The Science of Genesis 1.2 Demonstrated

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (NASB)

And now, this:

Water, which is essential to life on Earth, has been found in a new star according to this paper. The European Space Agency’s Herschel space observatory has discovered water vapor  in a gas and dust cloud that is on the verge of collapsing into a new star in the constellation of Taurus known as Lynds 1544 . There’s enough water vapor to fill Earth’s oceans more than 2000 times over.  In comparison, all the water on Earth is around 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons.

Space Industry News (

(No, I don’t think Genesis 1 has anything in reality to do with science, but it was sure awesome to see this story and theologize it just a bit)

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

50 Replies to “The Science of Genesis 1.2 Demonstrated”

    1. Oh dear… you really have no clue do you?

      First, Genesis 1 is not about physical creation. It is well set in ANE myth. To say otherwise is to completely destroy Scripture.

      And science is not a tool. Science describes how tools operate. Also, God used the same laws he put in place to create the physical universe.

      You must be a follower of Little Honey Tee Tee

  1. Please verify one thing you just claimed. Hebrews 11 seems to tell a different story than you on creation. How can saying that God created just as He said in Genesis one destroy scripture? All the Bible agrees with that and not science, seems you have things backwards.

    1. Again, you prove you have no idea how to read Scripture.

      You don’t even understand what “creation” is and how these words and concepts differ by use the author.

      The “bible” doesn’t agree with anything. And it tells a different story than science because it is about different things. Creation in Scripture is vastly different than what we talk about (scientifically) in science.

      I realize you don’t understand this, because you think you wrote scripture, but try to keep up.

      1. I missed this but it just tells me that you will take science’s word over God’s. Of course they are different because they are talking about 2 different creations. The Bible is talking about the real and true creative act while science is talking about the one they wish had taken place.

        It is amazing that you would take the word of unbelievers who were born long after the fact over the word of a sinless and holy God who was there.

        You are also saying that God is incapable of writing the truth and unable to communicate what really took place. You can’t shift the blame to human authors because then you are saying they can over-rule God and that he has no other method available to Him to right the supposed error filled record.

        God would not use sinful unbelieving scientists who do not believe that God exists, among other things, to present the true account given the fact that he writes in the Bible to not listen to the ungodly for they are deceived.

        1. Uh, no. Scripture never talks about the physical creation. It talks about the Temple and Temple Theology. Science doesn’t tell us why the universe is, but only how it came to be. Scripture tells us about ages, plans, and times. These are invisible notions, abstract ideals.

          Little Honey Tee Tee, by all accounts, is an unbeliever, but you take his word for it.

          God didn’t write anything. Human authors, under the inspiration of the Spirit wrote, redactors came and the such. Not only that, but you have already admitted that you don’t care what Scripture says, only what Little Honey Tee Tee says the English language of the 17th century says.

          Your understanding of Truth is rather silly. Science = truth in facts and demonstration. Faith = truth in that which explains the why.

          I realize that this is like talking to a wall, but I do hope you begin to understand the limited god you serve. You have made a god that is, well, stupid and insecure. He is nothing more than a pagan trickster god who wishes his followers to remain stupid, but taunts them with reason. I would suspect you do not use modern medicine or any of the modern conveniences either, as your god doesn’t like real truth, just the lies he tells.

          1. Every time you make an accusation against me and God you are really talking about yourself and your god.
            The fact that you believe unbelievers is astounding and undermines your argument. It tells everyone that you do not believe any of God’s word but think that sinful, blind, unbelievers have the truth.
            It also tells everyone that you will cherry pick verses to maintain your faulty belief.
            How can youy sat salvation is real if you think scriptures didn’t tell the truth about creation? Why would those supposed redactors leave salvation but alter creation? It would make no sense since so many people chafe at the exclusiveness that salvation demands. One can’t simply live a good life, they have to actually follow scriptures.
            Don’t you think that redactors would alter the requirement of salavtion to make it easier if they were so busy changing the creation account?

