Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[annabenedetti]

A fundamentalist Christian will turn the other cheek and give him his cloak. A fundamentalist muslim will chop your head off.

Are you a fundamentalist Christian?

Did you have a point to counter that muslims chop off the heads of non-believers?

You said what a fundamentalist Christian does.

Are you a fundamentalist Christian who turns your other cheek and gives your cloak?

Or do you consider yourself not bound by those words because you're not a fundamentalist?

 

[lifeisgood]

Your information comes from a website that is trying to find middle ground between the Bible and evolutionism. What they do is compromise on what God says.

The two words ( bara / create and asah /make) are used interchangeably throughout scripture. For example Genesis 1:26 says "make man" and verse 27 says "create man".

In six days God created everything. It was not a re-do like some evolutionists want you to believe.*

I believe that God created everything in six days.
The Bible does not say that God created everything in one day.
No evolution involved.

It would be similar as to when we want to build a house, first you prepare everything you need, then you build the house.
You do not build a house without first preparing the plans for how you want the house to be. Well, God first prepared the plan, and then He put the plan into action.

So, at least for me, God preparing/creating the plans for the creation of man and then making/forming man does not mean evolution.

I do not see any 'recreation' in Genesis either.

 

[Wick Stick]

Interesting post. Will you suffer a critique?

There are a few things about the original text of Genesis that may help us see a more rational statement there than many have thought.

1:1 is a title like 2:4, 5:1 and many other places in Genesis. It is not action in the story yet.

Genesis 1 is written in a historical present tense. That is, the verbs are mostly phrased in present tense, in such a way that a bard or storyteller might recite the story as if it were happening now, for the benefit of engaging the listener.

1:1 is not part of the "action," as you say, since it is in perfect tense. But it is also not a title. It is backstory. It gives information that happens prior to the "action" of the story. "God had created the heavens and the earth."

The grammar of v2 actually goes: when God was creating the earth, it was already empty and void. Just note for now that there was material there already, in dissarray and emptiness. We don't know how long.

Yes. The first half of 1:2 is also part of the backstory, and is also in perfect tense.

'empty and void' (tohu wa-bohu) is an expression having to do with God's judgement. It is in Jer 4:11. The land of Israel was empty and void after the first captivity of Israel as a judgement.

'Empty' is a poor word choice for translation here, since, as you pointed out already, there is already "stuff" there. The KJV has "without form" which is on point, since the word indicates that there is chaotic stuff - "waters" in the verses that follow.

You have it a bit backwards, though. Jeremiah quotes Genesis; not vice versa. Because chronology. Since this is so... this choice of words doesn't indicate judgment in Genesis (though neither does it exclude it).

We just don't know what kind of thing offended God.

There are some clues in Job and the Psalms. Some of them have to do with a massive creature who was some sort of lizard in the sea.

The works you cited, have you read them fully? The "lizard in the sea" which you reference as being cited in Job and the Psalms is leviathan.

A little comparative theology goes a long way to understanding leviathan. The same lizard-snake-monster turns up in 3 other creation stories that I know of, perhaps more:

1) In the Babylonian creation story (the Enuma Elish), the god Ea slays a serpentine monster named Tiamat, and creates the earth from her body. Tiamat is a primordial monster who embodies the attribute of chaos, and represents the oceans. In slaying her, Ea brings order to the chaos.

2) In the Hittite(/Hurrian) creation stories (the Illuyanka Encyclical & the Song of Ullikummi), the god Tarhunt(/Teshub) slays the great serpent Illuyanka, who also embodies the attribute chaos, and thereby gives respite to the gods and allows the earth to exist.

3) The Orphic tradition of Greek mythology records that while Zeus was but a child, and before Kronos his father ever reigned or was deposed, all creation was ruled by a great serpent Ophion, who was wed to the daughter of the Ocean, and how Ophion elevated the seas so that earth scarcely existed and water held dominion over the earth.

