Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

So Drich, do you still hold that the order of creation as presented in Genesis is correct, or do you concede that there's no way to justify the findings of the cosmos with a story that's outdated due to perceptual errors?

I hold to my orginal assertion.

The creation account in Genesis is given from a Garden view perspective. Meaning if you were sat in the middle of the Garden these are the things you would see in the order you would see them.

Kinda like how the book of revelations was written. God did the same thing there. He took John of patmos and place Him in the middle of the action and John wrote down in his own words what he saw in the order he saw it happen.

Why in the world would a perfect god show his creation in an imperfect way, that is, having the sun come up after the earth is established? Did he actually stop the rotation of the earth for the first three days before making the sun and moon appear (an appeal to which would be special pleading) or did the writer simply not have all the observable information?

If god were to reveal his creation of the cosmos and earth to a prophet, one would expect, based on scientific studies of the way stars and solar systems are formed, that the sequence of events would look much different than what is described in Genesis.

If god was really showing man the creation account from an earthly perspective, we should expect the sun to at least already be in place, as well as night and day, a necessity with a rotating planet. At night, the only thing visible at first would be the stars, and then eventually the moon would come into the picture.

Water, a necessity for the eventuality of life, would appear next. He could then claim the spark of primitive life, showing that the first things created were the plants, and then the sea-dwelling creatures. Following this would be the introduction of land-based animals: amphibians and reptiles, followed by mammals and birds.

It follows that man would be the latest thing created, even though this should be included in the introduction of mammals. However, since this Bible is anthropomorphised, the writers thinking that man is the greatest achievement of their god, it stands to reason that man would be last on the list i.e. made in the image of god, etc.

This is not at all how the creation story is told. It's told from an unscientific, geo-centric perspective that has no knowledge about what the cosmos actually look like. The story makes sense from a man-made perspective, and not from the perspective of an all-knowing god.

Drich, I want to know how you reconcile this. Many Christians do not accept the Genesis account as it stands in the Bible because there is no reason to believe it to be accurate at all, based on current knowledge. They will not apologize for it because they are smart enough to not even touch the story with a ten-foot pole. Many more are coming around to the story of Noah and the ark because of the many absurdities contained within it, and some are even suggesting that the numbers talked about in the Exodus are greatly exaggerated, if not completely made up.

The thing is, if you are ready to believe even the mightily dubious creation account in Genesis, you are ready to believe just about anything else that conflicts with reason. I see that you've had some thoughts about the mindsets of the writers of that time, how their perspective was skewed because of their limited knowledge, but I want to bring it back to how this shouldn't be the case if they were actually getting their information from a perfect being.