Genesis, Start To Finish

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Hello;

Genesis is a one of those things that are called "foundational". What that means
there's some pretty serious ground work laid in this book and a poor knowledge of
it will handicap one's understanding of the rest of the Bible; most especially the
New Testament portion.

Some really cool stuff is in Genesis: the origin of the cosmos, the origin of human
life, Adam and Eve, the origin of marriage, the Devil, the first lie, the so-called
original sin, the origin of human death, the origin of clothing, the first baby, Cain
and Abel, the first murder, the Flood, the tower of Babel, and the origin of the Jews.

Big-name celebrities like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael, Rebecca,
Jacob and Esau, and Joseph are here too.

Not here are Moses vs. Pharaoh and the parting of the Red Sea. That story is in
Exodus; Samson and Delilah are in Judges, David and Goliath are in 1Samuel; and
Ruth and Esther are in books of the Bible named after them.

The author of Genesis is currently unknown; but commonly attributed to Moses.
Seeing as he penned Exodus (Mark 12:26) it's conceivable that Moses also penned
Genesis; but in reality, nobody really knows for sure. Genesis may in fact be the
result of several contributors beginning as far back as Abel, the earliest of the
Bible's prophets (Luke 11:50-51)

Scholars have estimated the date of its writing at around 1450-1410 BC; a mere
3,400+/- years ago, which is pretty recent in the grand scheme of Earth's
geological history.

Genesis is quoted more than sixty times in the New Testament; and Christ
authenticated its Divine inspiration by referring to it in his own teachings. (e.g. Matt
19:4-6, Matt 24:37-39, Mk 10:4-9, Luke 11:49-51, Luke 17:26-29 & 32, John
7:21-23, John 8:44 and John 8:56)

Buen Camino
(Pleasant Journey)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible doesn't waste words with an
argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather, it starts
off by candidly alleging that the existence of the cosmos is due to intelligent design.
I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its objects, and all of its forms
of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to convince the critics; then they're pretty
much beyond reach.

The creation story wasn't written for the academic community anyway, nor was it
written for people who indulge in debating and perpetual bull sessions that never
get to the bottom of anything, nor for people who regard this book as just another
chapter of "Pride And Prejudice" to dissect in a Jane Austen book club; rather, the
creation story was written for the religious community.

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that
what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3)

There's quite a bit of disagreement related to origins; viz: the origin of species, the
origin of the universe, and the origin of life; but not much debate about the origin
of matter; defined by Webster's as 1) the substance of which a physical object is
composed and 2) material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is
composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons,
that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy.

Without matter there could be no universe and there could be no life; so the origin
of matter then is where we have to begin.

The Hebrew word translated "God" is 'elohiym (el-o-heem') which isn't the
creator's personal moniker, rather, a nondescript label that pertains to all sorts of
deities; both the true and the false and/or the real and the imagined; plus
magistrates (Ps 82). The noun is grammatically plural but doesn't necessarily
indicate more than one. Sheep, fish, and deer are plural too but don't always
indicate more than one of each. There are other gods in the Bible, such as Baal and
Dagon, to whom the word 'elohiym is applied and those gods aren't composite
entities; e.g. 1Kgs 18:25-29 and Jgs 16:23.

● Gen 1:1b . . created the heavens and earth--

The word for "heavens" is from a somewhat ambiguous Hebrew word that pertains
to everything that can be seen in the sky when we look up with either the naked
eye or a telescope-- both in the atmosphere and the celestial regions, i.e. clouds
and stars.

The Hebrew word for "earth" is yet another of the Bible's many ambiguous words.
It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or even the whole planet.

● Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an energy that
would make it possible for matter to coalesce into something coherent.

● Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This deep is a curiosity because 2Pet 3:5 says the earth was formed out of water
and by water. So I think it's safe to conclude that every atomic element that God
needed to construct the Earth was in suspension in this deep; viz: it was more than
just H2O; it was a colossal chemical soup, and apparently God created enough of it
to put together everything else in the cosmos too.
_

 

[Sereni-tea]

● Gen 1:2a . . the earth being unformed and void

That statement reveals the earth's condition prior to the creation of an energy that
would make it possible for matter to coalesce into something coherent.

