What Genesis Got Wrong: Part 2

The critical study of the creation story in Genesis 1 continues in this video by examining what occurred "in the beginning." In this installment of the series we start with the first half of Day One of creation. The Bible mentions water as the one pre-existent element in the universe when God begins his creative week. Is that possible? Were the elements for water, hydrogen and oxygen, available in the early universe?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bible
• skeptic
• Christian
• Christianity
• apologetics
• creation
• creationism
• Genesis
• light
• darkness
• water
• In
• the
• beginning
• Chapter
• day
• night
• primordial
• waters
• universe
• hydrogen
• oxygen
• Ken
• Ham
• Answers
• in
• Babylonian
• Egyptian
• criticism
• critique
• examination
• study
• commentary
• atheist
• atheism
• skepticism
• scepticism
• Enuma
• Elish
• Nu
• Amun
• Atum
• Shu
• Tefnut

[petrolinmavains]

Well! all i can say is you guys are so so lost, You will argue your beliefs to your death, THEN you will find out for sure, but guess what YOU WILL BE TO LATE! only have one chance.

[brettppalmer]

@petrolinmavains Yeah...the ol' Kiss Hank's Ass argument. That one always works.

[Cootabux]

Hey Brett, this ass hat, baqashchokmahelel....I see right thru his BS front by the way he's trying to belittle you and your video. But he clearly lets it be known that you have gotten to him by systematically dismantling Genesis. You've carefully and concisely demonstrate that the author of Genesis was certainly no god! Of course, when any of us do this, Xians use any angle they can in an attempt to minimize your work and belittle you, which is exactly what this clown tried to do...but failed!!

[brettppalmer]

@Cootabux I could already see his/her game when he/she kept evading my questions. Also, when he/she stated after replying to me twice that I had previously said, "We're done" but he/she kept returning, I realized I was dealing with someone without two oars in the water. But, I must thank him/her for inspiring me to finally get off my backside and commit myself to doing a production on "The Days of Genesis." I'm nearly done with a video I'm currently working on but this one will be next.

[kriss299]

Too stupid for science? Try religion.

[brettppalmer]

@thugthumper1 We have the evidence necessary to understand the earth's origins without "having been there." Oddly, you can't understand that an ancient book written by scientifically ignorant people is the least appropriate place to get your information about origins. But, I suppose putting your assertions in ALL CAPS somehow trumps true science.

[petrolinmavains]

Anyway, why argue out the past wouldn't it be better to cast your focus on the here and now? the Future? Lets here your interpretation on revelation since you're so smart.

[pestmanpat]

Genesis describes the early earth covered in water.

[heinno777]

Ever heard of relativity? When the universe was young time was short, now it is much much longer as space is bigger. At the point in space where it started the universe is 8000 years old. Where the earth is, it is 13.7 billion. Earth refer to matter, matter came before water Genesis is correct

[baqashchokmahelel]

@brettppalmer You said we're done here and now you throw me a bunch of questions. I've already made my points about your video.

I have no ill will towards you. You're entitled to your opinion about what day means in Genesis 1 as do the YEC. I disagree with you and I've already stated why.

Peace & Love

[brettppalmer]

@baqashchokmahelel Also, poetic imagery doesn't mean the author isn't trying to tell you something literally. Bob Enyart tried to get away with that when he argued that the "firmament" of Genesis 1 doesn't refer to a solid domed sky (as I'll wager you do, too). But that's wrong. Consider, "I do wander everywhere, Swifter than the moon's sphere;" from Shakespeare's "A Fairy Song." Isn't the moon a sphere? Or should we not take that literally?

[brettppalmer]

@baqashchokmahelel I pointed out how you are being pompous. Your denial doesn't make it not so. So, if Genesis 1 is poetic and should not be read literally, how about other parts of the Bible? Is the story of Eden not literal? How about the story of Noah? Abraham? Joseph? Moses? The resurrection? I'm not disagreeing that stories in the Bible aren't factual and therefore should not be taken literally. But how about you? Where do you draw the line?