>Genesis was written for a primitive people. It is not a metaphor. It is an attempt to accurately explain an event to people who have no vocabulary for it. “Dust” is a good choice of words, for something that we would call elements and atoms, and still not be metaphorical about it.
That just means it has no excuse for being blatantly wrong. Once more, there are quite a few inaccuracies and mistakes even assuming that it’s a necessarily simple tale for a primitive people.
>How would **you** describe creation of the universe, earth, and the appearance of plant and animal life and man to a primitive people using concepts and words they could grasp? Do little ole’ **you** think you could do a better job? Really?
Yes. I could do a better job. Just for the basic example: I would note that the fish came before land plants. Now, you believe your god is perfect, yes? And all-powerful Ergo, you believe it’s better then me? Clearly, it could do a better job too, or he’s not perfect. Which is it?
It’s not about sounding magical. It’s that your explanation, that the story was written to be understood in the best way possible by a given primitive people on the one hand can’t explain its own inaccuracy if it came from a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god and on the other hand creates a number of questions about the nature of god, which I would guess you are unable to explain.
Your original point was about how accurate Genesis was according to modern science. Genesis is *not* accurate according to modern science. So yeah, unless you have something more specific then claiming that your god couldn’t do any better a job then the inaccurate creation stories...
Also, I’m not sure you understand the definition of “metaphor”, but that’s really secondary.
Please note that in Genesis 1:20 that living creatures in the sea is mentioned before birds and again in verse 21 it is creatures of the sea before birds.
Honestly...Think about this. What is the likelihood that a primitive creation story made up out of thin air supposedly by a primitive people would get this very fine detail right? The fact is that other creation stories of other primitive peoples don't even come close.
Are there better and more accurate creation stories out there? I doubt you would be able to find one. Personally, I find it astonishing the Genesis is, indeed, right about so much of what we now know to be scientifically true.
This is the second time, now, that you have boldly proven to all on these threads that you have not read Genesis and barely know what is in it. But...Given this ignorance you seem to feel qualified to pronounce both scientific and literary commentary on it. Unbelievable! Do all government school science teachers do this? Is **this** what they teach in the colleges of education?
Genesis 20:
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Neither one. Typical atheist trick: when you want to discredit the Scriptures, assume that they were delivered verbatim in their present translation into English, and ridicule them. When you want to cast doubt on the, assume that they have be so necessarily corrupted by the vagaries of time, translation, interpretation, and transmission errors that they cannot possibly be relied upon.
The problem is, assuming for the sake of argument, that it *was* God, we don't know the audience or their cultural setting, which might have influenced the details of the story.
cf the apocryphal story of the South American missionary who translated John the Baptist's speech as "Behold the Frog of God who takes away the sins of the world" since his audience didn't know what sheep were.
Cheers!
Dust of the earth is not a metaphor. We **are** dust of the earth! Ask any mortician. Ask anyone who works in crematorium. Ask any archaeologist who digs around in the graves of the ancients.
That “dust” is the word used is amazingly accurate. Are you disappointed that it doesn't specifically name the elements? ( not that this would be intelligible to a primitive people.)
Is it possible that not only do you not understand the science of the composition of man, but that you do not understand the word “metaphor” as well? ( Hm? In one of your previous posts did you state that you teach science in a classroom? Really?)
And why are you so sure science has it right? You are presuming that science is correct and measuring Scripture against it and finding it wanting.
The fossil record is by no means complete. All we know about the geologic record and evolutionary record is based forensic evidence and extrapolation.
Science changes by the day as new data comes in. It's hardly a reliable standard by which to measure the truth or accuracy of ANYTHING else.
(”>Genesis was written for a primitive people. It is not a metaphor. It is an attempt to accurately explain an event to people who have no vocabulary for it. “Dust” is a good choice of words, for something that we would call elements and atoms, and still not be metaphorical about it.
That just means it has no excuse for being blatantly wrong. Once more, there are quite a few inaccuracies and mistakes even assuming that it’s a necessarily simple tale for a primitive people.”)
If I may interject....
The term “Adam” has two meanings...”one who blushes” and “a deeper root meaning “red mud or red dust man”. That is important because iron oxide is the primary pigment in red dust....why is that important you might ask? What is the primary active element that allows human hemaglobin to function as it does?
The ancients knew God had made Man out of red dust but they couldn’t have known what modern science tells us; that the iron in that red pigmented dust was used in the formation of our blood, liver and blood forming systems!
And skeptics say there is no science to be found in the book of Genesis...the ancient prophets titter at us modern fools, chiding us even from 4000 years ago by stating...”The blood is the life of a man!”