Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[George Affleck]

Your version distorts the text and destroys the gospel putting millions of years of death and suffering before sin by first Adam. Your version destroys the necessity of Christ's physical death and resurrection

Agree

 

[Interplanner]

Theistic evolution or the gap theory.

No. There may have been evolution, but it was not from "nothing." A person has to explain why tohu wa-bohu is there already. But creation starts with the forming and filling of the earth. There is no "gap" before v2 if v1 is not action but rather a title, like 2:4, 5:1 and many times in Genesis.

 

[Interplanner]

Agree

I don't know what tohu wa-bohu consisted of, but it was already there. The death that matters is death after creation is called good.

None of this has any affect on the importance of Christ. One thing a time please, you heady theologs. Let's see what the options are for tohu wa-bohu are first.

 

[Stripe]

Not true. Scripture does not say that.

“Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”
Genesis‬ 1:14-19‬ NKJV‬‬
http://bible.com/114/gen.1.14-19.nkjv

 

[Interplanner]

In the Hebrew there is no gap between verse one and two like evolutionists wish for.*
Hugh Ross compromises on scripture*

*A Hebrew scholar says...
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that*the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Lets see*what a Theologian thinks*of your ideas...
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3;*Romans 5:12–21;*8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

Lets check*what a scientist says...Dr Georgia Purdom (PhD micro biology) says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

And...What does Jesus say?*"Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

1, you can't make the death of trilobites of equal value to the death of humans after Adam. That's how PETA got started and people now want to kill the dentist. Kill! I don't know what 'tohu wa-bohu' had for life. But something was wrong and I think all its processes were abruptly stopped before God created.

2, 1:1 is a section title. Like 2:4, 5:1, etc. It is not action. There can't be a gap between 1 and 2 when 2 is when the opening view takes place and shows that things have already been happening. Rabbi Cassuto's commentary FROM ADAM TO MOSES on Genesis was the first place I saw these section titles documented. The material was memorized. A person was supposed to be given any of the section titles and just start reciting from that point on.

3, this is why the board of the NEB said that 'when God began creating the earth, it was formless and void' is the best sense of the Hebrew. So creating is a redemptive, tranformative act. It is not always out of nothing.

(There are two kinds of nothing, for the sake of Hebrews 11:3. One is no material at all. There is no proof of that in Gen 1:2. Another is that it is nothing like what we know. That is the sense of Gen 1:2. "What is seen (now)--the form of the earth as we have it--was not made out of what was visible (then)." This precludes a slow evolution, but it does not preclude material being there to start with. God formed shapes, boundaries of water, and filled with species, creatures and life. It appears suddenly and completely. Man especially is creative, recording, etc. all at once. No developing states. Possibly the Cambrian explosion, not sure.)

4, none of this affects Adam and Eve. I wouldn't even consider any change to that.

 

[patrick jane]

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.

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.

'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.

So at the end of Gen 1:2, We now therefore have:
an indefinitely old earth that is unformed and unfilled (we must assume he is referring to the visible surface, not the subterra).
2, it is in this condition because something was wrong and was judged. We are now reminded of an event that is coming shortly--the flood. 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.
3, the two terms 'empty and void' now set up an "answer" in the creative acts of God. Because there is a problem. First, he will provide some structures (again on the surface), and then he will fill those structures. So at the end of the 6 days of work, the place is un-void and un-empty, or, formed and filled.

We don't know how long this took, but as you say, he can speak things into existence as he wishes.

There are now some things that are more sensible to the OE scientist and yet the passage is still intact. In fact, paleontology refers to the Cambrian explosion, which is mysterious. That is referring to the sudden appearance of all kinds of species in the fossil record.

Resources:
Stroebel. THE CASE FOR A CREATOR.
Wakefield. GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE SEA MONSTER.
Walkte. CREATION AND CHAOS.
Ross. CREATION AND TIME.

run with this. I think you're really on to something -

 

[The Barbarian]

Lets check*what a scientist says...Dr Georgia Purdom (PhD micro biology) says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless.

I guess Georgia has no idea that evolution is perfectly consistent with Adam and Eve as real people. Which means she doesn't know much about scripture and she doesn't know much about science.

.the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

St. Augustine wrote of "The Literal Meaning of Genesis." But as he pointed out, a literal reading of Genesis does not mean the "days" (which actually in Hebrew could mean almost any length of time) were literal 24 hour days.

And...What does Jesus say?*"Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

Beginning of our race, or the beginning of creation?

Let's find out...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

God says specifically what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. So not the beginning of the world, the beginning of the human race.

 

[way 2 go]

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.

he created the mater and energy than gave it form

day one earth and light without form

day two and three gave form to the earth

day four form to the light

btw scale is
1 rotation of the earth = 1 day

 

[User Name]

I guess Georgia has no idea that evolution is perfectly consistent with Adam and Eve as real people. Which means she doesn't know much about scripture and she doesn't know much about science.

St. Augustine wrote of "The Literal Meaning of Genesis."

St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand...St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.​

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

 

[jamie]

Then God made two great lights...

The word "then" in verse 16 was added.

 

[Stripe]

The word "then" in verse 16 was added.

Uh. Do you mean translated? All of the words were translated.

 

[Stripe]

St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand...St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.​

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

Sorry. The Bible trumps what Biologos is selling.

 

[6days]

St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-1791), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand...St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended. The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.​

http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis

As Stripe said... "The Bible trumps what Biologos is selling."
What they sell is heresy..... pick and choose what to believe... Jesus may have made mistakes... etc etc

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There's no doubt in my mind that there is a gap, as the Body of Christ's entire purpose is to refill the vacated thrones in heaven, when Satan and his angels were cast from the third heaven.

But, I won't argue about it.

 

[Stripe]

There's no doubt in my mind that there is a gap, as the Body of Christ's entire purpose is to refill the vacated thrones in heaven, when Satan and his angels were cast from the third heaven.

Why does there need to be a gap for that?

But, I won't argue about it.

Boring!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why does there need to be a gap for that?

A gap just sounds cool.

 

[Stripe]

A gap just sounds cool.

Why can't the fall have happened when the Bible says it did: When Adam ate of the tree?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why can't the fall have happened when the Bible says it did: When Adam ate of the tree?

The fall of man, indeed.

 

[Stripe]

The fall of man, indeed.

So you think Satan fell prior to that? And then God put Satan in the garden with Adam?

 

[6days]

So you think Satan fell prior to that? And then God put Satan in the garden with Adam?

Genesis 1:31 kills that idea.

Also Ex. 20:11 tells us that everything was created in the 6 days of creation. Everything must include the angels.