A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[Mr GLee]

I beg to differ:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Genesis 1:5

God who hides his face is Light.

Yes, twelve hours rest (night) was needed for photosynthesis in order to breath (oxygen)

Twelve hours he revealed his face as very essence of light and twelve he hid his face as night .

In that way. Without parables the signified tongue of Christ that reveal and hide. . . . .Christ spoke not

Job 23:9 the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him: he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see.

God hides Satan blinds

2 Corinthians 4:4I n whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them

 

[EarlyActs]

I beg to differ:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Genesis 1:5

Many things in Genesis 1 sound one way and mean another:

Creating earth sounds miraculously instant but was not. There is duration to 1:2. There are steps to the Days.

Vs 14-17 sound like all the celestial objects were made but it’s only our system.

It sounds like there’s only one human couple start, yet the expression for all life about reproducing is ‘swarm with swarms’. Add to this the fact that when Cain seeks refuge, he builds a city… populated by whom?

It sounds like utter darkness in 1:2, but starlight is arriving. That feature makes it astonishingly realistic as to POV.

 

[Mr GLee]

Many things in Genesis 1 sound one way and mean another:

Creating earth sounds miraculously instant but was not. There is duration to 1:2. There are steps to the Days.

Vs 14-17 sound like all the celestial objects were made but it’s only our system.

It sounds like there’s only one human couple start, yet the expression for all life about reproducing is ‘swarm with swarms’. Add to this the fact that when Cain seeks refuge, he builds a city… populated by whom?

It sounds like utter darkness in 1:2, but starlight is arriving. That feature makes it astonishingly realistic as to POV.

The glory of God who is light introducing his Spirit .Let it lighten the whole world as the glory of God .

The actual work in the twinkling of the eye. . .demonstrated in 6 day, resting of the 7th.

Genesis 1King James Version In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form,(invisible) and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

 

[EarlyActs]

I beg to differ:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Genesis 1:5

Here is a salient point from the New Bible Comm, M. Kline: light '...was introduced not to eliminate earth's darkness but to alternate with it in the good order of Day and Night,' (cp. Ps 104:20-23.)

God was organizing things, but the light was not what we know as daylight 3 days later.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I have to depart on this. My understanding is different on the kavov. They knew the kavov was outside our local system. Those stars did not provide communication like the shama-radiant until Abraham, and then it was not the content about Christ but the tally of the descendants by faith.

Within the shama-raqia, there are parallels to the ancients, but the verbal text itself do not have those. The only way you can class the thing with later neighbors is to ignore the verbal custody and make the text an original writing by Moses apart from the recitation custody. But There are way too many particulars that date back to first-hand verbal recitation.

I would like to know what this evidence is. To prove your point, you would have to show not only a chain of custody handing it down without alteration, but also show that the author of Genesis wrote it down again without alteration/editing.

In other words you would be doing to the text what Strauss-Eliot did to the Gospels in the 1800s, post-dating all sources as invention later.

But as the curators for the British Museum said about Gen 1-11 in the James-Griffith study ‘Tracing history Through Genesis’ (YouTube), the other neighbor accounts are defective attempts to copy the original.

I agree that the neighbours accounts were defective - that was the point. Genesis 1 has a lot of levels and one of which is a polemic against the neighbours ideas - ridiculing their ideas and presenting Yahweh as the one true Creator of all things.

 

[Sereni-tea]

God called the time period Day but not the light. Day 4 is not redundant. Nothing needed sunlight until day on Day 4. The vegetation only had one dark night before sunlight.

Between an invented light Day 1 and starlight, I believe the rational route is starlight.

That's the thing - it is rational to you, but would not have been to them.

Its arrival matches 3 things In the text if earth is kept as the POV:
1, the utter darkness of 1:2, no starlight bouncing off the deep
2, the minimal light needed to designate an evening start of days 1-3. It’s from a few distant stars.
3, the near omission of the distant stars in 14-17 after obvious primary attention to our system. Objects that moved frequent enough to communicate signs were also part of Shama-raqia. Kavov did not. Then 2000 years later, the kavov also have message about the tally of the Seed of Abraham, not the message. The message of the gospel dates back to lines in ch 3 and 4. There is even a birth where Eve thinks she has given birth to the Seed—the Lord. And for a while men did call on the Lord—expressed need for the redemption of this Seed, which is Christ. But the population widely did not, ch 6.

