The following details many of the side issues related
to Genesis that either have not yet been detailed by
matches with science or are related to translation
assumptions in the English text.
The base reference is the bible to science data match:
*********************************************************
What? Genesis "God day" Science Match?
==============================================================
------------------------------- - 12 Byr Yes
Universe Start, dividing 1 - 11 Byr
------------------------------- - 10 Byr
2 - 9 Byr
------------------------------- - 8 Byr
3 - 7 Byr
------------------------------- - 6 Byr
Moon and Sun, dividing 4 - 5 Byr Yes
------------------------------- - 4 Byr
First Ocean life 5 - 3 Byr Yes
------------------------------- - 2 Byr
Man and land animals 6 - 1 Byr Yes
------------------------------- ~ 0 (<10,000 yrs ago)
God resting from work 7 NOW
Previous articles showed the science data confirmed
TIMING matches to 208,000,000:1 odds of God being the
source of the Genesis account. The PHRASE matches for
just FOUR phrases, jumps to 2.4 x 10^105 to one odds
that God was the source.
But even with such high odds of God being the source,
people often ignore the matches and then look only at
the unconfirmed statements in Genesis, possibly as
a way to continue to ignore God having given the account.
So what about those unconfirmed Genesis TERMS and
PHRASES? Can they be reconciled?
Considering that Genesis is discussing items occurring
over 12 billion years, it's not too difficult to imagine
that Hebrews 3000 years ago with no science background
and a minimal vocabulary would have difficulty in
understanding and then describing a "how it all was made"
description from God.
Specifically, how would Moses be able to describe
events that his own background could not possibly
prepare him for?
For an example of what Moses was up against and why
Genesis was worded such as it is:
Explain how a car engine works to two separate
6 year old children.
For the first child, use exacting terms that
each type of engineer would use to design the
engine. Cover all the main details in its
construction and operation along with all the
performance parameters considered such that
the engine can be identically duplicated at
another manufacturing plant.
For the second child, use terms he can
understand and only cover the most basic
of points with simple examples.
Tell both children that they must remember
exactly what you told them AND understand it.
It's fairly obvious that the second child will
remember while the first will be VERY confused
and possibly will forget the entire account.
Of course this is a crude example but it does show
that what Moses was up against in relaying the
Genesis account. If God had given an exacting
and detailed account, Moses would have been
unable to fully understand it and probably would
have forgotten it.
As it is though, Moses did get enough of a simplified
creation account in that it could be passed on
through the centuries and then could later end up
being verified against science data.
Further, while reading the Genesis account, we
have to know and understand what Moses could not
understand, and then make sense of his description
using the TERMS and PHRASES he gave. We can then
apply present day knowledge to find the matches
between science data and Genesis.
So what about those not yet confirmed by science
TERMS and PHRASES in the Genesis account?
Typically, those terms would be the description
of when "birds", "whales" and "plants" showed up.
These are fairly easy to reconcile when you
realize both some common science background data
and the original Hebrew available translation
alternates.
First, some science background:
There is only a meager fossil account prior to
about 1/2 billion years ago. This comes about in
that there was little or no life around with
boney mass to fossilize prior to 1/2 billion
years ago. Any fleshy mass life forms would
either get eaten or rot, hence little or no
fossil record.
Further:
1. Science has shown that ocean life appeared about
3.4 billion years ago. So from about 1/2 billion
years ago to 3.4 billion years ago, there is little
or no record since fleshy mass life does not
tend to fossilize.
2. Life rapidly repopulates after mass extinctions.
3. Mass extinctions occur about every 0.2 billion years.
So from this, there's about 2.9 billion years for life
to do most anything and leave about no record since
there was NO boney mass around till about 1/2 billion
years ago.
In other words, if Genesis described a fleshy mass
life form during the 5th "God day", science can't
actually confirm or deny such a life form. But science
has shown the trend for such to exist since they've
said life quickly repopulates after mass extinctions
and that boney mass life forms are only a relatively
recent occurrence.
So science has in effect left the door wide open
for Genesis on that 5th "God day" to have various
fleshy mass life-forms showing up.
Looking at the ENGLISH translation of the Genesis
account you can see "birds" and "whales" showing
up on the 5th "God day". Science does NOT agree
with such occurring since science categorizes
birds and whales as showing up only recently.
So here we have to ask, what was Moses originally
describing? Was he specifically calling out "birds"
and "whales" on the 5th "God day"?
What does the original Hebrew say?
The Hebrew is not as specific as the English translation
and allows various forms of life, not just "birds"
nor just "whales".
Looking at the Hebrew term for "whales" in Genesis:
==============================================================
whales
Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
08577 tanniyn {tan-neen'} or tanniym (Ezek 29:3) {tan-neem'}
intensive from the same as 08565; TWOT - 2528b; n m
AV - dragon 21, serpent 3, whale 3, sea monster 1; 28
1) dragon, serpent, sea monster
1a) dragon or dinosaur
1b) sea or river monster
1c) serpent, venomous snake
===============================================================
Notice the "sea monster", "dragon" and "serpent" for
the "whale" term?
