Alignments of Genesis 1 and Modern Science

The Genesis creation account is often a subject of ridicule among people who "believe in science". Among Christians, it's often a topic to be avoided or to be dismissed as allegorical. I was one who dismissed it as a mere story, until I looked deeper into it and found that many parts match the conclusions reached by scientists. Here is the breakdown: 1. Let there be light Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

On the first day, God made light. But it wasn't until the fourth day when he created the sun and the stars in the sky. So how was it so that light existed without any star to provide it? According to science, there was an nearly perfect distribution of radiation and light in the early universe. Today, the remnants can be observed "in the form of the cosmic microwave background". They date this radiation to 380,000 years after the big bang. The oldest stars however, do not come into existence until 200 million years after the big bang. Not only that, but the article in Medium states that there was light well before the dating of the cosmic microwave background. In short, light was ever present in the universe long before the existence of the sun and stars. This is in accordance with the Genesis creation account.

Sources: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/science-uncovers-the-origin-of-the-first-light-in-the-universe-8a985cb5f02b

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question55.html

2. Waterworld

Genesis 1:2 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

That is, it was formless because there was only water on it as the Lord did not create dry land until the third day. So what is the scientific viewpoint on this? They have not found rocks or sediment in earth's early history; the News Scientist article describes it as a "book with its first chapter ripped out". It further states that the earth had no mountains or continental collisions for its first 700 million years. They conclude that the early earth must have been covered in ocean, which is in accordance with Genesis.

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130266-early-earth-was-covered-in-a-global-ocean-and-had-no-mountains/

3. Pangaea

Genesis 1:9 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so

Most of us learned in grade school that there was only one supercontinent at one point in earth's history, and this verse strongly hints that it may have been so. It can still be possible for there to be multiple continents without the waters being divided, but the fact that it's worded as "dry land" and not "dry lands" suggests that it's only one mass.

4. The waters above the firmament?

Genesis 1:6

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

This one might be the strangest verses of them all. After all, when you look up at the sky, between the stars there only appears to be a void. While this is obviously not the case, ancient peoples did not have the telescopes and advanced observation devices to know this. Though this is not quite confirmed by science, there was a finding that hints at the universe being bordered by water. This NASA articles mentions a scientific finding of the most distant and also largest reservoir of water in the universe. It is 4,000 times greater than the amount in our Milky Way galaxy and it's located 12 billion light years away. While this isn't a hundred percent confirmation that water is at the end of the firmament. One can use the logic that if the cosmos is bordered by water, then naturally you should find much greater volumes of water as you get closer to its edge.

Source:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/universe20110722.html

Conclusion:

The creation account takes on way more ridicule than it deserves. Given the fact that the bible is correct on such peculiar matters should amplify the legitimacy of the entire text. Ancient peoples would have no way of knowing such things as they did not have the tools and resources as we do, so it had to have been from a divine source. While there are other details that do not match the conclusions reached by modern science, it makes you wonder: Is it the bible that errs or is it actually that our modern views are incorrect?