Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[Rivers]

I believe when God says "the beginning"... it was the beginning.

This naive approach doesn't work in scripture because "the beginning" never refers to the starting point of the Universe or planet Earth as we know it today. In fact, "the beginning" doesn't always refer to the Genesis creation either (e.g. Genesis 10:10; Psalms 111:10; Mark 1:1, etc).

When God says He created everything in six days...I believe He created everything in six days. When God says death entered the world through Adam...I believe death entered the world through Adam.
When God says He created woman from Adam's rib...I believe God created woman from Adam's rib.
When God tells us He created Adam from the dust...He means it.
Etc ...

Other Christians believe this too. However, it doesn't logically follow that believing in the "six days of creation" (Exodus 20:11) requires your misunderstanding of what the Genesis creation was referring to. According to scripture, the "six days" followed after the Land was already covered with "darkness" and "deep waters" (Genesis 1:2). The apostles also understood this (2 Peter 3:5).

 

[Stripe]

The account of Creation in Genesis is not meant to teach Astronomy.

Why not?

And you missed the question I asked.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rivers]

The world was in darkness rather because of the spiritual condition of Mankind as the law of the jungle was rampant. Hence, the Lord foretold the rise of Israel as the light of the world, according to Jesus himself in Mat. 5:14.

This interpretation doesn't fit any of the Hebrew language used in the Genesis account. There was no "mankind" or "Isreal" when God said "let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). Moreover, the purpose of the "light" was to separate "evening and morning" (Genesis 1:4-5; Genesis 1:14-18).

Just because "light" and "darkness" were later used (metaphorically) to refer to spiritual knowledge and spiritual blindness, it doesn't logically follow that this was the meaning in the context of Genesis 1. In the context of the Creation story, the "light" came from the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18).

 

[Rivers]

The surface of the earth was in darkness because of cloud cover. The earth was covered with water and heat caused evaporation producing the cloud cover. When the cloud cover was thinned sunlight appeared.

Good points.

This is why the writer explained that there were "waters above the expanse" (Genesis 1:6-7). The ancient Hebrews understood that the clouds were "the water jars of the heavens" (Job 38:37) and that these watery clouds created "darkness" (2 Samuel 2:22; Psalms 18:11).

 

[Rivers]

Not really astronomy, no. But it is meant to teach history.

Good point.

However, the history is limited to what took place in the region described by the writer in Genesis 2:8-14. The Hebrew creation story was not intended to have a global or universal scope.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Ezekiel 28:12-17 You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.

You were the anointed cherub who covers, I established you.
You were on the holy mountain of God, you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you.

By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within and you sinned, therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God and I destroyed you, O covering cherub from the midst of the fiery stones.

Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor, I cast you to the ground...

Thanks

 

[Rivers]

That too.
I don't think we ae going to agree Ben. I believe Genesis is the history of the universe...of Israel....and of all humanity.

The ancient Hebrew language did not have any vocabulary to express the modern concept of "planet" or "universe." Thus, there is no reason to claim that the "history" in Genesis 1-2 was intended to have such an application.

Moreover, the writer of the Creation story plainly said that "God called the dry ground, earth" (Genesis 1:11) and that "God called the sky, heaven" (Genesis 1:8). This shows that he understood that "the heavens and earth" merely referred to the local region (cf. Genesis 2:8-14) as it would be perceived by any ordinary person.

 

[Samie]

This naive approach doesn't work in scripture because "the beginning" never refers to the starting point of the Universe or planet Earth as we know it today. In fact, "the beginning" doesn't always refer to the Genesis creation either (e.g. Genesis 10:10; Psalms 111:10; Mark 1:1, etc).

Other Christians believe this too. However, it doesn't logically follow that believing in the "six days of creation" (Exodus 20:11) requires your misunderstanding of what the Genesis creation was referring to. According to scripture, the "six days" followed after the Land was already covered with "darkness" and "deep waters" (Genesis 1:2). The apostles also understood this (2 Peter 3:5).

KJV 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.

The above verse is God's declaration that in six days He finished creating the heaven (earth's atmosphere), the earth and all that are therein.

KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Obviously, the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 is the beginning of the 6 day-count, otherwise God did not create the heaven and earth in 6 days, and God would have lied in Exo 20:11. But because God cannot lie (Heb 6:18), then the "beginning" in Gen 1:1 is the beginning of the 6 day-count and God did create heaven and earth in six days.

 

[Wick Stick]

Abraham would have spoken a Proto-Saharan language that predates Hebrew.

Ok, you've got me puzzled on that one.

Even if we ignore that Ab-raham is probably a title rather than a proper name... wouldn't a guy from Ur of the Chaldees speak Akkadian?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists have such a problem with light. God tells us He created light. We don't question*light without the sun*in Revelation, so why in Genesis?