The phrase which you have here "unformed and void" is from the Hebrew phrase tohu wa-bohu. While it is a difficult phrase to translate, I think the idea we are supposed to understand is not that the earth was 'unformed' but rather that is was like an empty wasteland. Compare this verse with Jer 4:23 where the same Hebrew phase is used.

● Gen 1:2b . . and darkness was over the surface of the deep

This deep is a curiosity because 2Pet 3:5 says the earth was formed out of water
and by water. So I think it's safe to conclude that every atomic element that God
needed to construct the Earth was in suspension in this deep; viz: it was more than
just H2O; it was a colossal chemical soup, and apparently God created enough of it
to put together everything else in the cosmos too.
_

Would the ancient audience of this text have thought in terms of a chemical soup? If we want to understand this passage we must be careful not to put our modern-day ideas onto the text.
In the ancient world something didn't 'exist' until it had a role and function. They thought in terms of order. In the ancient world, water and darkness were both symbolic of non-order.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Hebrew word for "earth" is yet another of the Bible's many ambiguous words. It can indicate dry land, a country, and/or even the whole planet.

Where in the Bible has that word ever referred to the whole planet?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

Where in the Bible has that word ever referred to the whole planet?

The Hebrew word in question is 'erets (eh'-rets) which is a common word for the
entire planet beginning with Gen 1:1 and thereafter in numerous verses not only in
Genesis but also throughout the entire Old Testament. If you have access to an
Englishman's Concordance, plug in Strong's number 776 and it will show you
every location.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:2c . . and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

God's spirit is a bit controversial. Some say it's a supernatural force, e.g. Ezek
36:24-28 where God's spirit is shown to be effective at moderating people's
behavior. Others insist it's an aspect of God's sentient existence, e.g. Gen 6:3
where His spirit is shown capable of debate, and Isa 63:10 where God's spirit was
unhappy with His people's conduct.

The Hebrew word here for "waters" is plural noun which means it can be translated
either water or waters. Plural nouns are pretty much at the discretion of translators
whether to make them one, or more than one, in a particular context.

The Hebrew word for "moving" is located in only three places in the entire Bible.
One is here, and the others are at Deut 32:11 and Jer 23:9. The meaning is
ambiguous. It can refer to brooding; i.e. a mother hen using her wings to keep her
chicks together, and it can refer to incubation and/or quaking, shaking, and
fluttering. Take your pick. I'd guess that the Spirit's movement was sort of like the
hen keeping the colossal chemical soup from running rampant and spreading itself
all over the place before God began putting it to use because up to that point, the
cosmos' natural laws governing matter didn't exist yet.

● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The Earth wasn't illuminated by celestial sources till the fourth day when God
created the Sun, Moon, and Stars; so the light in this verse is controversial.

According to 2Cor 4:6 the light wasn't introduced from outside the cosmos, rather,
it came from within, i.e. the cosmos was created to be self illuminating. In other
words: God himself wasn't the light spoken into existence per Gen 1:3

In the very beginning, the earth was chaotic, incoherent, and had neither form nor
function. As such it was unsuitable for human habitation (Isa 45:18). To get it into
a useful condition, it was necessary to subject the earth to law and order. (cf. Prov
6:23 where law is depicted as light)

● Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God didn't see the light until He said let there be light; meaning of course that
natural light didn't exist until God made it.

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good. In
point of fact, darkness typically represents bad things in the Bible; while light
typically represents good things. It's been a rule of thumb from the very beginning.

NOTE: It's curious to me that most Bible students have no trouble readily
conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g. the
cosmos, the earth, the atmosphere, water, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars,
aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life. But when it comes to light
they choke; finding it impossible within themselves to believe that Genesis just
might be consistent in its description of the creative process.

● Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Defining the properties of Day and Night may seem like a superfluous detail, but
comes in very handy for organizing the three days and nights related to Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection per Matt 12:40.
_

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Hebrew word in question is 'erets (eh'-rets), which is a common word for the entire planet beginning with Genesis 1:1 and thereafter in numerous verses ... throughout the entire Old Testament.

Question: The word erets is used more than 2,500 times in the Old Testament. In how many of those instances does it refer to our world as a planet?

Answer: Zero.

