Shouldn’t Genesis be scientifically accurate?

Tcg wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:18 am The question I have though, is that if God did provide a direct revelation about these six days of creation, shouldn’t we expect it to be scientifically accurate where it does touch on science or rather scientific concepts and knowledge?

Personally, I think we should. Though Genesis 1 is presented in a literary style and can be read metaphorically, I think in a deeper level, it should match reality. And I argue we do see that.

On the outset, the Bible claims the universe was created, thus implying a beginning. Science has not always believed there was a beginning to the universe. Scientists have historically balked at the idea of the universe having a beginning in time since it would support the Biblical account. And it has only been in the past century that scientists have accepted a beginning to the universe.

Since God is the creator of everything, it leads to God designing everything. We could go on forever talking about design in the universe from the atomic level to the galactic level. If we want to get into that evidence, I’m sure that would rival anything else we’ve talked about so far in scope. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that it leads secular scientists to broach into extra-naturalism with exotic theories such as the multiverse.

The Bible paints a picture that God uniquely created humans (and other life as well) and they did not arise through an evolutionary process. This is another huge area to debate in.

As for everything created in 6 literal days, I do lean towards that. Explaining that is complicated, but I don’t think it’s necessary for now to discuss. We have people across the board that have varying views on it. From what I’ve seen, a literal 6 day reading is in the minority among professional scholars and apologists and they mostly read that as metaphorical.