It does not match the text's use of the term 'Day'.

Thanks for your interactions. I will write an article on the integrity of the Seed message from the early generations. How it was kept intact.

Thanks to you also for this interaction.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Many things in Genesis 1 sound one way and mean another:

Huh? This sounds more like mysticism than anything I said.

Creating earth sounds miraculously instant but was not. There is duration to 1:2. There are steps to the Days.

Vs 14-17 sound like all the celestial objects were made but it’s only our system.

It sounds like you are making the text say what you want. But yes, the earth was there before the creation week began.

It sounds like there’s only one human couple start, yet the expression for all life about reproducing is ‘swarm with swarms’. Add to this the fact that when Cain seeks refuge, he builds a city… populated by whom?

The text in Genesis 1 says God created mankind male and female. It doens't say how many. I do agree with you about there being more than one couple.

It sounds like utter darkness in 1:2, but starlight is arriving. That feature makes it astonishingly realistic as to POV.

It is still utter darkness whether starlight was arriving or not. But starlight isn't 'Day'.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Here is a salient point from the New Bible Comm, M. Kline: light '...was introduced not to eliminate earth's darkness but to alternate with it in the good order of Day and Night,' (cp. Ps 104:20-23.)

Yes, as I mention verse 5 states:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

God was organizing things, but the light was not what we know as daylight 3 days later.

Yes, God was organising things. Here He is organising time - day and night.

Meredith Kline is an excellent resource. He holds to a framework view of Days 1-3 creating the domains and Days 4-6 populating those domains. His view is that the days of Genesis 1 are organised thematically, not sequantially. If you haven't read it already I recommend his article Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony.

 

[EarlyActs]

I would like to know what this evidence is. To prove your point, you would have to show not only a chain of custody handing it down without alteration, but also show that the author of Genesis wrote it down again without alteration/editing.



I agree that the neighbours accounts were defective - that was the point. Genesis 1 has a lot of levels and one of which is a polemic against the neighbours ideas - ridiculing their ideas and presenting Yahweh as the one true Creator of all things.

How did Noah know what Adam did? How did Noah know that after Abel's death, 'men began to call on the name of the Lord'--only to see that fade to opposing forces?

In the absence of other records, and the preservation through recitation, there is the answer.

 

[EarlyActs]

I would like to know what this evidence is. To prove your point, you would have to show not only a chain of custody handing it down without alteration, but also show that the author of Genesis wrote it down again without alteration/editing.



I agree that the neighbours accounts were defective - that was the point. Genesis 1 has a lot of levels and one of which is a polemic against the neighbours ideas - ridiculing their ideas and presenting Yahweh as the one true Creator of all things.

The opposition was ridiculed, but that naturally happened by preserving the original. 'All paganism is disintegration or degeneration from Genesis' --the British Museum curators in P. James-Griffith's 'Tracing Genesis Through History.'

 

[EarlyActs]

That's the thing - it is rational to you, but would not have been to them.


It does not match the text's use of the term 'Day'.



Thanks to you also for this interaction.

Gen 1 is a record of Adam's understanding. I cannot see anything that would not be rational to him. The supernatural is kept to a minimum (the Spirit and the signs). At the latest, it would be Adam's recollection at his death. Noah was alive before he died.

 

[EarlyActs]

That's the thing - it is rational to you, but would not have been to them.


It does not match the text's use of the term 'Day'.



Thanks to you also for this interaction.

The objection about the text's use of the term Day is too subjective for me. There needed to be a start to the evening, the first part of each day. What is available in the picture to do mark that? It would be the first or evening star. This is why everyone should draw their own storyboard images for each action that happens; as though you were preparing to create a film of it.

 

[EarlyActs]

Huh? This sounds more like mysticism than anything I said.



It sounds like you are making the text say what you want. But yes, the earth was there before the creation week began.



The text in Genesis 1 says God created mankind male and female. It doens't say how many. I do agree with you about there being more than one couple.



It is still utter darkness whether starlight was arriving or not. But starlight isn't 'Day'.