Clearly, there is a strong association between water, and storms, and seas, and serpents, and the principle of chaos. The key to understanding all of these stories (and also Genesis 1) is to interpret them in terms of a conflict between chaos and order.

In all cases, God subdues chaos and brings order.

Understand Genesis then, in these terms. There is creation, and it is chaotic. The "action" in the story, then consists of God setting order to the creation, one piece, one day at a time.

Overall, it is a powerful argument for a protracted time of creation. God does not "poof" things into existence, ex nihilo, fully formed. Rather, he starts with a mass of unformed "waters" and shapes them methodically into the shape He desires.

Jarrod

 

[patrick jane]

how can wick stick join 7 years ago and have 2 posts ? highy improbable -

 

[6days]

Overall, it is a powerful argument for a protracted time of creation.

Good post, and welcome to TOL

Yes, creation was protracted over the course of 6 days, each with a evening a morning. Exegetical interpretation from the hundreds of other times the word YOM / day is used in scripture shows it is always a normal day when associate with a number (eg. 4th day), or with the words 'evening' or 'morning'.

God does not "poof" things into existence, ex nihilo, fully formed. Rather, he starts with a mass of unformed "waters" and shapes them methodically into the shape He desires.

Jarrod

No... He doesn't "poof". He speaks... and it was done.
Psalm 33:9 "For when he spoke, the world began!"
Genesis 1
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters ... 7 ... And it was so.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered ...And it was so.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation... And it was so.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights... 15 And it was so.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem
24 And God said, "Let the land produce...And it was so.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man ...
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

[Interplanner]

6days,
that's fine about the 6 days (except for the sun thing, see below), but not about what was there before. All indications are that there was a long period and a whole set of business we may never know about, but ending with the declaration that it was 'tohu wa-bohu' which (for the very same comparative reasons you just gave) has to do with complicated situations where an entity had to be judged by God and desolated.

We are not even told whether God wanted what was there before he did the 6 days. If the Big Bang is the correct view, then we have God saying he does not like random chaos, with which I have no problem. The image of God, based on Gen 1, is to turn chaos into order. Unformed into form, unfilled into filled. Can you see that this does not make the Bible deist or evolutionary. But it does make the period before the 6 days of creative activity to be both?

Now, on the sun. The material is written poetically. And the sun appears on the 4th day even though there is light and "evening and morning" each day. So slow down and think through what you mean about 'yom' and be sure to check Dr. Ross who seeks to support the Bible all he can and is also a professor in astrophysics, U of Toronto. reasonstobelieve.org, I think.

 

[6days]

that's fine about the 6 days (except for the sun thing, see below), but not about what was there before.

Whats wrong with the "sun thing"?

You don't believe God created light and made days before He created the sun?

Genesis 1:3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day

All indications are that there was a long period and a whole set of business we may never know about, but ending with the declaration that it was 'tohu wa-bohu' which (for the very same comparative reasons you just gave) has to do with complicated situations where an entity had to be judged by God and desolated.

You are inserting ideas into scripture that simply are not there, and contradicts what His Word tells us.

His Word tells us "In the beginning, God created...."

You seem to think there was other beginnings. There is no mention of this being a 're-do'. It was not 'a beginning.'

Also there is nothing at all about previous entities that had to be judged. That thought clearly contradicts Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"

If the Big Bang is the correct view,

It clearly isn't.

God's Word tells us that our world was first all water.
Big Bang wants you to believe our world was first a hot molten blob.

then we have God saying he does not like random chaos, with which I have no problem. The image of God, based on Gen 1, is to turn chaos into order. Unformed into form, unfilled into filled. Can you see that this does not make the Bible deist or evolutionary. But it does make the period before the 6 days of creative activity to be both?

Again you are inserting unscriptural ideas into the Bible in a desire to add billions of years into His Word.

God took 6 days to create. It was a process, and at no point does He tell us there was chaos. It was not chaos before there was light... It was not chaos before there was land... It was not chaos without life...or without wife.

"For in six days, the Lord created...."