          2. seriously, I thought you said you were done? Another lie. That’s fine.

            I don’t accuse God. I don’t accuse you. I say that your theology is inept and stupid. That is not an accusation. That is a fact.

            All truth is God’s truth, regardless of source. Further, not all truth is scientific truth. Some truth is ethical truth. Some truth is philosophical truth.

            Salvation is not depending upon anything but Christ, and Christ alone. You have made it a work, as part of your cult, to believe something you have yourself is false. Further, you notion of salvation, just by what you have said here, is seriously flawed. I would expect nothing more than this, however.

    2. oh, and before you try to quote Scripture, I want you to follow this pattern: Use chapter and verse, and then, use the original language. From there, do a small amount of exegesis. For instance, Hebrews 11.3 speaks about worlds, but this is an English translation. In the original language, it reads αἰῶνας. Is this worlds as in planets? No. Instead, this is aionas, or aion (pl). Aeon are ages, or dispensations. If we take this make to economia of Ephesians 2. But, let’s take this back just a bit further into Isaiah where Creation is centered on the Temple, or rather, the hope of a New Temple. Thus, Creation becomes the ordered plan, or age, where God reigns in his Temple. This is hardly a physical creation, but one in which we understand, based on Genesis 1, 2-3, that God is in control.

      Let us finish with Revelation. The promise here is that one day, God will once again reign, in the New Creation, after the Temple is enjoined. Now, we know what this means, the Church.

      Of course, spiritually and theological stupid people still insist on reading Scripture not in the original languages and absent of the original context, but only based on what the Seventh Day Adventists teach, that of a super-literal version of Scripture that destroys the meaning of Scripture and makes God a laughingstock.

  2. Who says your rendition of the original languages is correct or of God? All I can say about you is that your are deluded, deceived and a real jerk. We do not have to read the Bible in its original languages that is a false requirement from those who disbelieve God and reject his word.

    The only laughingstock is you as you reject God and call Him a liar. You have no God to follow except yourself.

    1. Wait… so you think the original language, intent, and context does not matter? So, just what it says in translation, translation by a person, that is what matter?

      You poor deluded soul… You and Little HOney Tee Tee are a true laughingstock

  3. Actually, I think Dr. Tee is correct. You are not a Christian and are a false teacher. Your ego and self-importance gets in the way of you ever seeing the truth.

  4. I can refute you, I just do not want to wade through the abusive climate you offer, present the evidence only to have you dismiss what I presented with a wave of a hand and more name calling.

    Here is an example: Your original language point. Since we do not have the original mss. we do not know what language God had His authors use to pen His words. Thus your restriction to the Hebrew language is only a guess at best, based upon assumption. For all we know Moses used Egyptian, given that he was educated by the Pharaoh and that the original people he was writing to understood Egyptian and didn’t die off until after Sinai.

    Then since you cannot construct the original context for biblical books but subscribe to the idea that the OT was written in the 4-6th centuries BC by a bunch of ‘elites’ who had hopes of making a free people captive again you really have no argument since the OT and NT change lives outside of that original context throughout the world.

    If your premise were true, the OT would not have made it out of the 4th century and the NT would never have been written. Your arguments do not hold up to the reality.

    1. Your original language refutation is pointless. This is the argument of the KJV-Onlyist and doesn’t fit the facts. While we do not have the original mss, we have a close approximation.

      And the rest of the paragraph is filled with intellectuality ignorance. First, Hebrews is written in Greek. Moses would have used Egyptian, but also Hebrew since that was the langage of his people. We know that Hebrew is an old language, although it comes from Aramaic.

      Your third paragraph is rather odd, since i have never stated such a thing. In other words, you are a liar. But, let’s not digress. Because in all honesty, your arguments are rather stupid.

      But, let’s take it to the next level, shall we? How do you know Genesis 1 says what you think it says or was written by Moses? Maybe is originally said that aliens cooked us up in a test-tube? In other words, since you do not believe Scripture is anything but a 17th century plagiarized copy of a 16th century translation, then you don’t believe in Scripture at all, but in the British empire.

