- 1 Chapter 1: the introduction.
Chapter 1: the introduction.
For those who faithfully believe in God and believe that God created everything in spite of things not understood- congratulations! You are clearly both humble and wise.
For those who torment the scientific community with things they misunderstand such as Genesis and modern science- shame. Those beliefs are at the core of the ongoing demise of Western Civilization. Spiritual beliefs are on the decline as a result of your misguided religious stands.
1.1 The end result of this book.
After reading this book, expect an understanding of the literal biblical creation story that is simple yet in complete and profound agreement with modern science. This book does not offer a compromise. Instead, this analysis is extensive and covers, with modern science, every discernible detail in the biblical creation story. Every word and phrase will make technical sense, as will issues with the timing of the creation story’s events. One’s perception of God and of his creation will change forever.
The biblical creation story is shown to be a tangible witnessed account of Earth’s transformation into a livable planet. It was witnessed in a manner that is completely explained and is both simple and obvious. The witnessed scenes of creation show completed levels of atmosphere, geology, and biology, and includes life that has survived extinctions. The scenes reflect what has been allowed to exist even until today.
Statements that have eluded understanding in modern times such as the division of the waters above and below the firmament are rendered obvious in their meaning, as is the entire creation story. The likelihood that the creation story is true by simple chance is non-existent. One will be able to claim with scientifically provable certainty that, over the course of six days, Moses witnessed the completion of every major event in the transformation of Earth into a livable planet. Moreover, the witnessed events are in perfect order.
The creation story is understandable and even simple; as one should expect; yet it is sufficiently detailed to impress any technical person. In fact, the creation story is solid, witnessed, evidence for the validity of even recent scientific theories and discoveries including atmospheric processes, geology, and biology. Conversely, science is excellent evidence for the truth of the creation story. The eons and eras from biology and geology are in perfect chronological agreement with the biblical creation story.
Most prominent among the sciences that support the creation story are biology and geology with evolution and extinctions.
Consider the creation story’s “day 5”: And God (powers) 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” (Gen 1:20). First, consider how unlikely it is that the ancients guessed the sea as the origin for birds- their valid evolutionary origin. Note: even today, many in theology think this origin for birds, a direct quote from God as translated in the King James Version, is so unlikely that it is simply poor grammar and some recent biblical revisions have quietly corrected it!
Next, compare “day 5’s” scene to the time after the Chicxulub meteor strike 64-65Mya at the Mesozoic Era’s end- the meteor strike that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Sea life and birds are today recognizably the same as they were shortly after the meteor strike; and birds evolved out of the sea making Genesis 1:20 a perfect match with modern science. A scene from the Mesozoic Era’s end is biblical creation’s “day 5” and “day 5’s” scientific accuracy exceeds simple chance. All other creation story statements are accurate as well!
If one is to understand the biblical creation story as something other than mythology, knowledge of evolution, and of extinctions, is essential!
This book completely erases the distinct religious line drawn between the Bible and science. Science is the detailed reality of creation, while the biblical creation story author saw and described eight key creation scenes over the course of six days. They must, and do, agree completely.
Both sides of this conflict get what they claim to want. Some who are religious will be happy to know their Bible has proven to be what it claims to be, while scientists will be happy with this attempt to get negative religion off their backs and out of their classrooms! Short of some direct intervention by God, only the inventiveness of scientists and engineers will solve the many problems of energy, pollution, and disease that humanity faces today. They should have a free hand, peace of mind, and a clear moral imperative to do so.
1.2 Does the reader want total reconciliation between creation and science? Why bother?
As Darwin published his Theory of Evolution, a split emerged between religion and science. Since then, like driving wedges into a tree stump, the opposing sides have hammered their views tightly into what has become a large divide. This modern split has been the most divisive ever.
Many scientists now refuse to discuss religious beliefs- some because they detest them, others because they fear retaliation from colleagues, employers, government, etc… Religion has become a taboo topic laced with career ending lawsuits and even jail-time. Freedom of religion has now become “freedom from religion” for those who detest it, and modern religion is largely at fault.
Something has had to give in this conflict, and for most, it has been their spiritual beliefs. It should come as no surprise that the problem’s resolution will involve criticism of religion. Does modern religion really want a solution to this problem?
Most students of science have lived lifelong with this creation-centered conflict. They have used many substantiated theories and completely verifiable scientific laws, and as a result, understand well the rigor of the scientific method. Science, although not perfect, is about finding the truth no matter what it is. Only that which is provable and/or logical is science.
