Bump while I read....
This is a near-verse by verse Bible lesson on Genesis Chapter one. I am indebted to Dr. Hugh Ross (http://www/reasons.org) and Don Stoner "A New Look at an Old Earth", for much of this lesson. This lesson is meant to be read along with a Bible open to Genesis Chapter One.
This explanation of why the text of Genesis one almost demands that we use a day-age interpretation of the chapter is near the end of this lesson, so if you are perplexed on that one, keep reading.
The first thing we need to do for Genesis Chapter One is determine the perspective of the observer. Descriptions that follow will make more sense if we know from what position the observer is describing the scene. For Genesis 1 we see that the position of the observer is not out in space somewhere, but just above the Earth's surface. Verse two says the Spirit of God was "hovering over the surface of the waters". Once it is understood that the things which follow are being described from this perspective it is much easier to reconcile science with the Bible. The two, far from being at odds, actually support one another.
The word used for "create" in verse one is the strongest possible Hebrew word for creating. It indicates a fiat miracle. The heavens and the Earth were created from scratch. This is another lesson, but the Big Bang is actually supportive of the text of Genesis one. Not every creation story has a begining for space and time. Many are more akin to what would be a "steady state" view of the universe. Hinduism and its ilk view the universe as eternal. The Big Bang affirms Genesis 1:1.
The Earth was "without form and an empty waste". It was dark, and watery. Science teaches that planetary systems form in huge solar nebulas. Stars form with disks of gas and dust around them that condense into planets. Scientists believe the early Earth was "without form" because it contained a large number of radioactive elements that produced tremendous heat. It had no solid surface, the heat from the decaying elements in the interior caused the surface to constantly melt and then re-cool. Today, the earth is mostly solid all the way down to the outer core. The outer core is still "formless" today in that it is hot liquid.
In the very early stages of this process of solar system formation, new stars shine very weakly and even inner planets have super thick atmospheres like the outer planets still do today. We think that the outer planets retain their original atmosphere due to their great distance from the Sun, while Earth's early atmosphere was blown away by the solar wind. It also undergoes other changes that have certain effects as we shall see later in the chapter.
The upshot of all of this is that it is dark if you are stuck just above the surface of the very early Earth. The crust is still molten just below the surface, and no continents have had time to form. In such a situation it is natural that water should cover the early Earth. The surface is flat. No pileup of continetal crust has had time to occur. The planet also had a lot of interior radioactive minerals that have since cooled down, so it was a lot hotter then, despite the Sun's weakness. Lots of steam is coming off of the world-wide ocean.
Verse 3. Basically God says it then it happens. No creative word is used here. That may indicate that it was unfolding according to God's plan. He did not have to intervene (i.e. "do anything"). Or perhaps His intervention was as subtle as it was profound. This is akin to the idea that you can change the course of a hurricane by manipulating a butterfly to move in the right direction- if you know enough, it does not take a lot of force.
What verse three is describing is the point where the Sun gets strong enough to poke through the nebula and thick atmosphere that surrounded the very early Earth. It would be a "bright nebula" at that point. In other words, a glowing cloud just like the ones we see today. This would either be an all-encompassing nebula or a dusty disk which had the early Earth enveloped within it. Light from the star would be diffused in all directions, and so there would be no night at first. No matter which side of the planet one was on as Earth rotated, one would see a dull glowing light in the sky. The observer is on a planet in the middle of a glowing cloud or disk. There is no "night" at this point, but as soon as the atmosphere gets thin and cools enough so that the steamy surface disapates somewhat, he can see the light that is diffused in the nebula (or disk).
Verses 4 and 5 speak of the point in Earth's early history when the nebula/disk is pushed away by the solar wind. God may have also done something providential to cause it to separate in "just the right way" to keep Earth on track for habitation later. Once Earth is out of the Nebula/disk, day can be distinguished from night.
Our observations of stars with planets shows that it is very unusual to have an orderly solar system like ours. Either a nearby huge star blows all the disk away (including the part that could later become a planet) before a planet gets a chance to form, or the dust stays around long enough to drag the local Jupiter into a super-close orbit. That Jupiter-like planet would wipe out any inner planets as it was dragged in.
Verses 6-7 seem to speak of the forming of a stable water cycle. We take it for granted, but it is by no means automatic that a planet will develop one. Before this there was probably a continous mass of steam from the ocean's surface to high in the sky. Now we have a cloud layer of water above and the larger layer of water in the world-wide ocean beneath.