Those who wrote the Old Testament, and those to whom it was written, had no concept of the Earth as a planet—a concept that didn't enter any human lexicon until somewhere around the third century BCE—therefore they could not intend to convey that meaning. It is related to the Arabic word ard (أرض), which also means earth, land, country, or ground. For them, the word erets referred to land, territory, ground, surface, country, etc., without specifying its shape or size, or position in the cosmos.

 

[CrowCross]

Where in the Bible has that word ever referred to the whole planet?

The very first verse...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then there is Gen 6:7 concerning the flood....So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

That's 2....I'm sure there's more.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The very first verse...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then there is Gen 6:7 concerning the flood....So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

That's 2....I'm sure there's more.

You have provided two examples of where that term appears, but that doesn't magically establish that it refers to our world as a planet in either one of those instances. Interpreting a text requires a bit more than simply quoting it.

But I am willing to overlook the stark absence of any meaningful exegesis if you could just demonstrate that anyone living 2,600 years ago had any concept of our world as a planet.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Be careful DialiecticSkeptic that you don't mire your wheels in the mud of a trivial
pursuit and get left behind 'cause we've a long ways to go and I must keep moving
if I'm ever to complete Genesis in the limited amount of time my esophageal cancer
circumstances have given me to work with.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a
creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those two
kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they are as unalike as
sand and gravel.

Creation days are a bit problematic because there were no sunrises or sunsets to be
seen on Earth till the fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict
chronology of evening and morning defines neither a natural day nor a calendar
day, rather, it defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to obtain a
full 24-hour day, we'd have to define creation's Days as a day and a night rather
than an evening and a morning.

In other words: the evenings and mornings relative to creation days aren't solar
events. The terms are merely index flags indicating the beginning and end of an
unspecified period.

Well; thus far Genesis defines Day as a time of light rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark; plus there was no Sun to cause physical evenings and
mornings till creation's fourth Day so we have to come at this issue from another
angle apart from physical properties.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the sixth
Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God create beasts
but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by several
million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should be taken to
represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an unreasonable estimation;
for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same
word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in Gen 2:4
refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it
defends the suggestion that each of the six Days of creation were longer than 24
hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and not all that easy to
interpret sometimes.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about everybody
who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days of creation
consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up stumped when
trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and
factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous,
etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and religion
complement each other: science answers questions that religion doesn't bother to
answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well how the
cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should exist at all. Well;
in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is found in intelligent
design; which is a religious explanation rather than scientific. Religion's "why" is
satisfactory for most folks. No doubt most scientists would prefer something a bit
more empirical.
_

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Be careful, DialiecticSkeptic, that you don't mire your wheels in the mud of a trivial pursuit ...

I don't understand your metaphor. Is trying to understand the Hebrew word erets a trivial pursuit?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:6-8a . . And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

We can easily guess what is meant by water that's below the sky. But is there really
water that's above it? Yes, and it's a lot! According to an article in the Sept 2013
issue of National Geographic magazine, Earth's atmosphere holds roughly 3,095
cubic miles of water in the form of vapor. That may seem like a preposterous
number of cubic miles of water; but not really when it's considered that Lake
Superior's volume alone is estimated at nearly 3,000.

Our home planet is really big; a whole lot bigger than sometimes realized. It's
surface area, in square miles, is 196,940,000. To give an idea of just how many
square miles that is: if somebody were to wrap a belt around the equator made of
one-mile squares; it would only take 24,902 squares to complete the distance;
which is a mere .012644% of the surface area.

Some of the more familiar global warming gases are carbon dioxide, fluorocarbons,
methane, and ozone. But as popular as those gases are with the media, they're bit
players in comparison to the role that ordinary water vapor plays in global
warming. By some estimates; atmospheric water vapor accounts for more than
90% of global warming; which is not a bad thing because without atmospheric
water vapor, the earth would be so cold that the only life that could exist here
would be extremophiles.

How much water is below the firmament? Well; according to the same National
Geographic article; the amount contained in swamp water, lakes and rivers, ground
water, and oceans, seas, and bays adds up to something like 326.6 million cubic
miles; and that's not counting the 5.85 million cubic miles tied up in living
organisms, soil moisture, ground ice and permafrost, ice sheets, glaciers, and
permanent snow.