Examples of science, to name only a few, are cosmology including the Big Bang Theory, biology with its Theory of Evolution, and geology with its many age dating methods. As reason predicts, these scientific topics all fit together perfectly. They are not some secret conspiracy against God. The natural sciences are in fact the study of creation, and at least in general, are undeniably true.
Inevitably, many religions condemn the sciences- especially the Theories of Evolution and the Big Bang. Instead of improving their biblical interpretations with the truth from science, many simply reject all that is contrary. Many fight “religiously” to prevent public schools from teaching modern science. They even contort the Bible to fit their religious beliefs. Their religions are stagnant, and life is leaving them. Then, there are the endless unanswered questions, many from science; all of which beg for reason; all of which beg for the truth; a few of which follow.
If the Bible is the truth, how could the creation story be contrary to science? If God created everything in six days, how could Earth be billions of years old? Why did God make many species of plants and animals only to destroy them? Did God make a mistake or just change his mind about dinosaurs? How could the ancients have known about creation since they were not there? If we evolved from monkeys, how could we have a soul? What is a soul anyway? Is it okay to know how God makes things? How could the creation story be myth yet God be real? Is myth acceptable when the general message is good? Wouldn’t a true creation story prove the existence of God? Why doesn’t God just show himself and eliminate all doubt? Shouldn’t it be okay to question the Bible? Do religions represent the truth about the Bible? Is the Bible so uselessly vague that it could mean anything? Is God vague? Faced with unending questions, many have assumed the creation story is common mythology.
Biblically, creation is evidence of God’s existence, yet many “believers” claim that the creation story is un-provable and is intended to be a test faith. Still others faithfully believe that the creation story somehow transcends common truth. However, those who stand rigidly behind their religious explanations will continue to be stuck with the fact that they cannot possibly prove the creation story true; at least not with any information that they have been willing to accept. They generally do not accept modern science.
Since they have not been able to make sense of it, many “believers” think humankind was not meant to understand the creation story. Yet, what possible purpose could a confusing biblical story serve? One should expect the Bible to clarify rather than uselessly confuse its readers. Moreover, one should expect a true creation story to make perfect sense in light of modern science.
There are many blatant technical problems with biblical creation- problems with interpretations at least. First and perhaps most fundamentally, biblical creation is not science, and never will be, but instead is a witnessed account of creation. It offers no scientific explanations.
Other problems arise from theology’s failure to recognize the story’s description of changes in Earth’s early atmosphere including changes that affect visibility. Once beyond those failures, and with the addition of modern science, three simple keys to a full understanding of the creation story remain.
1) The creation story is about Earth and the story’s coverage began when Earth was in its infancy, when it was already orbiting the dark Sun.
2) The creation story author saw from ground level each of the scenes that make up the creation story- the common perspective of all of humanity, ancient and modern.
3) Each scene represents, not the beginning but instead, the substantial completion of the essentials to human survival such as air in a visibly clear atmosphere, water, land, and food.
The creation story’s scenes were displayed to the story’s author in what might be called a series of presentations in modern times. There were eight presentations. The entire series of presentations, like a TV mini-series, lasted six days. The scenes were, and are now, correctly ordered.
Science, an ever-improving understanding of creation, already proves these points and much more. One need not believe in God to see that the creation story is both provably true and substantive. In fact, what some would call mysticism is generally unacceptable in any proof. However, once proven true, it is impossible to explain the biblical creation story’s ancient existence unless a supreme being exists as well.
Why should one bother to know for sure of the existence God? Assuming that God does exist, clearly, that knowledge is the single most important thing anyone could know!
1.3 The approach- what type proof?
To this comparison between the creation story and the sciences, the notion that “truth always complements truth, and the truth is all that matters” is applied. It is assumed that both science and the creation story are true, and then that premise is tested.
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is used throughout. The book of Genesis in KJV is a direct translation from the Masoretic Text1 and its wording predates influence by modern science and modern religion. In addition, it is considered the only valid translation by many who are fundamentalists; those same fundamentalists who are avidly anti science. While the words and phrases of KJV have not changed, some have morphed into a modern absence of meaning. Many seem to prefer it that way.
As per the premise, the God of the Bible is assumed to have commanded the creation of everything that is physically created, and the creation story is assumed to be an exact, an exact’, witnessed account of creation.
For the sciences, all are assumed to be as true and accurate as those knowledgeable about them claim them to be.