Verses nine and ten speak of the emergence of continents. The radioactive elements that kept early Earth so hot that the crust was always melting and reforming have now decayed enough for solid rock to start piling up. The flat, water covered Earth now has a separate water and land part. These verses are another case where God did not have to "do anything". He just spoke it and it was done. Once again this may indicate that things were unfolding according to His plan.
Verse 11 indicates the emergence of plants. Once again, it is a case of where God said it and it was done. He did not have to "do anything" extra. He told the earth to sprout plants and the text says that THE EARTH did it. If the Earth did it (albeit on command), does the Bible have anything to say against the guided evolution of plants? The question is perplexing to me, but the fact is that the Bible uses words that indicate direct intervention for the creation of the universe and man, but much weaker words regarding plants. I don't want to rule out evolution where the bible itself does not rule it out, so I will just have to say "maybe, show me the science".
It is interesting to note that the three types of plants listed in verse eleven are listed in the order that the fossil record says they appear. "Tender vegetation" is stuff like mosses, liverworts, and the like. Those whose seed is in themselves (but without fruit) sounds like conifers (pine trees). Flowering plants come last in both the fossil record and Genesis 1:11.
It is no coincidence that verses 14-18 come after plants in verses 11-12. The setting of the Sun, Moon, and stars in the sky comes after the introduction of plants has substantially altered Earth's atmosphere.
The word for "made" in verse 16 is a very broad and general word. It can mean "caused (made) to appear". In this verse it apparently does mean that. Hebrew does not have verb tenses per se, but it does have a way of designating already completed actions. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but I am told that here it speaks of somthing that is an already completed action. I. E., the Sun, moon and stars were created in 1:1, but were not distinct or visible from the surface until the changes in the atmosphere prompted by the introduction of plants occured.
CO2 was changed into O2 in massive quantities when plants came on the scene. At first, there were no animals to turn it back into 02. This meant that global temperatures plummeted (from their previous steamy levels) as the greenhouse gas CO2 was removed from the atmosphere. This meant much less evaporation, and this meant much less cloud cover. As the world-wide cloud layer disapated, Earth had its first sunny days and clear nights.
The "waters that were above" referenced in verses six and seven became much less significant than the oceans at this point. So much so that later skeptics would say "how could those Hebrews think there was an ocean of water in the sky?". Truth is that there was, but it has lessened since that time.
Verses 20-22 are at least partly talking about what scientists know as the Cambrian Explosion, but I think it goes well beyond that to other creative events. The waters suddenly swarm with living creatures, and creatures that multiply in the water by swarms (certain insects?)
The word used here is translated "created", not the more vague "made". It is the same word used in 1:1 and indicates a fiat miracle. I have looked at it from every angle and I don't see how it permits pure naturalistic evolution to be fully or even mostly responsible.
That word is very strong. I have no objection to the idea that God built in a certain amount of adaptablilty into His creatures, and that evolution plays a role in their diversification, but I don't see a reasonable way around Divine (or at least intelligent) intervention either scripturally or scientifically.
The "winged creatures" or "fowls of the air" part is not so clear cut. Those words are sometimes translated as winged insects. If that is true it could be speaking about a very short period of direct creative acts and a lot of evolution since then. If it means birds as well, then we are talking about God the Son dropping newly created critters into the biosphere from the Cambrian to the Mesozoic at the least.
I don't know why this should be so hard to accept. We have scientists right now conducting genetic experiments that create creatures that evolutionary mechanisms alone would never create. Monkeys with the glow gene of a jellyfish in their skin for example. So God did what we are now doing, but on a massive scale.
Who would have guessed that birds came in the fossil record before Cows and dogs? They did though, as early as the dinos themselves for all practical purposes, and certainly before any land animal that the Hebrews would be aware of. It makes sense to put birds before the land animals spoken of in the next verses.
Verses 24-25 refer to the creation of land animals. The weaker word "made" is used. It does not mean that there was no direct divine intervention, I think there was. But the word is less strong than that used in 1:1 and the prior verses. I believe the word as used in this verse allows (barely) for God-designed natural systems to providentially work it out (evolution) even though I am not scientifically convinced that this is what happened. My guess is that the word is used because evolution did most of the gruntwork, while God dropped in some new life forms from time to time. An example would be a new family of animals being created in a very generalized form, and then diversifying into more specialized types within that family.