To put that in perspective: a tower 326.6 million miles high would exceed the Sun's
distance better than 3.5x. It would've exceeded the distance between Mars
and Earth on July 27, 2018 by 5x.

● Gen 1:8b . . And the evening and the morning were the second day.

At this point, there was no sun to cause physical evenings and mornings; so we can
safely assume that the terms are merely index flags indicating the completion of
one of creation's six-step processes and the beginning of another.

● Gen 1:9 . . And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

At this point, the Earth's surface likely resembled the texture of a billiard ball so
it would remain entirely flooded were it not reshaped.

"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered
it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your
rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains
rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a
boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth."
(Ps 104:5-9)

That passage is stunning; and clearly way ahead of its time. Mountains rising, and
valleys sinking speaks of magma pressure and tectonic plate subduction-- powerful
forces of nature that keep the Earth's surface in a perpetual state of alteration.

Now, it's right about here that young-earth theorists have a problem because it's
obvious from physical evidence that much of the Earth's higher elevations were
inundated for a very long time before they were pushed up to where they are now.

Take for example Mount Everest. Today its tippy top is something like 29,029 feet
above sea level. The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near its summit proves that
the Himalayan land mass has not always been mountainous; but at one time was
the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is confirmed by the "yellow band" below
Everest's summit consisting of limestone: a type of rock made from calcite
sediments containing the skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who
lived, not on dry land, rather, underwater in an ocean.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:10 . . And God called the dry ground Land; and the gathering together of
the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good.

"good" meaning not that the land and seas are morally acceptable, but rather,
perfectly suitable for the purposes that God had in mind for them.

● Gen 1:11a . . Then God said: Let the land produce vegetation

The land at this point was likely solid rock; which would require some changes to its
chemistry if it was to sustain a large variety of plant life.

Soil formation is a very slow process, sometimes taking as long as a millennium to
make just one inch; which at first would consist of little more than powdered rock.
In order for soil to become really productive, it needs organic material mixed with
it. So it's my guess that the very first vegetation that God created were species that
thrive on stone, and little by little their remains would amend the powder to
increase its fertility.

Some of the lyrics of one of AC/DC's songs says: "It's a long way to the top if you
wanna rock 'n roll". Well, it was an even longer ways to the soil from which human
life was eventually brought into viable existence.

The Hebrew word for "produce" appears in only two places in the entire Old
Testament; here and Joel 2:22. It basically means to sprout. Here and in Joel, it
refers to species of plants where none of their kind previously existed.

The varieties of vegetation is boggling. It's estimated between 250,000 to 315,000
species-- that's the plants we know of but doesn't include the ones that may have
existed in the past prior to catastrophic weather conditions and extinction events.

● Gen 1:11b-12 . . seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with
seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so. The land produced
vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with
seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

According to Gen 2:4-5, the land's vegetation was dormant in the beginning; it
didn't actually flourish until the atmosphere began producing moisture.

NOTE: It's believed by science that there was an era in Earth's youth called the
Carboniferous period when it was blanketed by dense jungles and forests. As those
plants and trees died, and were buried beneath layers of sediment; their unique
chemical structure caused them to be "cooked" into solid coal; and there is really a
lot of it.

Why isn't the planet currently blanketed by dense jungles and forests? Well; the
earth's conditions today cannot produce enough humidity, nor enough rain, nor
enough global warming to sustain the kinds of heavy vegetation that once existed
in the Carboniferous era. In other words: the Earth, over time, has managed to
give itself a remarkable make-over; and at least one element of its make-over are
the mountains.

The ranges now in existence; e.g. the Andes, the Himalayas, the Rockies, the Urals,
the Appalachians, the Cascades, the Brooks Range, the Alps, etc; and the various
minor inland and coastal ranges weren't always in place where they are now. Those
were shoved up over time by the forces of tectonic subduction, volcanism, and
magma pressure. Even Yosemite's massive granite monoliths haven't always been
there. They were formed deep underground and then somehow pushed up to where
they are now.

Anyway, point being; those ranges have a very great deal to do with the Earth's
current weather systems.

● Gen 1:13 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:14a . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky

On the fourth day, God spent time up in celestial regions. It might seem odd that
He began work on the surface of the Earth, and then before finishing, stopped short
and moved off into space. Why not finish building down here on the planet first?