The premise has proven totally correct.
Although a simple yet factual understanding of the creation story is easily attained, convincing a skeptical reader requires logic, reason, and proof. Since logic, reason, and proof are the venues of science, the sciences are employed broadly as the best and only evidence of the precision of every statement in the creation story. Logic, reason, and proof are offered to the satisfaction of any open-minded technical skeptic. The science used is not at all controversial among scientists. Every attempt has been made to be scientifically accurate. However, it is not possible to be religiously accurate.
Although straightforward, the creation story is enshrouded with myths and misunderstandings from many religions. For this reason, religious biblical interpretations, so many of which are contradictory, are not seriously considered.
Some Bible “believers” think contorted science (creation science) must be true since it fits their entrenched biblical myths. Other “believers” have concluded that all biblical stories are allegory and cannot be taken literally. Both are wrong!
Amidst their condemnation of science are claims in some religious circles that eventually “true” science will prove the creation story true. For those who are religious and read this humble attempt at a book, there is some unavoidable criticism. The result of the criticism and scientific analysis is what they claim to want- proof that the creation story is true.
Understanding the creation story does not require mysticism. This book considers only that which the literal wording of the creation story describes, and only in the bright lights of science. It is never necessary to take a creation story statement with a “grain of salt.” The modern theological concept of multiple, and at least somewhat contradictory accounts lumped together to create the chronological creation story is completely invalid. The creation story contains no grammatical errors.
Frankly, no real god would have an erroneous, metaphorical, or even vague creation story.
1.4 Is the Bible common mythology? Many think it is.
The word myth has evolved a new meaning in the last century and as per the new meaning, the Bible is classifiable as mythology. However, the word mythology strongly connotes a false story.
By modern definition, a myth is any ancient story whether true or false, but generally not provably true. It is the broadest of categories. It follows, by modern definition that the Bible is a collection of myths, whether true or false. For instance, one may never be able to prove as true and factual a story such as the biblical Samson story- it is common mythology by modern definition. Perhaps the only evidence that will ever exist supporting the Samson story is its inclusion in the Old Testament. Gone are the days when a story is fact simply because it is in the Bible. Can one ever regain that level of confidence in the Bible? Is the Bible history? Is the Bible indeed a revelation from God?
As to the inclusion of gods in ancient stories, everyone has an innate desire to believe in the supernatural. People throughout recorded time have wished for and created gods. Most people want to worship something. For many, beliefs are in cattle, crop circles, pyramids, statues, or ancient circular arrangements of stones. It is no wonder that others strive to overcome those innate beliefs.
Modern Judeo-Christian theologians face numerous scientific findings that are contrary to common biblical interpretations- interpretations of Genesis Chapters 1 through 11. To counter the contradictions, often with well-meaning intent, some theologians have added dignity to the term mythology for the sake of salvaging the Bible as a holy book. Many suggest that those same biblical stories somehow transcend common truth. They have found a medium ground in which they can celebrate the Bible as being a great and true book while shrugging off as irrelevant the seemingly obvious scientific contradictions. They say that the Bible is above petty scientific facts- hence the evolved definition of the word “myth.”
Other theologians believe Genesis is simple fiction- an ancient literary work. “After all, how could it be true?” Much of the confusion stems from the creation story’s interpretations- old and new. Stories such as “Earth was surrounded by shells and God put stars in one of the shells on day 4,” and “Eve was tempted by a snake to eat an apple invoking God’s punishment, “and “Adam had a wife before Eve,” etc…, sound like mythology, don’t they? Where did those stories come from? They are a direct result of ancient theological speculation and are acceptable depictions of actual Genesis stories to some in modern theology. To some, the stories define and clarify the mythology of Genesis. Never mind that the ancient depictions from theology are not biblical!
In the form of brief stories or Midrash,2 ancient theologians and historians had often attempted to add their understanding to the creation and Adam and Eve stories. Then, it would seem, if the added stories are old enough, what is obvious mythology today must truly represent each story’s true original meaning- perhaps because those ancients would surely have known better than us what Moses, the author of Genesis, really meant! What else could those writings of Moses have described if not the common beliefs of the time? Is that how it all works?
It is unreasonable to think that even Moses understood creation, although he understood his own wording perfectly well. His creation story wording was his best attempt to describe what he was shown concerning creation. In addition, the creation story implicitly indicates that God gave Moses some guidance with the creation story’s wording by giving an introductory narrative for each scene. Moses described the scenes of creation, but did not explain them.
