Journal On Lawn's Journal: Discussions in Genesis: Chapter 2, The Creation take 2 17
So much attention is placed on Genesis chapter one that it comes as a shock that chapter 2 is so overlooked. Here we have another creation account, and a brief description of the earth in its state before the fall of Adam.
I've heard it said that the book of Genesis is broken up into various parts, galled the "generations" of this or that. Here we start with the first of these sections, the "generations of the heavens and of the earth".
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a dman to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This has always been awkward english. I have no idea how the Hebrews here read this, but it seems very choppy. It took me quite a few readings to begin to put my arms around it.
First of all, I'm not sure why Chapter 2 doesn't start in verse 4. The first three verses don't belong here, they are part of the context of the previous chapter.
Second, time references in those verses jump around wildly. Just look at the sentance that starts in verse 4 and ends in verse 5. First it says its in the "day" that the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and the plants "before" they grew, and there wasn't a man to till the ground. Are we talking about sometime on day 1 or 2 on the time frame of the previous chapter?
There is no way to be sure, but we find out that in this time he creates man, which coincides with day 6 in the previous chapter's timeline. Its not that this cannot be what is going on, but the time shifts seem to come without warning, and therefore open to every interpolative whim of its wide readership.
But what can be nailed down here I think comes from a perspective change. We want to read this like a novel, or a history, and we run into problems like this.
Genesis sometimes makes more sense as a legal document, establishing the hows and why's and whatnots according to God establishing law with his own creation.
In this perspective, were finished talking about the world, and now is telling the story as very mankind-centric, which I believe is pre-earth (some reasons for this were in the previous discussion). There are a few reasons for this here also.
1) This is the generations of men we are talking about after all.
2) The ordering is different. Adam* comes after the watering of the ground, but before plants and animals. This denotes a chronological ordering of an obviously different nature then Chapter 1.
3) This all happened in a "day" or the day that God created things before they were established on earth.
4) We're not concerned about the "earth" as much as Eden, and a garden planted there for Adam's sake.
And what I count as one of the most beautiful expressions in such litigant language, God finds man to be alone so he makes a bunch of animals. But pets do not suffice, he takes and forms a real help-meet for him that is a Woman.
And in proclamation (the first commentary God gives about the purpose of man)...
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This happens before the fall, mind you. And if you ask me, its a foreshadowing of that event. I rather think that it places marraige of a man and a woman as the pre-eminant condition of the purpose and plan for mankind. Leaving their parents, is another. So much so that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are placed right there in reach.
And, that it is written in this book as a matter of legal record between man and God is simply beautiful. I don't know of many other authors that are able to establish such a litterary device, litigantly.
On another brief note, people often try to place the Garden of Eden as somewhere on the earth. They pick up on the river names, and try to work with it there. But to reach a conclusion on the whereabouts of Eden from this is patently fruitless.
First, the river in Eden starts in Eden, and then takes off in four directions. One is named Euphrates, and that is tempting to place in Iraq where there are rivers named Euphrates and Tigris.
But is there a river that runs from the same source as the Euphrates to Ethiopia? Is there four branches on the Euphrates? No.
Some will argue that geography changes a lot, and that it still could have been that river. Well thats a double edged sword, as geography changed a lot, and so do languages and place names, so saying it is the same river is just as foundless. How many places are called "Springville" or "Riverside" in the US?
Anyway, I'll admit that although I've offered thoughts where I could, I'm still knocked of my seat trying to get my arms around this chapter. Anyone that can produce a good commentary on this chapter for my sake is greatly appreciated.
_______________________
* Given the symmetry of the sentance in verse 4 and 5, I think we can infer that we are talking about God creating plants before they grew, and rain before were rained on, and mankind before he tilled the ground.
Gen. 1: This When; Gen. 2: Why That Then (Score:2)
(DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a partner, affiliate, etc. of the author, but I'm a big enough fan that I actually paid for the e-Sword CD. It's only $15 for almost everything.)
