religion debate is how people deal with the unknown: Scientists implicitly believe that human beings are the highest intelligence in the universe who will eventually figure every thing out, whereas Religionists believe that some things are beyond human understanding. Given the current state of human intelligence, I hope the Scientists are wrong...

Gotcha....

...and that relates to the OP.....how?
 
Why compare science to a work of fiction? Next you will be quoting L.Ron Hubbard.

Now you're looking foolish.

I did compare the Bible to science in the OP.

Why?

Because there are fools that have a knee-jerk reaction when the Bible is mentioned. As you did.


Care to actually dispute the OP?
Any falsity therein?


No?
OK...have a good day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top