Verses 26-27 are where man is created. Guess what. Verse 27 uses the stronger word translated "created" rather than the more indirect "made". It seems that God (the Son) had a very direct and personal hand in the creation of the Human Race.
I do want to point out that if you read on in to chapter two, you realize that the text does not speak of the seventh day ending. There is no "and the evening and the morning were day seven". The implication is that the seventh day, where God has rested from His creative works, is still ongoing. This allows for a testable creation model. That is another topic though.
My main point here is that the Hebrew word "Yom" used for DAY is a very vague and broad word, much like our english word day. We can use the word for an age as in "the day of the dinosaurs". So did the Hebrews.
The phrase "morning to evening" means a 24 hour literal day, but the phrase "evening and the morning" DOES NOT necessarily refer to a literal 24 hour day. Even numbered days can mean a long period of time: In one place (Hosea 6:2) it seems to have a double meaning that indicates three days and a long period of time. In Daniel Chpater eight he was given a vision of 2,300 evenings and mornings in which the sancuary would be desolated. At the end of the chapter, the whole vision is referred to as the "vision of the evening and the morning". The plural is added in some translations, but it is singular. In other words, the phrase here seems to refer to a period of time equal to 2,300 evenings and mornings (7 years).
In Genesis chapters one and two, it is clear that the sixth day lasted more than 24 hours. Man tended the garden and kept it, named the animals, and had an operation that resulted in Eve. Quite a days work!
The issue of why God "had to do it this way" instead of desinging a world that would use all evolution and just unfold is a separate lesson. If God is all knowing, why did He have to make the universe, then jump in later and make animals and man?
Why did He not make a universe where it would all unfold without further direct intervention? After all, 98% of it seems to unfold without His direct intervention. A lot of it has to do with Freewill vs. Predestination and the question of how a loving God could create people that He knew would reject His love and be exiled to Hell. That one is going to have to wait for another night.
Ahban
FGS
5204 hudor {hoo'-dore}
Personally, I don't care much when or how the Lord created the Universe. To me, such investigations fall under the realm of science and are not a point of salvation. Metaphysically though, your opinions are very interesting. Thank you for posting this.
I'm perfectly willing to take Genesis as an allegory but I've pretty much rejected evolution. A zealous lack of skepticism by its defenders is probably my main cause of suspicion.
The theory's supporters have definitively claimed many things to be absolute truth which were later found to be false. They just nod their heads and continue on unphased.
My view is that God made the universe. How He did it and how He caused life to come about, I don't know.
First, I noticed "inerrant" doesn't seem to be much of a constraint when you are free to substitute different words and meanings as needed to arrive at whatever conclusion you wish to arrive at.
However, if God really said "make man in our image", and since man has three spatial dimensions and also a time dimension -- it implies God too had those characteristics, and therefore space and time DID pre-exist.
Of course, as I say, if you can redefine "image" to mean whatever you want it to mean, then the claim of "inerrancy" is a pretty cheap coin.
Hi...Alamo-Girl,
So good to see you posting again on FR : )
Thank You for the Excellent Work, will have to print it out, then my husband and I will read through entirely with the Scriptures.
So far at a glance I must agree with You, as I also believe that GOD spoke everything into existance.
HE always was and will always be, HE Created everything from Nothing, from a Void HE Created!
What a Marvelous and Awesome Creator we have, Amen & Amen!
The Holy Trinity: God The Father, God The Son and God The Ruach HaKodesh/The Holy Spirit are ECHAD - A UNITY OF ONE, and they did ALL of this for us...humankind, so that we may Fellowship with GOD, we are without excuse because we know The TRUTH.
(Romans Chapter 1)
Baruch HaShem/Bless The Name (of The Lord)!
Shalom & Ahavah/Love To You and Your Household.
Ancient religion amounted to attempts to communicate directly with the spiritual realm using prophecy, oracles, idolatry, divination, electrical gadgetry such as the ark of the covenant (primitive leyden bottle/capacitor) and similar means. The words "prophecy" and "prophet" permeate the books of the OT after genesis; it is remarkable that Genesis contains only the one vague reference to Abraham as "God's prophet" and even that is after the flood; the words "prophecy" and "prophet" do not occur elsewhere in Genesis.