Well; at this point in the process of creation; there was light throughout the cosmos
but it wasn't sunlight and planet Earth was very dark and freezing cold. For
example: the dark side of the Moon gets down to minus 279º F (-172.8° C) so it
was time to turn man's home into a greenhouse if anything meaningful was to live
down here.

A major player in the Earth's water cycle is evaporation, which is driven by the Sun.
By means of evaporation, the earth's atmosphere gets enough water vapor to form
the clouds that produce precipitation.

The Sun also plays a role in temperature variations that make conditions like
humidity and fog possible. Temperature variations also play a role in the process of
erosion; which assists in soil formation.

Many varieties of vegetation depend upon the annual cycle of the four seasons of
Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter; seasons which would not be possible
without the Sun.

Oxygen is an essential gas for sustaining life on Earth and a very large percentage
of it is produced by photosynthesis which is a chemical process that works best in
sunlight. No doubt the original atmosphere contained oxygen enough, but that
would eventually be absorbed by oxidation and other kinds of chemical activity.
Plant life plays a major role in both filtration and replenishment; hence the need to
get a Sun shining as soon as possible.

The atmosphere contains on average 19.5 to 23.5 percent oxygen; even with all
the fossil fuel burned around the world, along with the destruction of savannas,
prairies, woodlands, wetlands, and rain forests, coupled with volcanic activity; the
percentage remain fairly stable.

Today's science is aware that the Moon doesn't generate its own light; but prior to
that discovery, people no doubt regarded the Moon as a second Sun; especially
seeing as how from the perspective of Earth, the Sun and the Moon appear to be
the same size in diameter, and both appear to circle the Earth.

● Gen 1:14b . . to distinguish Day from Night;

On the first day of the creative process; God defined Day as a condition of light;
and defined Night as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day--
as pertains to life on Earth --is distinctly separate from Night rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark.

The properties of Day and Night come out so early in the Bible that they easily
escape the memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always
thinking of Days as periods of one Earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for
calendars but can lead to mistakes when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions,
and/or chronologies, e.g. Matt 12:40.

● Gen 1:14c . . they shall serve as signs for the set times-- the days and the years;

The Hebrew word for "set times" is sometimes translated relative to specific
calendar dates wherein people assemble for special occasions and/or events.

No doubt it didn't take early man long to discover that celestial objects are
repetitive, i.e. the same ones move across the sky over and over again: a
perpetual loop that can used for the basis of a calendar.

While the Sun is useful for keeping track of solar increments, the Moon is useful for
marking off lunar increments. For example: were you to tell somebody your
intention to visit them in five Moons, they would have a pretty good idea when to
get ready for your arrival; so long as you both used a common definition of "moon".
To some, a moon is New Moon, while for others a moon indicates Full Moon.

* Years in the Old Testament are sometimes based upon a 30-day month; and
they're not always marked by the Sun's position in space relative to the stars. More
about this later when we get to Noah.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:15-18a . . and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine
upon the Earth. And it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to
dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God
set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the Earth, to dominate the day
and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.

At this point in biblical history, "stars" no doubt indicates all luminous objects in the
heavens seeing as how it would be a very long time before humanity began
categorizing some of the stars as planets.

I think it's important to emphasize that in the beginning God "set" the stars in the
sky just as he set the Sun and the Moon in the sky, i.e. celestial objects didn't
arrange themselves all by themselves sans any intelligent supervision whatsoever;
no, they were placed; and not only were they set in place, but also set in motion--
nothing in the entire cosmos is standing still, though many things appear to be.

According to Gen 1:15, stars illuminated the Earth on the "day" that God made
them.

Well; the only stars whose shine is of any practical use as illumination are those of
the Milky Way; which is estimated 100,000 to 180,000 light years in diameter.
Obviously then; if left entirely up to nature, light from stars nearest our location in
the galaxy would begin dousing the earth with illumination long before those at the
far side.

For example, light from Alpha Centauri takes only about 4½ years to reach Earth
while light from Alpha Orionis (a.k.a. Betelgeuse) takes about 640. There are quite
a few stars whose illumination reaches Earth in less than 50 years. But whether 4½
years, 50 years, 640 years, or 180,000 years; the time involved is insignificant if
we but allow that the days of creation were eras rather than 24-hour events.