The task of communicating the chronology of creation is fully accomplished in chapter one of Genesis. Chapter two begins the long journey of communicating God's relationship with man. In that light, verses 1-3 are appropriately placed, for Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made on account and for the sake of man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27, Amplified Bible) Keeping the Sabbath holy is the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) and an integral part of God's covenant with man. The word Sabbath is found 151 times in the NIV Bible, not including Genesis since "Sabbath" had apparently not yet entered the lexicon.
The following verses are likewise meant to explain primarily God's relationship with man. The "generations" are the posterity or the progress of events relating to the posterity of the party to whom the term is applied. As the new-born earth is the "parent" of all later creation, so are Adam and Eve the original parents of all later humans. The simpler approach is just to take the word as meaning "history." It's good for us to value attention to detail, but I really don't think there's any special meaning to be gleaned from this little innocuous phrase.
There are many things to note about verse five. The focus here seems to be on crops. All you have to do is look at the very next phrase "and [there was] not a man to till the ground." Also, the Hebrew word for field often refers to "arable land," land cultivated or to be cultivated.
Furthermore, the words "in the earth" really mean "sprouted", "sprung up", or "growing", as it appears in many other translations. The NLT plainly says "there were no plants or grain growing on the earth." This is not the same thing as there not being any plants in existence. We find an answer to the chicken-and-egg riddle pertaining to plant and seed. God made seed-yielding plants on the third day, but no seed had yet yielded anything. Plants were created with maturity as man was. The account fits with science in demonstrating that there was no germinating, or sprouting/springing up until there existed sunlight and rain for photosynthesis to occur. Genesis becomes hard to understand when people inject millions of years into or between each day. If you receive it literally, it's easy to accept that plants went without sunlight and water and did not grow for a day or two. (Some kind of light had existed since the first day. It's possible that it was sufficient light for plants to grow, but I'm trying to be conservative in my assumptions. We're talking about matters of hours anyway, so it's no big deal.)
Beginning at Genesis 2, it's all about God's relationship with man. Chapter two complements chapter one. It backtracks and shows how the earlier creation had been a build-up to God's most-beloved creation: people. "The LORD's portion is his people." (Deut. 32:9) First, God establishes the day of rest to be the basis of the Sabbath. This explains why God spread his act of creating over precisely six days. It was to be a model of behavior for man and to teach him how to live. Later, God is saying that plants (day 3), sunlight (day 4), and rain (day 4?) were prerequisites for Him to establish the care-taker and benefiter of the land (day 6). Man is given dominion over the earth and is told to take care of it for his benefit, as explained later in the chapter.
Now, where are the Tigris, Euphrates, and Garden of Eden? If you try to give an answer more specific than "the Middle East", you're probably chasing the wind. Comparing ante-Diluvian (pre-Deluge/Flood) geography to post-Diluvian geography is an exercise in futility. The flood of Noah's time was the greatest catastrophe that has ever befallen the earth. The flood rose above the highest peak after only 40 days of rain. By my rough, conservative calculations (going by today's highest elevation), that's over 30 feet of rain falling every hour, or half a foot every minute, at sea-level. Imagine the colossal riptides and currents of all that water as it became one humongous, raging ocean! Surely mountains were leveled, new canyons carved out, and valleys were relocated. I found some good info on this and other issues in this post in a review of Reason, Science, and Faith [216.239.53.100].
Re:Gen. 1: This When; Gen. 2: Why That Then (Score:1)
There are many things to note about verse five. The focus here seems to be on crops.
Don't forget that you're coming into that mid-sentance. The subject was established in the previous verse. Its like saying "(4) These are the generations of the heavens and earth, when God created them (5)before they grew on the earth, or it rained or man tilled was around to till the earth."
I think the earth is the focus, with the idea coming across that God created all things before he placed them on the earth. Again reference another writing about the same time frame found in Job
But there is more in that verse, there is almost a Hebrew poetic kind of symetry...