Short of God giving them one, how could the ancients have had a creation story that is anything but obvious mythology today? Creation stories are about that which predates humanity; they could not be stories from the human experience.
Owing to human nature, there are many creation stories. When people ask the same question repeatedly, such as “Where did we come from? “, someone eventually obliges with an answer. However, any true, substantive, and ancient creation story, by necessity, would have come from some divine being.
The word myth, as used in this writing, is in reference to the false myth type. Frankly, the biblical creation story is the foundation of the Bible and most agree that if it is common mythology, the entire Bible is suspect.
Modern science now leaves little doubt about the Solar System’s formation and structure, and little doubt about the biology and evolution of life. Surely, we are now better equipped to recognize and understand a true creation story! Surely if the creation story has any basis in truth, modern science will now support it!
What is it that makes the biblical creation story stand out?
1.5 The uniqueness of the biblical creation story.
Although other ancient works have stories that are about Earth and life’s beginnings, even in the broadest sense none is comparable to the biblical creation story. The chronological creation story in the Bible is unique to the Bible or Torah, and is actually completely different from all other creation stories. In addition, it did not exist until well after many other creation stories had been written.
The biblical creation story’s uniqueness shows that it was not generally known and handed down to Moses as folklore. It does not include parts of other older stories. It is clear that Moses gained knowledge of creation’s chronology while Moses and the Hebrews wandered in the desert of the exodus, but not from those who had committed past tales to memory. This is consistent with the tradition of Moses.
Since they are specific to the creation story, a few words and phrases are briefly defined. After each is defined and once the biblical creation story author’s perspective is established, this book will lead its readers on a journey through the time before humanity existed with a narrative in complete agreement with both, modern science and the biblical creation story. First, the meaning of truth, both in this writing and biblically, seems especially important.
1.6 What is truth?
The truth is that which corresponds to reality. There is no gray area- it is all black and white. The truth is like the answer to an equation that is either true or false. No truth can contradict any other. Although often improved with new information, the truth never changes, yet one can certainly get closer to it.
If one is to get closer to the truth, one must understand the perspective of the person telling the truth. If sitting on opposite sides of a football stadium, individuals’ play by play of a game could be quite different, although both true. Perspective matters in the Bible, and everywhere else. Any event observer’s perspective is critical.
This book demonstrates that while a literal interpretation is essential if the Bible is true, biblical literalists must condition their interpretations with the perspective of the storytellers or witnesses. Only then can the whole truth of any biblical statement or story be understood. The perspective of the chronological creation story is ground or sea level- the common human perspective.
What does the Bible say about truth?
There are some two hundred or more references to truth in the Bible. As per the Bible, God is the truth and all truth is of God. Satan is the father of lies, deception, and confusion. It is all very cut and dried. The God of Abraham and of Moses is the God of truth, and all he speaks is truth. If the Bible is the, somehow, inspired word of God, it must be true. If untrue, even by the words written within it, it is common mythology.
Religions are obviously wrong about many things as evidenced by the many issues on which they differ. At best only one religion is correct about any disputed issue. It is also possible none is correct on those same disputed issues. They all claim to be Bible based. That does not mean that the Bible is in error, but it is clear proof that people, and their religions, consistently misinterpret it and then cling tenaciously to their misinterpretations.
Consider that religions (not the Bible) need to be updated continuously with newly discovered truth- most notably the truth from science. Clearly, it is possible to know more truth about creation today than in ancient times, yet biblical historians can hardly approach, and will never exceed, the knowledge of the ancients that lived the history. In stark contrast to biblical history, science provides an ever-improving understanding of creation- that small part of the Bible not understood at all by the ancients.
Surely, some of the more obscure parts of a true Bible are best understood by the application of available scientific truth. All truth should complement all other truth. As dinosaur bones are discovered, the discoveries should contribute to one’s understanding of the Bible- given that the Bible is true and God exists. All scientific findings should contribute to, and then complement, the truth of the Bible.
Science has now arrived at its own provably true creation story mostly separate from modern religious influence. It is the culmination of incredible scientific discovery and insight, especially over the last few centuries. Science is continuously improved by new evidence. It is continuously more accurate. It is itself a generalization. Yet, science’s creation story already agrees indisputably with the biblical creation story.
A few words, and phrases require definition and a few theories deserve mention followed by a brief yet very telling overview of biology.