But what's the point of putting all those objects out there in space? Well, for one
thing, they're not only brain teasers; but they're actually quite pretty. Celestial
objects decorate the night sky like the ornamentation people put up during
holidays. The night sky would sure be a bore if it was totally black. Decorated with
stars; the night sky is like a beautiful tapestry, or a celestial Sistine Chapel.

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork." (Ps 19:2)

The universe makes better sense that way than to try and find some other meaning
for it. Objects in space are simply a magnificent works of art-- just as intriguing, if
not more so, than the works of Picasso, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Monet, Vermeer,
and/or da Vinci --testifying to the genius of an imagination without peer.

Sadly, a number of very intelligent people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson
look to the sky for the wrong reasons. Why not just look to the sky for inspiration
instead of only exploration and discovery? What's so bad about visiting the sky as a
Guggenheim or a Louvre displaying your maker's many-faceted talents?

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it
evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of
eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what
He has made." (Rom 1:19-20)

● Gen 1:18b-19 . . And God saw that this was good. And there was evening and
there was morning, a fourth day.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:20-21a . . And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl
after his kind:

The Hebrew word translated "bring forth abundantly" is somewhat ambiguous. It
can speak of swarms and it can also speak of production. If we choose production,
then it would mean God constructed aqua life and winged life from nothing more
than water.

One of the essential elements for the construction of organic life is carbon. Well;
sea water contains that element, along with several others.

Distilled water contains little more than hydrogen and oxygen, whereas untreated
fresh water contains quite a few useful elements that it picks up from interaction
with soils and rocks; so either salty or fresh would've been suitable.

The Hebrew word translated "winged fowl" just simply means covered with wings.
It's a rather ambiguous word because it includes not only creatures with feathers,
but according to Lev 11:13-23, it also pertains to bats and flying insects.

What did those early flyers look like? Well; I suggest that at least some of them
had to be Pterosaurs because on no other day but the fifth did God bring about
critters with wings. Precisely when and/or how God phased out those early skin
winged creatures is one of science's thorniest mysteries. It's reasonable to assume
that whatever exterminated the Pterosaurs should have exterminated everything
else with wings too; but somehow birds, bats, and flying bugs are still with us.

It's important to note that winged creatures were just as distinct a creation as aqua
creatures. So winged creatures didn't evolve from creatures who once lived in the
sea. Winged creatures are a separate genre of life in their own right, and absolutely
did not evolve from some other order of life.

The Hebrew word translated "great whales" basically means a marine or land
monster. It's sometimes translated "dragon" as in Isa 27:1

NOTE: Bible scholars are not always confident how best to represent a Hebrew
word with the English alphabet. In point of fact, there are ancient Hebrew words
that nobody really knows what they mean so translators are forced to take
educated guesses here and there in order to fill in the text.

"every living creature that moveth" would include not only critters that swim but
also critters that creep, e.g. starfish, lobsters, crayfish, newts, clams, and crabs et
al.

But what about aquatic dinosaurs? Well; according to Discovery's web site "Walking
With Dinosaurs" paleontologists believe there were some amphibious reptiles such
as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs, but those creatures didn't have the gills necessary
to be truly aquatic like Nemo and his dad Marlin.

● Gen 1:21b . . And God saw that this was good.

In other words: He was satisfied.

The Hebrew word for "good" in this instance is horribly ambiguous. It's meanings
range from morally good, to good looking, to a job well done, to something that's
good to the taste; and to a whole lot of other things in between; e.g. a good show,
good food, as good as it gets, satisfactory, pleasing; etc, etc.

● Gen 1:22a . . God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and increase,

This is the very first place in the Bible where the Hebrew word for "bless" shows up.
It's somewhat ambiguous, but in this case I think it's pretty safe to assume that it
means to furnish freely or naturally with some power, quality, or attribute; i.e.
provide, endow, and/or empower. In other words: the blessing of fertility was a
providential act; and no doubt included microscopic creatures as well as those
visible to the naked eye.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 1:22b . . fill the waters in the seas, and let the winged creatures increase on
the earth.