A: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
B: when they were created,
B: in the day that the LORD God made
A: the earth and the heavens,
C: And every aplant of the field
D: before it was in the earth, (as you mentioned also translated as "sprouted" or "growing".)
C: and every herb of the field
D: before it grew:
E: for the LORD God had not caused to rain upon the earth
F: and there was not a man to till the ground.
It just breaks up there. E is just left on its own after such a beautiful setup. Man could have symmetry with generations and/or God in A, while ground has symmetry with earth. But rain should be in the middle, and there should be an account of man being made before he was formed on the earth also.
Now its always ugly when symmetry is used in discussions of translations, I know. Its not the strongest. But I really think that we are supposed to infer the part about man being made before he was formed on the earth.
But I digress, I realize that technically it could line up if you split up E and F thusly...
E: for the LORD God had not caused
F: to rain upon the earth
G: and there was not a man
H: to till the ground.
There are a few reasons I like this split. It denotes the primarchial partnership between God and man in producing food. God puts in his part, man puts in his part. It would simply infer that the covenant or partnership was not established yet. This is good doctrine to me, but lacks solidness in this application on further review. The lines about no man on the earth doesn't line up well with lack of rain, leaving God alone in the stanza. Also, the lining it up a lack of man to create the partnership with lack of rain seems dodgy to me here. Theres just no handle to grab onto. So it could be more indication that a stanza about pre-earth man is inferred or missing.
Its not doctrinally bad to think that there is a hidden symetry there of pre-earth life of man, if you believe that the sons of God mentioned in Job are us, since we are Gods children. Or if you follow what Christ meant when he said the blind man had not sinned before he was born (thus being the cause of the blindness).
Anyway, I agreed with your next paragraph but I have one thing to point out. The plants weren't growing in the darkness, Light was created on the first day. Christ said "I am the light and the life", there is no reason to think his light couldn't have sustained the plants indefinately.
For more commentary on the reasons I think that a 24 hour creation day is probably less conservative then just saying "day" you should refer to my previous journal [slashdot.org] on chapter 1. Its not that I think it didn't happen, I just can't find a reason it had to happen that way, or a reason to believe it did. Essentially, since the sun isn't created until the third day, I can't see how the time frame of the creation days should come out to be 24 hours anyway.
But I do agree that God had a certain maturity in his design when he created all things. He had everything created to fill a certain measure and purpose that was pre-determined before he caused it to grow on the earth. I think its creating us, in that level of maturity, yet pre-actual growing that God is talking about in verses 4-5.
I like your commentary on why the first three verses are included. It certainly makes sence.
All in all very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing. Chacham, or perhaps even you are probably chomping at the bit to run all over my flagrant abuse of Hebrew poetic styles. I better let it open to the onslaught and hit the submit button.
Re:Gen. 1: This When; Gen. 2: Why That Then (Score:1)
Oh and, as you might guess, I agree completely in the assertion that you can't say where the Garden of Eden was from the Bible. I'll one up you though becuase I consider even saying that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle east to be going out on a limb
Even if it isn't, in todays moderately calm ocean hit something like the gulf stream and your half way to America in 40 days and nights. And since all the land was closer together then, who knows how far Noah's boat traveled. Let alone how far humanity had migrated away from Eden in the hundreds of years between Adam and Noah.
Anyway, its just another thing to bounce off you while your here.
garden (Score:1)
Biblical chapter divisions are late (c. 13th century) and often arbitrary. in Jewish Tora scrolls, the equivalent of a chapter break is indeed after 2.3.
interesting that you propose that this is a kind of flashback to "before" creation. the rabbinic midrash places chapters 2-3 in the afternoon of the sixth day, before dark. in the midrash this is a powerful in-between time when creation was completed yet incomplete, when the "finishing touches" on the world happened. (By the time the Sabbath began, Adam and Eve had repented of their sin and God could be happy with the entire creation.)
