In the Beginning

 

Most people are familiar with the Genesis account of creation on a casual level at least, and we all know the words "in the beginning", which is how our modern Christian Bible starts, as well as the Jewish Torah.

But today we see this story has been made the focus of religious and political debate over the narrow interpretations of this age old record written in Semitic idiomatic languages, and are causing much confusion for young people and others trying to come to a basic understanding of the scriptures while simultaneously learning about the mysteries of our universe and the world around them via science.

By reducing the Genesis account to the most simplistic and uninformed interpretations of the passages one ignores the facts of the original words, meanings and expressions being used in the account, as well as the many glaring pieces of evidence for truly astounding scientific foresight in the account.

 

Most fixation tends to be on the age of the earth and the universe, which fundamentalist Christians claim is around 6000 years, again depending on which ones you ask. This of course is nonsense and presents an untenable position to be adopted by anyone seeking to join these modern Christians and their beliefs. The dogma of a 6000 year old planet has become almost paramount in their belief systems and apparently acceptance thereof is essential to ones salvation and failure to accept this "truth" of a 6000 year old earth is tantamount to heresy.

 

Of course the truth, as always lies a little more to the middle. First, science does not discredit Genesis nor does Genesis discredit science. From the account of the creation of the earth to the forming of mortal modern man and woman we see ample room for science. Several key passages in the Genesis account creation immediately stand out in this regard.

 

---

Genesis Said It	Science Agrees
And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7	Science and evolution also teaches that we are formed from what is effectively the dust of stars deposited on the earth. Our core minerals and elements cooked in the cosmic ovens of space, and deposited on the earth. "...the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff" - Dr. Carl Sagan
"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" -Genesis 1:2	Science teaches us life first began in the water, and we see here God doing something with the waters that was significant enough to mention it in the third line of the Bible. What happened when God "moved upon the face of the waters"? We can only speculate. But it was a significant event and does show a "Waterworld" which is consistent with science which also teaches a waterworld prior to the appearence of land. .
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 dry land 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 - Genesis 1:6-10	Science also teaches that water first covered the earth. Genesis clearly points to an earth that began as a waterworld after some creation event, then masses of something appears separating the waters called "firmament" and then the dry land appears. Given the allegorical nature of the Genesis account in general it is not likely firmament was meant to represent an actual structure but just "structure" in general, as in molten lava or the cooling crust of the planet, which became "dry land". In other words, structure as opposed to liquid, which is not only consistent but actually fits nicely with the scientific account of earths surface cooling and the crust becoming the dry earth.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven -Genesis 1:20	Here again we see a striking coincidence with the scientific creation account. Through science we today know that life originated in the waters. We also know that most animals can trace their evolutionary origins back to birds. Yet thousands of years ago, Genesis we see saying the same thing, showing an earth where life was brought forth "abundantly" from "the waters". And we see birds being likewise identified first in creation following the life from the waters.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind" Genesis 1:24-25	Again Genesis follows evolution almost eerily as it shows mammals following aquatic and bird life, which is right in line with the evolutionary chart.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. - Genesis 2:21-22	This sounds an awful lot like ancient man describing some sort of surgical procedure similar to cloning. First the patient (Adam) is anesthetized (caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam), then a surgical procedure occurs where a sample of bone material (the rib) is removed and the patient is then sewn back up (and closed up the flesh ). Then from this section of bone, God creates another human being, (Eve). We know that this didn't happen in an instant, but instead God took the bone section somewhere, where he then "made" a woman. We know this because he had to bring the woman back to Adam, after making her. Of course this is not to imply that God cloned Adam to make Eve or anything of the sort. Its just to emphasize that science is not necessarily in opposition to the teachings in the Bible, particularly when it comes to creation.

These are just some areas that can either coincide with and or support science yet were written thousands of years ago. The creation account is one area that has caught a lot of attention over the past decade or so as being in opposition with science, yet when one actually reads the creation account in Genesis its difficult to avoid the actual similarities between the scientific account of creation and the account in Genesis. Genesis is a figurative, 40,000 foot view of creation. Not a step by step instruction manual. It does not contain details.

 

A prime example is in that the book tells us who created Adam (God) and from what materials (the dust of the ground) but it doesn't tell us "how" he did it.

 

So the assumption made by literalists who attempt to make sense of the English out of context to the idiomatic expressive language it was translated from, that it was done via "magic" and that God just said it and it was so, has no more claim to veracity than any other speculation on the methods used by God to create the earth and its indigenous life. Since the Bible doesn't say "how" God did it, the fundamentalist and so called "literalists" explanation that it was some form of magic is mere speculation converted to doctrine and dogma. There's no evidence for such a conclusion.

There is however ample evidence in the writing to support the scientific account of creation.

---

 

The Dust of the Ground

 

 

"Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself".

 

- Dr. Carl Sagan : Cosmos "The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean"

 

As has been stated, Genesis does not tell us the "how" in the creation account. Only the who, the what and maybe the why. But not the "how".

 

But maybe the how is alluded to. In the Genesis account, the "what" may be a clue as to the "how". In Genesis Chapter 2 verse 7 we learn "from the dust of the ground is the "what" God formed mans body from. Two things stand out in this verse.

 

1.The dust of the ground is significant in that this is also where the "star-stuff" that we're made of comes from. The key minerals and elements that first caused life to come forth was deposited on the ground and liquid pools from where life first sprang forth. Thus man was created from the "dust of the ground" and it is significant that Genesis took the time to include this key piece of information. How could the authors thousands of years ago understand that the molecules and atoms that made up our bodies, was in fact deposited in the dust of the ground.

 

Additionally dust may have contained the actual dust of former indigenous creatures that inhabited the planet. After all Adam was the first man in the modern mans lineage the Bible tells us, but it doesn't tell us that he was the first creature. We know that man (and woman) was made last in the process, therefore the "dust of the ground" would have included animal flesh (the primary component of dust) so again, the idea of man evolving from other creatures is at least supported if even in an indirect analogy. Evolution therefore is not ruled out.

 

2. It is also significant that Genesis tells us man was "formed" and not "created". Formed implies creating from existing materials. Instead of this "something from nothing" magical creation the creationists assert, instead we see evidence of a procedural event that implies life being "formed" (not created) from existing materials.