Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.

[Polaris]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea. Maybe we should re-define "heavens," "and," and "Earth" too.
So when Christians say that science doesn't contradict the Bible, tell them to open the first page and read the first sentence. Bam.

You have to try harder than that or you could just read a few verses further.

[Mudhammam]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea. Maybe we should re-define "heavens," "and," and "Earth" too.
So when Christians say that science doesn't contradict the Bible, tell them to open the first page and read the first sentence. Bam.

You have to try harder than that or you could just read a few verses further.

You mean when we get to the magical fruit bit?

[Polaris]

You have to try harder than that or you could just read a few verses further.

You mean when we get to the magical fruit bit?

That's a bad attempt at a joke, right?

[Mudhammam]

You mean when we get to the magical fruit bit?

That's a bad attempt at a joke, right?

Something like that. Wait. You don't actually believe a talking snake is the reason there are handicapped children in the world, do you?

[Drich]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea.

why is this a dumb idea? Because you decided to trivialize it? Please explain.

In the beginning God created the heavens, the Hebrew word for heavens is:
שָׁמַיִם shamayim. It means abode of the stars. This came first. The scientific consensus you mentioned agrees. Then the passage mentions 'the earth.' This came after the creation of the heavens, which again your source material confirms.. There is no time frame mentioned between the creation of heaven and earth. The only part of creation that is mentioned that ties itself to a time frame is the creation of light. Light was created on the first day. Don't confuse this with what happened 'in the beginning.'

[Zen Badger]

You mean when we get to the magical fruit bit?

That's a bad attempt at a joke, right?

And after that the bible gets really stupid.

[Mudhammam]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea.

why is this a dumb idea? Because you decided to trivialize it? Please explain.

In the beginning God created the heavens, the Hebrew word for heavens is:
שָׁמַיִם shamayim. It means abode of the stars. This came first. The scientific consensus you mentioned agrees. Then the passage mentions 'the earth.' This came after the creation of the heavens, which again your source material confirms.. There is no time frame mentioned between the creation of heaven and earth. The only part of creation that is mentioned that ties itself to a time frame is the creation of light. Light was created on the first day. Don't confuse this with what happened 'in the beginning.'

How convenient that interpretations of the text can change when the sciences actually discover how the world works. Does it ever work the other way around, where the interpretation enlightens our scientific knowledge? I think not. But even if you are smart enough to read Genesis as myth most of your brothers and sisters in heaven and on earth do/did not.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You mean when we get to the magical fruit bit?

That's a bad attempt at a joke, right?

Genesis is the joke.

[Drich]

why is this a dumb idea? Because you decided to trivialize it? Please explain.

In the beginning God created the heavens, the Hebrew word for heavens is:
שָׁמַיִם shamayim. It means abode of the stars. This came first. The scientific consensus you mentioned agrees. Then the passage mentions 'the earth.' This came after the creation of the heavens, which again your source material confirms.. There is no time frame mentioned between the creation of heaven and earth. The only part of creation that is mentioned that ties itself to a time frame is the creation of light. Light was created on the first day. Don't confuse this with what happened 'in the beginning.'

How convenient that interpretations of the text can change when the sciences actually discover how the world works. Does it ever work the other way around, where the interpretation enlightens our scientific knowledge? I think not. But even if you are smart enough to read Genesis as myth most of your brothers and sisters in heaven and on earth do/did not.

We are only responsible for what we are given to understand. If we have an understanding of how the world works outside the bible then we are to reconcile the what we under with scripture. Scripture being the unchanging foundation. If we do not have this understanding then we do not know how to 'read it accurately.' As with revelation, a full understanding is not required, just responsibility for what we understand.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

We are only responsible for what we are given to understand. If we have an understanding of how the world works outside the bible then we are to reconcile the what we under with scripture. Scripture being the unchanging foundation. If we do not have this understanding then we do not know how to 'read it accurately.' As with revelation, a full understanding is not required, just responsibility for what we understand.

"So even when scripture seems wrong, it's actually you that is wrong as scripture is always right...even when it's wrong, which it can't be as it's always right."

Sounds legit.