I personally see the entire Bible as happening in mythical time, but still some times are more mythical than others.
where you have "shall" in 2.24 the Hebrew has only the imperfect, which can equally well imply "will" or "does". I would translate: therefore (since they were originally "one flesh") a man leaves his father and mother, and couples with his woman, so that they become one flesh. not necessarily a goal, just a statement of fact. incidentally, the wording implies a matrilocal society (man moving to live with his woman's family rather than viceversa), which we don't hear much of in the rest of the Bible.
Re:garden (Score:1)
not necessarily a goal, just a statement of fact.
You put it well. That sounds like what I was going for when I said it was a condition of the purpose of man.
the rabbinic midrash places chapters 2-3 in the afternoon of the sixth day, before dark.
I'm curious how they reconsile then the pre-conditional statements of the timeline (e.g. before rain, before plants grew, etc...) Is it much like sooperyuser suggested?
before (Score:1)
Re:before (Score:1)
Interesting, never though of it. Somewhat flies in the face of the Genesis group's contention that the period of days had to be 24 hours, since lack of insects for polination, and light for photosynthesis would have killed them off quickly. It seems to also contradict Sooperyooser's contention that they were created in maturity.
I'll admit that created in some state of maturity is how I envisioned the creation when I read it. Probably I got it from how it says everything was created, and then commanded to bring forth seed. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't created as a seed to begin with.
Doctrinaly, I resolve the differences in time frame based on a doctrine of spiritual creation preceded physical creation. Its part of what I wrote to you about the noble and great ones before the world was created that, in the book I referenced, the Lord showed Abraham, then identified Abraham as one of them.
So in this chapter, we talk about the generations in this spiritual creation state to physical state (growing from the ground, tilling the earth, sowing up flesh). Or at least that is the time frame alluded to when it says before rain, plants, etc... Things were created to a certain state of maturity, then moved to a different sphere to gain more maturity.
It might be what gives it that mythical quality you talked about in a previous post.
Thanks again, I've appreciated your perspective its very unique in its ability to be "eye opening".
creation (Score:1)
the way it's expressed is that plants were lying in wait just under-ground, ready to spring up.
creation doesn't have to be thought of as being in time. there's a sense in Jewish tradition that creation is constant; the rhythm of weekday work and Shabbat rest constantly recapitulates the creation week, and the morning prayers praise God for "renewing every day the primordial creation". I think it's true, though I hardly ever comprehend it.
When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:2)
The second use of day in the example (it took five days) clearly, from the context, refers to 24-hour, calendar days.
The third use (during the day) clearly refers to daylight hours, again this is obvious from the context.
In Hebrew, "yom" is quite similar to the English "day" in that it can have these three meanings. And there are also parallels to how to distinguish the meanings. A more reliable method is to examine the context in other parts of scripture, to see if there are absolute rules that can be worked out from non-controversial passages to apply to places we are trying to understand.
Following those guidelines, Genesis 2:4 is a use of "day" where it means a span of time.
Similarly, using other passages of the OT, a simple set of rules comes out for when to consider "day" or "yom" to mean a literal 24-hour calendar day. From the context in every other usage, any time a number (5 days, one day, day 3) is associated with "yom", it means a 24-hour day. Also, any time "evening and morning" is used with "yom", it means a 24-hour day.
In Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, and 1:31 we see both the number and the "evening and morning" phrase applied. Basically, this is about as clear as it can get in Hebrew that this means a 24-hour day. Evening, morning, number, day means 24-hour calendar day. There just is no plainer way to put it.
(many thanks to Ken Ham for the principles used in this writeup)
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
Interesting. But since the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, why do you think the days were 24 hours long?
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:2)
Recall that light was created in the beginning, and that light was separated from dark. Since one of God's attributes is that He is light (1st John 1:5), He could certainly have provided the light prior to the sun's creation.
I personally think the white hole cosmology [answersingenesis.org] of Russ Humphreys does an admirable job of explaining a possible way the creation week could have proceeded, giving both a six-day creation and billions of light-years to distant galaxies. And in that, light is produced by the process involved.
