What if a Genesis "1" translation equaled Science?

[darrellcomte]

If a translation of Genesis chapter 1 or the Six days matched the scientific accounts of creation like the "The Big Bang."
How would each side of the debate react?

[a_haworthroberts]

If a translation of Genesis chapter 1 or the Six days matched the scientific accounts of creation like the "The Big Bang."
How would each side of the debate react?

Welcome to this community forum.

If I understand the question correctly, and I assume you mean that eg astronomers are sure that the Sun existed before the Earth contrary to what Genesis would have us believe, I would say (speaking purely personally) that Genesis 1 was more reliable than it actually is. I think we have to bear in mind how long ago Genesis and the rest of the Bible was written. In an essentially pre-scientific era - when for instance the nature of light (electro-magnetic radiation), or the actual source of moonlight, or the true causes of night and day, or whether the Sun is orbiting the Earth or vice versa were not properly understood.

Which side of the debate are you on?

PS You may be the same Darrell Comte who commented under this blog (with which I agree): http://ladyfreethinker.com/research-sho ... ca-stupid/

PPS The private message, just read, looks to have been sent before I posted my above comments.

[Brian Jordan]

I'm not familiar with different translations but I think it would be quite a stretch if they contradicted each other on matters as unambiguous as the order of creation. For example the Earth before the Sun and stars. Or birds before sea creatures.
So I think if such a translation appeared, one group would say "A fiddle by apologists" and the other would say "an error by heretics".

If, however, someone were to just say that it was allegorical, one group might well say "There;s nothing to argue about then." while the other might just say "Heretics!"

[cathy]

I'd be curious to know how much a translation that matched current science would differ from the original, given that I don't think the original has much to say about science at all. All the 'science' seems to have been artificially imposed by biblical literalists.

I'll have to think about that one. I suspect the creationists would call it a forgery as they've invested so much in their own version. I suspect the anti theist Dawkins mob would also call it a forgery. For the vast majority in the rational middle, believers and non believers, it would generate huge new debates.

Interestingly I've just started to read a book, by the atheist but not an anti theist Steve Jones, called The Serpents Promise. The Bible Retold as Science. He's trying to link what is in a Genesis with what we know. For example real floods that could be behind the Noah myths. Genetic bottlenecks when Homo sapiens was close to extinction that lend weight to bring descended from a small number of people and so on.

[Roger Stanyard]

If a translation of Genesis chapter 1 or the Six days matched the scientific accounts of creation like the "The Big Bang."
How would each side of the debate react?

Edit: What debate? End edit

It wouldn't make the slightest difference. The biblical lietralism behind "creation science" is not compatible with science as it is purely a religious position.

But, wait a miniute, many fundamentalsist think the Authorised version of th Bible is a perfect translation guided by God. So, they would not accept another translation.