What you're missing is that the words "create" and "made" used in Genesis 1-2 do not mean "out of nothing." They are just words that refer to something happening. Moreover, you claim that "light" in Genesis 1:3 means something different than "light" in Genesis 1:14 because you aren't consistent.
Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
What you're missing is that the words "create" and "made" used in Genesis 1-2 do not mean "out of nothing." They are just words that refer to something happening. Moreover, you claim that "light" in Genesis 1:3 means something different than "light" in Genesis 1:14 because you aren't consistent.
That's a good question. As far as the Hebrew language is concerned, there's no reason to think that "day and night" could happen without the sun (Genesis 1:14-18). Based upon the dark and story conditions that prevailed before Day One (Genesis 1:2), it's likely that what Genesis 1:3 refers to is the diffused "light" (from the sun) which shines through the rain clouds in the sky.
Day Four probably refers to when the actual sun, moon, and stars which became visible in the skies once the rain clouds (Genesis 1:8-10) had cleared as the flood conditions (Genesis 1:2) dissipated.
Yes, I agree. As Peter said, the "heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water, and by water" (2 Peter 3:5).
6days
New member
What I'm missing is why you want to keep re-inventing what God says. He does not tell us that he is remoulding a previous creation. He does not call it a new beginning. He tells us that in the beginning, and in *six days He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.Rivers said:
Also... you seem to jump from one poorly created argument to another. ( moving the goalposts). *This started with you saying "There is nothing about "creating" the sun on Day Four.. So.... what was that? Doesn't your Bible tell you that He made the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day?
Consider also that the Hebrew wording does not allow for a time before "one day"...It does not say "first day". (If you want the distinction explained, please ask)
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Heb. 11:3
No... I claimed no such thing. I did however state that I believe what God tells us. He created light on day 1. He created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.*Rivers said:
Rivers.... you should examine the reasons you reject what God tells us in Gen. 1 *I'm not sure why you think God creating light before the sun is a problem. Do you also not believe Him in Rev. 21:23? (Light without the sun)*
Peter argued against 'Evolutionists' (Epicureans) back in NT times. *(Epicureans rejected what God tells us in Genesis. And, the same flawed arguments have persisted down through the ages. In 1554, John Calvin said "The day-night cycle was instituted from day one - before the sun was created. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light. That he is able to impart to us without the Sun or the Moon......"
"The sun moon and stars were created on day 4 after the Earth."
6days
New member
Perhaps I have answered this question in the above post.
Your reading is too simplistic and doesn't account for all of the evidence. I agree with what is plainly stated in Exodus 20:11 about God making the heavens and earth in "six days." However, this was a restoration event, and not an ex-nihilo creation event. We know this because the place was already "formless and void" (i.e. an empty wasteland) and covered with "deep waters" prior to anything that was commanded by God on Day One.
I'm familiar with the ancient Hebrew and how the vocabulary is used. It doesn't matter if it is translated "Day One" or "first day." The context still shows that the creation is a restoration process.
The context of Hebrews 11:3 has nothing to do with the Genesis creation story. The "ages" (AIWNAS) that were framed by the word of God is referring to the people of faith who preceded the coming of Jesus Christ and died without receiving the promise of eternal life. The term "ages" (AIWNAS) refers to people and not the geophysical elements of creation. Please read Hebrews 11:5-40.
I'm not rejecting anything the word of God says in Genesis 1-2. I just don't think your interpretation is reasonable or consistent with either the meaning of the ancient Hebrew terminology or the context of the story. I'm offering a different explanation that seems more exegetically and logically sound.
6days
New member
It's not my reading; it's what God's Word plainly says. His Word is not complicated. Although there have always been people rejecting God's Word, the majority of the church fathers and Christians have not imposed complicated interpretations (and added billions of years) as you seem to do.*Rivers said:
Thats not what scripture tells us. Thats your attempt to compromise secular opinions with God's Word.Rivers said:
That isn't what God tells us. He tells us "In the beginning*God created*the heavens*and the earth.**Now the earth was formless*and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep,*and the Spirit of God*was hovering*over the waters.*Rivers said:
Wasteland? Nope... thats your addition to scripture. His Word tells us He created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty and dark. Over the 6 days of creation, He formed and filled the earth and made light.*
You either are not famiar with cardinal and ordinal numbers in Hebrew; or, you do understand but you add secular opinion to scripture in spite of knowing.*Rivers said:
Thats what you keep saying; but not what God says. The context of Genesis 1:1 is a singular event.*Rivers said:
*Rivers said:
I think the only reason you can say such a thing is to deny that God spoke the universe into existence.*
Here is what a couple typical commentarys says*Rivers said:
Elicott
"That the worlds were framed.—Literally, that*the ages have been prepared.*The remarkable expression which was used in*Hebrews 1:2*is here repeated. The complete preparation of all that the successive periods of time contain is the idea which the words present. The narrative of the first chapter of Genesis ascribes the whole creation of “the heaven and the earth” to God; and associates with “a word of God” every stage in the preparation and furnishing of the earth. ..."