      You do understand how stupid your argument is, right?

  5. Now you know why I do not spend more time refuting you. Your response shows all the class of a dead squirrel and is not even worth taking the time to go through and respond to. I won’t lower myself to your level except to say, not one word you wrote was of Christ or Christian. You do not know Jesus and I would, if I were you, stop everything you are doing and spend your days pleading and praying until you are right with Jesus

    1. You haven’t refuted anything yet. All you’ve done is to show just how silly you are. Try to refute anything, and I mean logically. You can’t, because the only thing you can rely on is “Little Honey Tee Tee told me so, so it must be true”

      I can’t help it if you are wish to remain ignorant.

  6. The one who needs help is you. The only person not believing scripture or God is you. You ignore the verse where God promised to preserve His word and you have forgotten the admonition to use faith. Christianity is based upon faith nothing else and you do not have it. You have nothing of Christ in you and you delude yourself.

    1. That’s a bit unfair. You’re saying that because you disagree with Joel, he does not believe Scripture, and is unsaved which is fear-mongering, abusive, and a brainwashing tactic used by cult members.

      Joel appears to have faith that God caused all things to be. He appears to believe that science is able to demonstrate how things came to be (because God is a God of logic and order – because that is what he created).

      I think you need to rethink your words before you post. Creationism is NOT the sole bastion of YEC. YEC is one small group of Christians with big mouths.

      1. Dr. Tee has asked a question that no science supporter has ever answered: Where in the Bible do God and Jesus state that their followers are to use science over their words?

        If you cannot find one then you are in the wrong and disobeying both God and Jesus. Please put chapter, verse and translation in your answer so it can be verified.

        1. Little Honey Tee Tee is not a doctor.

          Jesus never said anything about the internet, facebook, or Tee Tee either. Nor does Jesus ever say anything about the canon, the New Testament, the Trinity, or nuclear bombs and yet… Jesus never said anything about getting on the ‘ent, reading the New Testament, or using electricity. Neither did Jesus ever say anything about the physical creation of the universe, among other things.

          Your line here is nothing but tripe that only the simple-minded cannot see past.

          The rest of your comment makes no sense.

          1. So you are saying that silence is permission to ignore what God said he did?

            The rest makes sense because you cannot provide chapter, verse or translation where both God and Jesus gave permission to use science over their words.

            In other words, you do not have permission from God to alter what he has said about creation or anything in the Bible.

          2. Um… no, I am saying you are providing an argument from ignorance, a straw man… and then ignoring the actual arguments. I don’t argue with fools because there is no need. I present the case and that’s it.

            “God and Jesus” never said much about anything that wasn’t theological. Theology is not science. When you present it as such, you are making an argument from ignorance and thus are too foolish to answer. When one insists that it is midnight at noon because that is what is required to be saved, it is pointless to ask them look at the sun, because regardless of sunburn or sunblindness, they will not believe anything beyond what they have already stated is their facts. This is the theory of motivated reasoning in action, where the person must, at all costs, believe only what they must believe regardless of discussion or presentations of facts.

            In other words, you can call horse dung roses, but it is still horse dung.

  7. Believing Genesis 1 as written is not cultic. Believing that Moses penned the truth is not cultic. Believing God over sinful man is not cultic but doing the reverse is sinful.

    1. you yourself said you don’t even know what was written. You only believe what was interpreted based on the translation you read.

      Moses didn’t write in 17th century English.

      You realize the circle you are in, right?

      1. You are changing the topic. I am not a KJV only person but I do believe God made sure His word was translated properly in all the languages it has been translated into. One does not need the originals because God is making sure all people have the correct ones so that they have the opportunity to change from their sinful ways.

        1. Where do you think translations come from? They come from the original languages. Guess what… those words in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek actually mean something that often cannot be fully grasped by a translation. Not only that, but you have these pesky things known as concepts. Concepts aren’t word for word things, like, say Tree. But, when we come to time, age, creation, salvation, justification – these are concept words that are often purely untranslatable.