Now, on the sun. The material is written poetically. And the sun appears on the 4th day even though there is light and "evening and morning" each day.

Nope... You are wrong. Genesis 1 is certainly NOT Hebrew poetry. And, even if it was...is that an excuse not to believe it as a narrative also? We can find similar structured writing styles in Kings and Judges... but do you dismiss it as untrue calling it poetry?

So slow down and think through what you mean about 'yom' and be sure to check Dr. Ross who seeks to support the Bible all he can and is also a professor in astrophysics, U of Toronto. reasonstobelieve.org, I think.

Dr Ross is wrong about quite a few things. He compromises on Genesis which leads to him compromising on Christian doctrine and the gospel. He is simply wrong about "yom"and does not use good exegetical principles (Scripture helping to interpret scripture) to arrive at his (unscriptural) conclusions.

 

[Wick Stick]

how can wick stick join 7 years ago and have 2 posts ? highy improbable -

Improbable but true. I had meant to register to respond in this thread, and found that I already had a login.

 

[Wick Stick]

Good post, and welcome to TOL

Thank you. Given your user name and tag line, it would seem that you are married to a young earth stance, and there is little that can be done to shake you off of it. Nonetheless...

Yes, creation was protracted over the course of 6 days, each with a evening a morning. Exegetical interpretation from the hundreds of other times the word YOM / day is used in scripture shows it is always a normal day when associate with a number (eg. 4th day), or with the words 'evening' or 'morning'.

Please... put down the microscope and look at the bigger picture. Genesis 1 lays out a timeframe of a week. Hebrew literature is replete with examples of authors describing metaphorical "weeks" in which each day represents a year, or even an entire generation of men.

Daniel lays out a timeframe of days and weeks. Nobody interprets them as literal days - they are thought to be years.

During the intertestamental period, the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees is essentially built on this concept of days and weeks as figuring years and generations, and 1Enoch also contains such a prophecy of "weeks."

Revelation's "week" of tribulation is said to be 7 years, and at various places "half a week" is described in terms of the number of days or weeks in 3.5 years.

Post-70AD Jewish writings (the Talmuds, Jasher) also build on this concept.

This metaphor of weeks and days figuring longer periods is so prevalent that we could actually consider it to be a sub-genre of Jewish writing.

Jarrod

 

[6days]

Please... put down the microscope and look at the bigger picture. Genesis 1 lays out a timeframe of a week. Hebrew literature is replete with examples of authors describing metaphorical "weeks" in which each day represents a year, or even an entire generation of men.

'Yom' can refer to a longer or even a shorter period of time than a 24 hour day. But, the meaning of the word is always determined by context. The days in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days, determined by the context.*

Daniel lays out a timeframe of days and weeks. Nobody interprets them as literal days - they are thought to be years.

If you care to give an we ample, (a verse from Daniel) I will show you how the sentence structure / context is different.

Revelation's "week" of tribulation is said to be 7 years, and at various places "half a week" is described in terms of the number of days or weeks in 3.5 years.

Revelations is not written in Hebrew, but even there the meaning of the word 'day' is determined by context.

This metaphor of weeks and days figuring longer periods is so prevalent that we could actually consider it to be a sub-genre of Jewish writing.

Nonsense.... the meaning is easy to determine by the context. Was Jonah in the fish for three long periods of time? What Christ in the tomb for three thousand years?

Evolutionism causes people to compromise on God's Word adding billions of years. It adds pain death and suffering before sin. *And evolutionism ultimately compromises the gospel and destroys the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection.*

 

[Stripe]

Hebrew literature is replete with examples of authors describing metaphorical "weeks" in which each day represents a year, or even an entire generation of men.

This is the best argument I've heard for the time frame hypothesis; I wonder why I have thought about it many times but never seen it here? :think:

The problem with saying there are examples of days meaning longer periods of time in the manner you do is that your analysis is incomplete and devoid of evidence.

You imply that the existence of such examples is evidence that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but I guess you would reject the notion that the existence of stories that use days as days are evidence for Genesis.