In other words, the original Hebrew version of Genesis
is NOT specifically saying "whales", and could just be
discussing preliminary forms of large fleshy mass ocean
life.
What about the Hebrew term for "birds" in Genesis?
==================================================
fowl
Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
05775 `owph {ofe}
from 05774; TWOT - 1582a; n m
AV - fowl 59, bird 9, flying 2, flieth 1; 71
1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
1a) fowl, birds
1b) winged insects
==================================================
See the "insects" and "flying creatures"?
As a good for instance, see mosquitoes or possibly
some early form of such that would easily fit the
Genesis description. Also notice that ocean life
depends on fin structures for movement through the
water. Life forms living near the surface of the
water would obviously tend to migrate to flight.
In both the "whales" and "birds" categories, the
original Hebrew does not specifically say either
and in fact does leave room for most any large
sea creature for "whales" and some form of life
that attains flight, possibly some preliminary
type of insect.
What it comes right down to is that neither
"whales" nor "birds" are of any concern since
the original Hebrew does not specifically call
them out. Nor does the original Hebrew disagree
with the timing allotted by the science data
since science does in fact admit that fleshy
mass life forms would certainly have existed
before boney mass life forms showed up and a
missing fossil record for such is expected.
Another common concern is when "plants" are
showing up on "God day" #3. But this one is
quickly resolved in that:
1. Most all life depends on plant sugars. Hence,
no prior plants, not much life will show up.
Genesis really cleans up in this regard.
2. The original Hebrew does not call out a specific
version of plant and in fact does allow simple
greenery or vegetation of most any form. The
account in fact says that the plant life carried
the seed for future plant life which is matched
by present day statements about DNA passing on
from the original plants to the future plants.
Without that passing on of DNA, plant life would
never have taken off. Genesis nailed this aspect
as well.
3. Plants use photosynthesis to convert radiated
energy to plant sugars. The sun prior to fully
forming, would in fact begin to glow as the suns
initial matter gathered to form it. Plants as
given in Genesis, showed up just prior to the
sun finally forming which does in fact make sense.
The sun fully formed or "lit up" when internal
fusion began in the suns interior and hence the
statement in Genesis of "divided the light from
the darkness" (matter and energy separation)
occurring on the 4th "God day". Again, notice
that "divided the light from the darkness" only
occurs on the 1st and 4th "God days". This phrase
matches with the "big bang" on the 1st "God day"
and the sun beginning fusion on the 4th "God day"
as both involve separating ENERGY and MATTER
(light and darkness).
Additionally, plants would not have to contend
with the "evening and the morning" since it's
assumed that God would have been referencing a
cyclical event on a universal scale and a 2 billion
year period for each "God day". This is confirmed
by the fact that the sun was not around during
the first three "God days", yet the "evening and
the morning" continued to occur.
So what could the "evening and the morning" be
referring to?
Notice a few items that all support God referencing
a non-sun related "evening and a morning":
1. There are EXTREMELY long cycles (recurring events
over long periods of time) out in deep space.
2. God never said what he was referencing per
"God day". For instance, the Milky Way galaxy
spins at about a 250 million year cycle. The
universe itself spins.
3. You can't assume God referenced the sun for a
"God day" since the sun wasn't around for the
first three "God days".
4. God said he fills the universe, whatever he was
referencing would probably be universal sized in
scale, and of extreme lengths of time.
5. When the sun fully lit up, it resulted in the earth
receiving days seasons and years AND the "evening
and the morning" continued on as a universal scale
event regardless of the sun being around or not.
Whatever God was referencing with a 2 billion year
cycle, he didn't say. But whatever it was, it did
set up an "evening and a morning" for God to clock
a "God day" from.
As you can see, none of the following are of
concern in the Genesis account as all can align
within the current science understanding:
1. "birds" -- flying form of insect or fleshy mass.
2. "whales" -- large fleshy mass sea creature.
3. "plants" -- some form of plant able to generate
plant sugars as the sun's mass begins
to gather and heat up. Plant sugars
are in fact necessary for the majority
of most all future life to live off.
4. "evening and the morning" -- some unspecified
universal scale cyclical event.
All are not yet confirmed by science and therefore
could not be included in the Genesis statistical
calculations. If and when they become confirmed,
they can be added in and the odds of God being the
source of Genesis will go even higher.
For now though, they do not conflict with the
science data and in all cases show events that
more than likely occurred.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to whether or not the information has any value to them. You may copy portions of the above opinions as long as a reference to this page is included and no text within said portion is altered. If copied to another medium other than the internet, include the entire text. The above content may change over time.
Best wishes.