However I certainly do not claim to have special knowledge, and it's therefore certain that I am wrong about many things, and this could be one of them after all. But it seems to me that it's more straightforward to assume a day is a day is a day.
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
I think you might underestimate how much weight that holds with me. You'd just have to show where it does.
In fact, you might be interested in these discussions also on this topic (I'm putting you at the end of the threads of both, they converge pretty soon). They are a part of the discussion in Chapter 1.
An accord [slashdot.org] with your affirmation on Jesus as the Light. But it goes one step further and discusses the possibility of His light being the reference point of the seven creation days and not the sun.
Another account [slashdot.org] of why the day mentioned in Genesis 1 shouldn't neccisarily be confused with the 24 hour sun day.
I like Russ Humphrey's work, and I've throuraghly enjoyed AiG. I think their commentary on how the fall and subsequent de-evolution is a more fitting model for what most people call evolution. I'll be honest that since I do not think that the Genesis account discusses the creation of the earth and not the universe, that its resolving a concern I do not personally have.
I think your one of the most courageous and informed posters on Slashdot, so I hope you don't mind me offering some slightly different opinion.
Where it does (Score:1)
"it" being the bible, or in other words, I'm interested in seeing where people ascribe the 24hour day theory to God's word.
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
From your links, I gather you take a position that by analysing Genesis 1 in detail, it can be argued that without the sun the first days are not solar days and therefore could have other duration. Taken in isolation, I would have no problem with that point of view.
However there is a principle of exegesis called the law of first mention, which tells us that the first time a word is used in a particular context determines its meaning more significantly than any other single mention in the same context. This has been pointed out by far greater minds in the past, such as Arthur Pink, A.T.Pierson, and many others. One of their points is that God is immutable, and His word does not change.
Examples of the principle are in the first mention of the cities of Babylon and Jerusalem. Babylon is first mentioned in connection with Nimrod (whose name means rebel or revolter), while Jerusalem is first mentioned in connection with Melchizedek (meaning King of Peace). Those distinct meanings are important throughout scripture, all the way through the Revelation.
In Genesis 1:5 (And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day), the Hebrew literally reads "day one", or the beginning day. Note that nothing about the context of day changes in any of the "evening and morning, the Nth day" passages. They are as parallel in construction as they can be. Personally I'm uncomfortable with treating them differently since all the indicators (first mention, parallel construction) point to identical treatment.
Finally, you asked where God says the days were all the same length. In Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Those words were written upon stone by God Himself, see Exodus 32:15-16 "And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables."
I thank you for your most kind compliment, but as I feel sure you'll agree, all the glory is to God, not any of us. Where we err it is our error. I certainly welcome discussion and exchange of ideas, let's hone our thoughts and maybe we can get to better understand our awesome God a little better.
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
I can buy that, in fact I like it. That seems to be in accord with the notion that the creation days have a more important role, and our scientific time measurements are kind of a secondary subtext. Litterarily its God's light being the superceeding context of a day, and our Sun being created for our narrower reckoning of days and seasons.
Note that nothing about the context of day changes in any of the "evening and morning, the Nth day" passages.
You're right there is no context switch on the creation days. The use of the work evening and morning is particularly interesting. Lucifer is "son of the morning", while Jesus described his second coming in Matthew to be like a morning sunrise (cf Isaiah 58:8.)
You see, I find that our creation we live in is modeled after God's view of the universe. We see the sun arriving in the morning, and leaving at night.
That sun powers the creation, and gives us light. But its a model of God's arriving on the earth, and departure. But its just a symbol, a model of what we really should be thinking about. Think of how Christ used the terminology.
In John 9:4-5 "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
In Revelations 21:4 it describes that when Christ reigns on earth in the holy city "the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there," (cf Isaiah 60:19 "The sun shall be no more thy light by day...the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting blight").