As I view it, this means that before the flood, there was no need for any such extreme methods to communicate with the spirit realm; such communication was direct and natural. My own views on that sort of thing as well as on the question of the non-evolution of human language reside on bearfabrique
The spirit world is now strongly separated from our own physical realm. My own view towards theology says that the spirit realm is a totally different reality from ours, similar to the world of dreams, and that while God probably is omnipotent within his own realm, he has very limited powers within our own physical realm and that the arguments which atheists and evolutionists use regarding the question of why an all-powerful, loving God would allow evil and harm in the world are thus null and void.
My own belief is that genteic engineering and re-engineering were common things on this planet before the flood and that things like disease organisms, mosquitos, ticks etc. are clearly not the work of an all powerful, loving God. You didn't need God to create new life forms in that age. Conversely, whatever it was which WAS creating new life forms in that age of the world, has at least temporarily been shut down and turned off in our own age.
I do not see this notion of genetic engineering having been an antediluvian industry or passtime of some sort as prejudicial to religion; in fact, nobody should have an easy time believing that an all-poewrful God would have to go through 70 or more kinds of horses before arriving at the four or five kinds he wanted.
Likewise, the bible reads as if at least one of the calamities which separates our own age from past ages, the flood at the time of Noah, was a punishment visited upon the world by God for man's sins whereas a careful reading of the source material for the bible (Midrashim) along with other ancient works, indicates that those kinds of events and, in general, all major harm in this world, are things which occur in the physical realm and over which God, in his spiritual realm, has little if any control over.
It is a dogma of establishment science that the tale of the biblical flood is a fairytale or, at most, an aggrandized tale of some local or regional flood. That, however, does not jibe with the facts of the historical record. The flood turns out to hae been part and parcel of some larger, solar-system-wide calamity.
In particular, the seven days just prior to the flood are mentioned twice within a short space:
Gen. 7:4 "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights;...These were seven days of intense light, generated by some major cosmic event within our system. The Old Testament contains one other reference to these seven days, i.e. Isaiah 30:26:Gen. 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth."
"...Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."
Most interpret this as meaning cramming seven days worth of light into one day. That is wrong; the reference is to the seven days prior to the flood. The reference apparently got translated out of a language which doesn't use articles. It should read "as the light of THE seven days".
It turns out, that the bible claims that Methuselah died in the year of the flood. It may not say so directly, but the ages given in Genesis 5 along with the note that the flood began in the 600'th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) add up that way:
Gen. 5:25 ->"And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years and begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years.
<i.e. he lived 969 - 187 = 782 years after Lamech's birth>
And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years and begat a son. And he called his name Noah...
<182 + 600 = 782 also...>
Thus we have Methusaleh dying in the year of the flood; actually seven days prior to the flood...
Louis Ginzburg's seven-volume "Legends of the Jews", the largest body of Midrashim ever translated into German and English to my knowledge, expands upon the laconic tales of the OT. Midrashim amounts to the full body of rabbinical literature, and often can flesh out the laconic stories of the OT.
From Ginzburg's Legends of the Jews, Vol V, page 175:
...however, Lekah, Gen. 7.4) BR 3.6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah, God caused the primordial light to shine).... God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners...
The reference is, again, to Gen. 7.4, which reads:
"For yet seven days, and I shall cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights..."
The week of "God causing the primordial lights to shine" was the week of intense light before the flood.
What the old books are actually telling us is that there was a stellar blowout of some sort either close to or within our own system at the time of the flood. The blowout was followed by seven days of intense light and radiation, and then the flood itself. Moreover, the signs of the impending disaster were obvious enough for at least one guy, Noah, to take extraordinary precautions.
The ancient (but historical) world knew a number of seven-day light festivals, Hanukkah, the Roman Saturnalia etc. Velikovsky claimed that all were ultimately derived from the memory of the seven days prior to the flood.
If this entire deal is a made-up story, then here is a case of the storyteller (isaiah) making extra work for himself with no possible benefit, the detail of the seven days of light being supposedly known amongst the population, and never included in the OT story directly.
ISA 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.ISA 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
I have never seen anything in the bible or any other ancient literature which appears to talk about the creation of the entire universe. My own view based on what I read is that the idea of the big bang is BS based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of the redshift and that the same is true of the notion of an expanding universe. Having all the mass and energy of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes in fact; how's anything supposed to "big bang" its way out of that??
I assume that God and the universe itself have always been around.
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
That being said, you think your days can be long? Imagine his when he's busy.
7 of God's days to create all that we know isn't such a stretch.
If I could have placed a personal request it would have been trees that produce Flan in bloom. Otherwise I'm really keen on all his work. Was that thunder I just heard?!?...
*grin*