          What a small god you have. And a racist one too.

          1. You really do not get it do you? You want to remove God in order to keep the Bible a human book and leave room for your faulty theology.

            Having a cousin who worked with Wycliffe and having known many missionaries, I know for a fact that they are not hebrew and Greek scholars yet they managed to translate the Bible into a dialect or two using English versions

            But that is a minute point. You are too full of yourself to see the truth.

          2. If they are translating from the English, this is called a paraphrase. Again, you miss the concept of translation. A translation is at best a poor substitute of reading and studying Scripture. I hate that you miss so much of Scripture.

            Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

    2. more cultic language.. “if you dont believe what I say.. you’re a heretic, an unbeliever.. unless you believe what I say you’re going to burn in hell”. Common brain washing techniques.

      I believe Moses penned the truth – the theological truth about WHY things are the way they are. How order was created fro Chaos, where humanity fits into the order of things, and what is required of us because of this.

      You seem to think that Moses was divine.. but He was in fact a “sinful man”, who wrote down stuff, with his “sinful man-hands”, using words and thoughts and experiences that occurred to his “sinful self”. I think you have a problem. Some how the humans have been removed from the equation and the words miraculously appeared. None of the people who studied for countless years and translated the texts into various languages, actually did it.. obviously, because their sinful humanity would have tainted the scriptures..

      Every time you read a bible, you are believing a sinful man’s translation of a sinful mans translation of a sinful mans experiences with God.

  8. “Theology is not science” and science is not the final authority nor is it able to determine what God did in the past.. Your appeal to unbelievers, who have structured a field of research in such a manner that it leaves out the supernatural is your undoing. You keep appealing to non-believers who reject God and His word you have no foundation to stand upon.

    You do realize that there is not 1 scientific experiment that replicates one historical developement or transition claim don’t you? Nor is there one observation for those claims.

    You are saying that secular men, whom the Bible says are blind and decieved, have the truth. That is nonsensical and ridiculous. In effect you are saying to people do not go to God an dJesus for they do not have the truth but sinful science does.

    You are not representing God but science.

    1. Actually, we have watches stars being created, we have measured space, we have even watched evolution. These are facts.

      You separate, as cults are apt to do, what information can be accepted as “true.” Not even Paul did this, nor Jesus. They even accepted facts presented by non-Jews, and thus non-believers.

      This is your cult. You have denied the truth of God. Shame on you.

      1. Stars forming after creation does not negate God’s creative act. It just means that we do not know all the details that God put in when He created. Attributing God’s work to a non-existent catastrophe is sin and robs God of the glory he deserves.

        1. since they take millions of years, it negates the poor interpretation of Genesis 1. Shoot, light negates the poor interpretation of Genesis 1. But, the fact that we can see 13 billion years into the past negates the poor interpretation of Genesis 1.

          God is never robbed of anything. Period. Regardless of bigotry, bad interpretation, or the stupidity of his children, God’s glory will never be taken from him.

      2. You haven’t watched evolution, all you have seen is attributed to that theory. You forget that God’s genetic design produces the same results that are credited to the evolutionary theory. Prediction is not exclusive.

        You haven’t measured space because no one knows where the boundaries are let alone the shape of it.

        I would require links to the star formation but given the astronomers idea of space and time, I highly doubt it.

        1. in fact, if you believe science is false, then you must also think God is a liar, for creating an order, with rules, and then making those rules deceptive..

  9. “seriously, I thought you said you were done? Another lie. ” No, you just kept responding and I felt obligated to answer your fale ideas.

    If you do not accept creation then you do not have salvation. Oh and your truth comment contradicts the Bible

  10. I amjust saying what the Bible says and since you have NO scriptural support for your way, I think you are up a creek without a canoe and paddle.

    1. No, you are saying what someone told you the bible says, or at the very best, what the bible says to you. The bible doesn’t talk.

      Instead, I can show you how the original audience would have heard it and it is vastly different than how you hear it. These are called facts.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.