I think you mean starlight is not daylight; but that is not the point of the verse. The point is to express a marker for the start of evening, the first part of Day 2. The verse is not saying Day 1 was a day like Day 4 for some unusual reason. It is saying Day 1 was organized and had an endpoint--the star that marked the start of Day 2, as was continued going forward. This would not have been 'shama' but one of the 'kavov.'

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, as I mention verse 5 states:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.



Yes, God was organising things. Here He is organising time - day and night.

Meredith Kline is an excellent resource. He holds to a framework view of Days 1-3 creating the domains and Days 4-6 populating those domains. His view is that the days of Genesis 1 are organised thematically, not sequantially. If you haven't read it already I recommend his article Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony.

I quoted Kline because it shows he knew there was no daylight. But it was organized. I did not know that he has altered that level of the material. (sighs)

 

[EarlyActs]

There had to be an event that resulted in the object called earth in 1:2 before Day 1, in utter darkness, and submerged. I do not know why this is a big deal, with all the Bible's reference to the 'spreading out' or the 'stretching.' Gen 1 is confined to the 'shama'; the spreading out explains the 'kavov' which gets short schrift in Gen 1 for obvious reasons. See my many comparisons on off-topic tangents in Genesis. It is a very common style.

 

[EarlyActs]

A heads up that on Tue at 5pm Seattle time Discovery.org will host a 20th anniversary of the doc THE PRIVILEGED PLANET 25th Dr. M. Ross will speak on the age of the earth (confirm) at Snohomish County Apologetics Forum, although the best link is the live feed from Atonement Free Lutheran Church, Arlington, WA. That would be 6 pm Seattle time, and something on Saturday.

 

[EarlyActs]

A heads up that on Tue at 5pm Seattle time Discovery.org will host a 20th anniversary of the doc THE PRIVILEGED PLANET 25th Dr. M. Ross will speak on the age of the earth (confirm) at Snohomish County Apologetics Forum, although the best link is the live feed from Atonement Free Lutheran Church, Arlington, WA. That would be 6 pm Seattle time, and something on Saturday.

Not sure how the 2 announcements got jammed together. The wonders of updates?

#2: On Fri.25th, Dr. M. Ross will speak...

 

[EarlyActs]

Here are two further thoughts on Day 1 light:


Two Further Thoughts On Day 1 Light

For lack of better expression, there are two cases of a feature of creation not being that feature. One is that the light of Day 1 is not light as we know it just 3 days later. The YLCWJ’s view is that this is distant starlight arriving.



The 2nd example is the waters. It is used in the ordinary sense when Gen 1 begins, but on Day 3 there is separation of those above from below, and we would say the above are clouds until we realize the term is ‘shama--raqia’—that term which runs a continuum from sky with birds in it (Day 5) to our local system, to a few further moving objects. It is the furthest reach of these waters which Dr. D. Faulkner has proposed are truly the edge of the universe bouncing back CMB.



But from Adam’s POV, ‘shama raqia’ would not have reached as far as modern measurement. He simply was marking 3 things:

his location here on earth

the firmament between earth and the static distant worlds

the distant stars or kavov.



Ouranos

The Greek term ‘ouranos’ should be noted about Day 1 light. This term is used for heavens by the LXX as they wanted to convey to the 1st century Greek-writing world about the Hebrew term shama.

We can hardly fail to notice the connection to Orion, the constellation we see as a prominent cluster-shape (at least from earth’s POV).

But this is not the point here. The point here is that likelihood that Day 1 light was Orion as a marker of Day 1’s evening, the start of each of the days going forward. There would be some light here, but the light of Day 1 was not daylight as we would find 3 days later. Instead the marking--organizing function was the emphasis.

 

[EarlyActs]

I beg to differ:
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Genesis 1:5

But would He call Day 1 light the same as Day 4?

 

[Sereni-tea]

How did Noah know what Adam did? How did Noah know that after Abel's death, 'men began to call on the name of the Lord'--only to see that fade to opposing forces?

In the absence of other records, and the preservation through recitation, there is the answer.

It is an answer but not necessary the answer. And again, even if correct, it doesn't mean the author of Genesis wrote it down word for word. The structure of Genesis is too precise to think it is just random stories handed down from generation to generation. The material - however it was provided - has been carefully edited together.