Benson*
"Through faith we understand that the worlds*— Although the expression,*τους αιωνας, generally signifies*the ages,*yet here the subsequent clause determines its signification to the material fabric of the world, comprehending the sun, moon, and stars, &c., (called by Moses the heaven and the earth,*Genesis 1:1,) by whose duration and revolutions time, consisting of days, months, years, and ages, is measured;*were framed*—Formed, fashioned,*and*finished,*as the word*κατηρτισθαι*implies, properly signifying to place the parts of any body or machine in their right order..."
No.... you are offering a contradictory account to what God tells us.* You try to re-explain everything God says.Rivers said:
BTW... Do you still think we can't have light without the sun?
The context is the beginning of human history. We know from other scriptures the earth was not originally created without form and void and in darkness. What would be the point of that kind of creation.
The earth became as it was described in the beginning of human history.
6days
New member
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Ex.20:11
Yes... He created it formless and empty. He tells us how He formed and filled over six days. He could have created in an instant, but He did it in six days as a pattern for us. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Keep in mind that Genesis and other Old Testament books were part redactions and edits from older works. Each time they edited they left signs of the original which I agree are inconsistent fragments with the larger claims of the new narratives. For instance one book has the Israelites interbreeding with and assimilating with the Canaanites, another part has them destroying them all.
Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, is not a work of science and it should never even be attempted to make it scientific. That is a disservice to both science and the Bible. The Bible is what it is; a work, inspired by God, intended to convey those truths that God wants conveyed. God never intended to convey any science.
If you know the scriptures, you would understand that "formless and void" refers to an existing land area that has become uninhabitable and is considered a "wasteland" or "wilderness" (Jeremiah 4:23-26). That is one reason we know that the Genesis creation story is about the restoration of the Land, and not the creation of the "universe"(which was a concept unknown to the ancient Hebrews).
Benson's opinion here is misleading. The verb KATARTIZW does not imply "material fabric." His comment is a typical example of the careless use of lexical sources that often characterizes Bible commentaries. The entire context of Hebrews 11 is about "faith" (Hebrews 1:1) and those through the "ages" (Hebrews 11:3) who expressed their faith in different ways in order to please God (Hebrews 1:5).
Well, of course he did. That's why the angels sang and shouted for joy over a useless earth covered with clouds. Who wouldn't?
Surely you can do better than that.
:rotfl:
The difference between us us that I say there was light other than that provided by the sun for the first three days that accounted for the "evenings and mornings," while you say it must have been the sun the whole time. This leaks over to the concept that "evening and morning" are not inherently linked to the sun. There could be evening and morning with a suitable alternative light source.
Your position is not supported by the claim that "the sun ... was present on Day One ... because the Hebrew writer indicated that there was already "evening and morning, day and night" on Day One," because "evening and morning" does not mean there must have been a sun.
This assumes the truth — the fallacy of begging the question — of your position.
The text says the sun was created on Day 4. It is reasonable to assume that the light described before that was from something else.
Apart from the words used.
Sure, there is. When the text says the sun was made on Day 4, there is great reason to assume the light of days 1 to 3 was from something else.
The explanation is that simple.
So?
The concept of a 6 day creation came from the confusion about Adam and Eve's first 6 days after arriving on a preaveously evolved and fallen old earth. When the Hebrew priest were creating their exaggerated history they drew upon existing lore from Mesopotamia. There is much more world history that predates Adam and Eve.
Unfortuantely, there's no substantial evidence that this was the case. Scholars have been ganging up on the "other ANE sources" approach for the last ten years in order to get their books published. There's no exegetical reason to try to force the ancient Hebrew text to conform to "Mesopotamian lore." The whole creation story makes perfectly good sense on its own terms.
When you claim that there was "another suitable light source" to explain your reading of Genesis 1:3-5, you have to be able to show what that was (and why the word "light" suddenly changes its meaning halfway through the days of creation).
I'm simply trying to point out the importance of reading the entire creation story in its full context. From both an exegetical and a logical standpoint, it's unlikely that the writer intended "light" and "evening and morning" to be caused by something different on Day One and Day Four.
Throughout the rest of the OT, there is no evidence that any other source of "light" was ever associated with counting "days" other than the sun.
What? Are you claiming there was no sun to provide photosynthesis for plants and trees during the age of the dinosaurs?
That's absurd.
In the context of the creation story, the writer indicated that it was the "lights in the heavens" that were for the purpose of "separating light and darkness" and "governing day and night" (Genesis 1:14-18). This is the simplest explanation of what what happening in Genesis 1:3-13 as well.
Your reading of the text unnecessarily assumes that Day Four is referring to the creation of the sun. However, the language can also be understood to refer to the "lights in the heavens" becoming visible for the first time.
The stormy conditions described in Genesis 1:2-11 can allow for the fact that the "lights in the heavens" would not have been visible until Day Four (even though the "light" from sun would have shown through clouds during the daytime). The "waters above the expanse" (i.e. rain clouds) would have obscured the sun at first (Genesis 1:6-8).