Because Revelation is written as prophecy, not history. Genesis already happened, so you should be able to tell me more about it than something that has yet to happen

 

[Crucible]

Young Earth Creationism is not based in reason, but rather a stubborn demand that Genesis be taken rigidly literal. And then on the other extreme, the notion of evolution is based in sheer appeal to atheist theory, which attempts to explain without a guiding force.

As far as I'm concerned, both 'YEC' and 'theistic evolution' are perpetuated by people who simply choose not to be honest with their self. On one hand, YEC can be debunked without even a single mention of evolution, and on the other, theistic evolution as it pertains to the Abrahamic God throws the Bible off it's very foundation.

 

[jamie]

Young Earth Creationism is not based in reason, but rather a stubborn demand that Genesis be taken rigidly literal.

Also they don't take into consideration that Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world.

 

[Samie]

Young Earth Creationism is not based in reason, ...

So saying, you mean your old earth creationism is based in reason. Can you tell me your reason(s)?

I, too, believe in YEC, that is, the earth is, based on biblical chronology, less than 10,000 years old.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So saying, you mean your old earth creationism is based in reason. Can you tell me your reason(s)?

I, too, believe in YEC, that is, the earth is, based on biblical chronology, less than 10,000 years old.

May I ask what your reason for rejecting the scientific consensus is? Other than the Bible saying so, of course

 

[Samie]

May I ask what your reason for rejecting the scientific consensus is? Other than the Bible saying so, of course

Hi Greg;

I'm afraid I have no reason other than what Scriptures say. But let me try to explain why I reject what you call the "scientific concensus", as far as the age of the earth is concerned. Let me start by quoting Paul the apostle:

KJV 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.​

Well, I'm Samie, not Timothy. But what I mean is let's keep our discussion healthy and not reduce it to profane and vain babblings.

I believe that when God created Adam, He created him a full grown adult. Now, IF one scientific-minded guy sees Adam the next day, which is day one of Adam's existence, "scientific concensus" will be on his side if he estimates Adam is around 25 years old, that is around day 9130th of his life. Were the guy to use devices and methods of 21st century technology, he would get a passing mark for his estimate of Adam's age multiplied 9130 times over, one day after Adam came out of the Creator's hands.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hi Greg;

I'm afraid I have no reason other than what Scriptures say. But let me try to explain why I reject what you call the "scientific concensus", as far as the age of the earth is concerned. Let me start by quoting Paul the apostle:

KJV 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.​

Well, I'm Samie, not Timothy. But what I mean is let's keep our discussion healthy and not reduce it to profane and vain babblings.

I believe that when God created Adam, He created him a full grown adult. Now, IF one scientific-minded guy sees Adam the next day, which is day one of Adam's existence, "scientific concensus" will be on his side if he estimates Adam is around 25 years old, that is around day 9130th of his life. Were the guy to use devices and methods of 21st century technology, he would get a passing mark for his estimate of Adam's age multiplied 9130 times over, one day after Adam came out of the Creator's hands.

Well I appreciate your reply and frankness.

Why do you feel that Genesis must be literal? Is it not possible that God created the Earth, and life, long long ago and that life has evolved over time?

 

[Crucible]

KJV 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Science was not then what it is now. 'Chemistry' was 'alchemy' and 'astronomy' was 'astrology'. All of it generally had a underlying assumption of metaphysics or concerning the transmundane. This was back when pestilence was a curse and not disease, you see.

'Science', in the time the KJV was translated, was understood to be 'knowledge' or 'gnostic'.

 

[themuzicman]

It's a fallacy to impose the concepts of other writers upon the context of the person who wrote the Hebrew creation story. The writer must be interpreted within the context of his own use of the language.

This ancient Hebrew writer was telling his people that the "lights in the heavens" were the cause of the "separation of day and night (Genesis 1:14) which is what was established by the light on Day One (Genesis 1:3-5). We have to be careful to read the entire story in its own context.

lol.. you committed your own fallacy

 

[Rivers]

lol.. you committed your own fallacy

Do you know what a fallacy is, or are you just trying to sound smart?

Why not give a substantive response if you have a better interpretation to offer.

 

[Samie]

Well I appreciate your reply and frankness.

Thank you, brother.

Why do you feel that Genesis must be literal?

It's because of God's statements recorded in the Bible, and especially Exo 20:8-11 where God Himself declared He created heaven (earth's atmosphere) and earth in six days, and that the Sabbath - the 7th day of the week - is the memorial of His creative act the last 6 days that transpired as recorded in Gen 2:1-3.

Is it not possible that God created the Earth, and life, long long ago and that life has evolved over time?

That is possible IF and only IF there are no contravening Scriptural accounts especially Exo 20:8-11.