Author Topic: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis  (Read 1314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ristos87

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« on: May 27, 2009, 03:20:38 PM »
I recently was looking around and was wanting to see what others thought about this. Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33560

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2009, 08:47:47 PM »
I recently was looking around and was wanting to see what others thought about this. Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33560

Ristos, I am not sure how to answer. The way they found certain scientific facts fitting the narrative of Genesis is somewhat subjective. Again, as I always say in situations like this, why should I even bother? The book of Genesis is a beautiful poetry, a hymn glorifying God Who is behind every single atom and every single Big Bang or whatever... plus a very sobering moral fable about the fall of man from God's grace so that he needs to be saved by that very God becoming man. It's kinda, hmm... more than enough for me... :)
Love never fails.

Offline John of the North

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,533
  • Christ is Risen!
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2009, 09:48:07 PM »
I recently was looking around and was wanting to see what others thought about this. Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33560

Could be. Genesis is not meant to be a guidebook to HOW God does anything anyhow.
"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)

Offline PoorFoolNicholas

  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,664
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2009, 09:40:49 AM »
Quote
Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?
Why do we really need to know? We simply can't know. We know that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), that He saw that His creation was good (including matter), and that mankind fell from communion with God through self deceit, and the machinations of the Evil One. Can one believe this without it being literal? Sure. Do I LITERALLY think that a snake talked to our ancestors? I doubt it, but it is OK to think that if you wish. Adam means man/dust in Hebrew, and Eve means mother of all the living in Hebrew. Was that LITERALLY their names? Probably not, but yet again, you can think that if you wish. Genesis is NOT a science text. We need to remember the power of myth, especially to the ancients. Myth didn't mean fake/false to them. And neither should it be the case for us. IF the Genesis account is myth, it still teaches very valuable lessons for us today. We fell, we need a Saviour. I guess the question is: "Where does the myth stop, and ACTUAL history begin?" That is where I am not so sure. Regardless, Genesis is very profitable, whether or not, it is to be taken literally. My 2 cents.

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2009, 10:57:27 AM »
Quote
Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?
Why do we really need to know? We simply can't know. We know that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), that He saw that His creation was good (including matter), and that mankind fell from communion with God through self deceit, and the machinations of the Evil One. Can one believe this without it being literal? Sure. Do I LITERALLY think that a snake talked to our ancestors? I doubt it, but it is OK to think that if you wish. Adam means man/dust in Hebrew, and Eve means mother of all the living in Hebrew. Was that LITERALLY their names? Probably not, but yet again, you can think that if you wish. Genesis is NOT a science text. We need to remember the power of myth, especially to the ancients. Myth didn't mean fake/false to them. And neither should it be the case for us. IF the Genesis account is myth, it still teaches very valuable lessons for us today. We fell, we need a Saviour. I guess the question is: "Where does the myth stop, and ACTUAL history begin?" That is where I am not so sure. Regardless, Genesis is very profitable, whether or not, it is to be taken literally. My 2 cents.

Post of the month (or year) nominee!!!
Love never fails.

Offline Douglas

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 608
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2009, 11:14:16 AM »
Quote
Do you believe that this would be an accurate description of how God made everything?
Why do we really need to know? We simply can't know. We know that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), that He saw that His creation was good (including matter), and that mankind fell from communion with God through self deceit, and the machinations of the Evil One. Can one believe this without it being literal? Sure. Do I LITERALLY think that a snake talked to our ancestors? I doubt it, but it is OK to think that if you wish. Adam means man/dust in Hebrew, and Eve means mother of all the living in Hebrew. Was that LITERALLY their names? Probably not, but yet again, you can think that if you wish. Genesis is NOT a science text. We need to remember the power of myth, especially to the ancients. Myth didn't mean fake/false to them. And neither should it be the case for us. IF the Genesis account is myth, it still teaches very valuable lessons for us today. We fell, we need a Saviour. I guess the question is: "Where does the myth stop, and ACTUAL history begin?" That is where I am not so sure. Regardless, Genesis is very profitable, whether or not, it is to be taken literally. My 2 cents.

Post of the month (or year) nominee!!!

I agree... with your nomination and with your earlier post. Both yours and PoorFoolNicholas' posts were exceptional.
Douglas no longer posts on the forum.

Online scamandrius

  • Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,530
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek in exile
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2009, 12:59:40 PM »
Echoing what PFN said and what has also been said by Fr. Coniaris, we must remember that Genesis, like any book of Holy Scripture is the boat that brings us to Christ.  Constantly subjecting Genesis to "scientific" proofs or attempting to "reconcile" science and God's creation is removing God from the focus and looking at the boat for leaks.
I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene

Offline Heorhij

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,576
    • Mississippi University for Women
Re: The Scientific Evidence for Genesis
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2009, 04:48:54 PM »
Echoing what PFN said and what has also been said by Fr. Coniaris, we must remember that Genesis, like any book of Holy Scripture is the boat that brings us to Christ.  Constantly subjecting Genesis to "scientific" proofs or attempting to "reconcile" science and God's creation is removing God from the focus and looking at the boat for leaks.

Very well put, thank you!
Love never fails.