So it definately looks to me like the creation day ruled by God's Light takes precidence over the scientific period of time measured by earth's rotation by the Sun.
Also note how the Sun, Moon and Earth are set up for "days and seasons", but all this happens in one much more grand concept of a day.
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Lets not forget he also blessed the seventh month, year, and seven times seven years. I take it to mean that the time frame is not as important as the rythm (ShoreSpirits commentary on this is rather compelling, I think). Also note that when the sabbath was changed to "The Lord's Day" it recognizes an event that happened on a day, rather then an event that was a day, yet is still called a day (24 hour day, not ambigious time day).
the writing was the writing of God,
But notice who he was writing it to. I'm sure that if he was writing it to Michael in heaven, it would have been referencing a the day mentioned in the first part "rested on the seventh day", but since the Israelites worked inside the solar day it was blessed and made for them, or "wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it". The sabbath [day] was created for the man, not the man for the sabbath.
let's hone our thoughts and maybe we can get to better understand our awesome God a little better.
I definately welcome your commentary, its sharp and well thought out. I think it contributes a lot. I was also interested in your take on the verse "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall leave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Especially considering that this was meantioning "leaving" before the fall, and that this is under the context of "the generation when God made the heaven and the earth".
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
You then continue on to where I think is much more dangerous groundThat is making fallible mankind's interpretations a subtext for God's holy word. I am quite uncomfortable with that for many reasons. For example just a couple of centuries ago it was strongly held by science that light was instantaneous, despite the scripture teaching otherwise in pretty plain language. Similarly there are known problems with redshift interpretations in the Hubble model, such as quasars connected to galaxies where the quasar has a negative redshift (or blueshift) and the galaxy does not. Yet they are connected; if redshift means doppler shift then that alone disproves the model, something is broken in it.
Re:When a day is a day, and when it isn't (Score:1)
Oh in that case, its alright to cling to what you want. Exegesis as you describe it isn't exactly the kind of thing that I find very useful in understanding scriptures. And although your use in this case is somewhat a stretched sence of exegesis, neither its understood meaning or how you use it mean much to me. I don't consider the Volgate interpretation to be "the" interpretation or that the Bible Canon, nor do I think it reasonable to think that the Bible continuity can be stretched beyond the notion that they are multiple books dealing with the same God. Any continuity by compelation is purely contravant in my eyes.
Its a typical tendency of mankind to try to apply their patterns and reckoning to have force in God's word and language. I find such attempts to be mingling the philosophies of men with scripture, and yields a dangerous combination. And that brings up the next point.
> and our scientific time measurements are kind of a secondary subtext.
That is making fallible mankind's interpretations a subtext for God's holy word.
To clarify my point it should read "and our scientific time measurements are man made contravance of a secondary subtext."
God never said his day was measured by our sun or earth. Its that simple, by what it says in Genesis 1, he does not at all. You said the writing of the 10 commandments makes such a link...
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
But its been shown rather handily that God was
1) referencing a creation day, and a man-reckoned day repectively.
2) made importance of the rythm more then the timing, as he also blessed the seventh month, year and seven times seven years (jubilee).
3) used morning, day, and night as references to his arrival, stay and departure from the earth. These definitions hold pre-emminent meaning to God.
Thats why I think people that try to overextend our reckoning to application on God's words are are doing themselves a dis-service. To rely on exegesis (which is not in itself a biblical doctrine) or other man-reckoned contravances to describe what God has already well enough described is to the detrement of the disciple.
Cartainly you do not wait for someone to go with you a mile to measure out travelling a second. Nor would you impose that english made measurement on what Christ had said in the Roman Era. Surely you don't keep a cloak around for when someone asks for your coat or assume that your Elizabethan understanding of a cloak is what Jesus was referencing.
What is meant by these verses, and the days of creation are plenty clear with the word God has given us. To find additional measure in them is simply looking beyond the mark.
As you point out science is fallible. So why take on a scientific measurement as God's word?