With Daniel, we interpret his weeks as years because there is contextual and historical evidence that supports such a reading. What contextual and historical evidence do you have to support the idea that Genesis cannot mean "six days"?

 

[Interplanner]

This is the best argument I've heard for the time frame hypothesis; I wonder why I have thought about it many times but never seen it here? :think:

The problem with saying there are examples of days meaning longer periods of time in the manner you do is that your analysis is incomplete and devoid of evidence.

You imply that the existence of such examples is evidence that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but I guess you would reject the notion that the existence of stories that use days as days are evidence for Genesis.

With Daniel, we interpret his weeks as years because there is contextual and historical evidence that supports such a reading. What contextual and historical evidence do you have to support the idea that Genesis cannot mean "six days"?

The historical evidence would be the geology; there isn't anything else available. In the text, there is the morning and evening in each 'verse' of the poem, but there is the sun on the 4th day rather than the first. There must have not have been a concern about light.

More important though is that 'tohu wa-bohu' has to be sorted out in v2 before going forward. It is the setting of the account.

 

[Stripe]

The historical evidence would be the geology; there isn't anything else available.

Geology overwhelmingly supports a YEC view.

In the text, there is the morning and evening in each 'verse' of the poem, but there is the sun on the 4th day rather than the first. There must have not have been a concern about light.

Light was created on day 1.

More important though is that 'tohu wa-bohu' has to be sorted out in v2 before going forward. It is the setting of the account.

Have you read the thread?

 

[6days]

The historical evidence would be the geology; there isn't anything else available. In the text, there is the morning and evening in each 'verse' of the poem, but there is the sun on the 4th day rather than the first. There must have not have been a concern about light.

More important though is that 'tohu wa-bohu' has to be sorted out in v2 before going forward. It is the setting of the account.

You have received poor info from someone and seemed to have bought into it.
God tells us He created light on day 1
God tells us He created the sun on day 4.
God tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin.

 

[Interplanner]

The light of the 1st day was not our local sun star (day 4) so there would not have been a 24 hour morning and evening. It would have been based on the local light... That is why there is a reason to think that that 'yom' is a period or epoch.

You seem to have a problem envisioning what the material says.

A radio talk host put it this way recently. He was in Hungary at a park and watched a guy talk to his dog in Hungarian. 'What an idiot!' he thought. 'the guy thinks the dog can understand Hungarian.' But then he realized the dog understood in the language he was raised in...

 

[George Affleck]

The light of the 1st day was not our local sun star

This is correct.

It would have been based on the local light... That is why there is a reason to think that that 'yom' is a period or epoch.

This is, sadly, incorrect.

There was no 'local' light.
There does not have to be a physical light source for there to "be" light.

God created the reality of light on the first day. This means that light came into existence and now had the possibility to emanate from any source of God's choosing and in His timing. He simply decided to wait until the fourth day to appoint the appropriate physical sources to rule the days.

God does not need to be validated or proven correct in any physical sense. Days existed before the sun in the same way - God appointed it to be so and it was.

 

[Caino]

The Genesis story was written by Bronze Age priests not God, that's why it's wrong.

 

[Stripe]

This is correct.



This is, sadly, incorrect.

There was no 'local' light.
There does not have to be a physical light source for there to "be" light.

God created the reality of light on the first day. This means that light came into existence and now had the possibility to emanate from any source of God's choosing and in His timing. He simply decided to wait until the fourth day to appoint the appropriate physical sources to rule the days.

God does not need to be validated or proven correct in any physical sense. Days existed before the sun in the same way - God appointed it to be so and it was.

All that was needed was a light source and a rotating Earth. There's no reason to insist that the light of day 1 was not physical.

 

[George Affleck]

All that was needed was a light source and a rotating Earth. There's no reason to insist that the light of day 1 was not physical.

What light source are you thinking of?

 

[Stripe]

What light source are you thinking of?

The one that sourced the light on days 1-3.