Winged creatures have the advantage of flight; which, in my estimation, makes
them more fortunate than creatures confined to water. The wingers get a much
better world view from above than those below. Flying broadens one's horizons, so
to speak, and gives us a bigger picture. Amphibious flyers, e.g. cormorants and
grebes, have the best of both environs; they see things from above as well as from
below.

Aqua creatures exist in the most unlikely places. When the crew of the bathyscaphe
Trieste descended into the 35,761 feet Challenger Deep located in the deepest part
of the Mariana Trench in 1960, they didn't really expect to find anything living down
there; but to their surprise, they saw a flat fish similar to sole and flounder.

● Gen 1:23 . . And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

We've come now to the sixth day when all terra life was created; including humans.

● Gen 1:24-25 . .Then God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures after
their kind— cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind, And
it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle
after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God
saw that it was good.

This grouping of creatures isn't specifically given the blessing of fertility; but if God
would bless aqua creatures and those with wings, why ever would He not bless the
terra species too who are just as important? But since they've been reproducing all
this time, then I'd have to say there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support
the assumption that they too were empowered to reproduce.

The Hebrew word for "living" basically indicates existing as life as opposed to
existing as non life.

The word makes it first appearance at Gen 1:20 in reference to aqua creatures and
winged creatures; and many times in the Old Testament thereafter; including
fifteen times in reference to the Creator; e.g. Jer 10:10, indicating that Man's
maker is a living being as opposed to a totem pole or a mythical fantasy. There is a
very large number of instances recorded in the Old Testament where the Creator
speaks of Himself as "I am".

"creeping things" is translated from a Hebrew word which, according to Psalm
104:25, tells of not only creatures that live on land, but also those that live in
water, which are apparently creatures that skitter, slither, or hop rather than bound
and/or gallop; which suggests that the word is somewhat ambiguous and not all
that easy to classify; in point of fact, it could even include amphibious critters.

Terra critters weren't created ex nihilo; rather, from the very land upon which they
live; i.e. God used earthly materials and ingredients already at hand to construct
them. Neat-O. Not only are the various plants and animals indigenous to planet
Earth; but they are part of it too and blend right back in when they die and
decompose.

Beasts of the earth, in this instance, simply refers to wild life as opposed to
domesticated life. Dinosaurs would've been in the wild classification.

Cattle refers to mute beasts (a.k.a. dumb animals) --the herd species from which
came those that can be domesticated for Man's uses. They can pull plows and
wagons, provide tallow for candles and soap, and hide and wool for clothes, meat
and dairy for table, carry loads, and transport people from place to place on their
backs. (Probably one of the better things that Spain did for Native Americans was
make it possible for them to have horses.)

Not all herd animals can be tamed. Zebras, for instance, and male elephants are
not particularly suited to domestication.

No doubt some of us would be happy if a few of the creeping species had not been
created, e.g. scorpions, centipedes, cockroaches, tarantulas, fleas, ticks, ants; et
al.

NOTE: Missing from the list of created life is the world of microscopic creatures, e.g.
Cryptozoa and Phyla, which suggests the list is limited to life with which people
would be most familiar. Until the invention of optics, the world of the very small
was unknown.
_

 

[TB2]

.
● Gen 1:2c . . and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

God's spirit is a bit controversial. Some say it's a supernatural force, e.g. Ezek
36:24-28 where God's spirit is shown to be effective at moderating people's
behavior. Others insist it's an aspect of God's sentient existence, e.g. Gen 6:3
where His spirit is shown capable of debate, and Isa 63:10 where God's spirit was
unhappy with His people's conduct.

The Hebrew word here for "waters" is plural noun which means it can be translated
either water or waters. Plural nouns are pretty much at the discretion of translators
whether to make them one, or more than one, in a particular context.

The Hebrew word for "moving" is located in only three places in the entire Bible.
One is here, and the others are at Deut 32:11 and Jer 23:9. The meaning is
ambiguous. It can refer to brooding; i.e. a mother hen using her wings to keep her
chicks together, and it can refer to incubation and/or quaking, shaking, and
fluttering. Take your pick. I'd guess that the Spirit's movement was sort of like the
hen keeping the colossal chemical soup from running rampant and spreading itself
all over the place before God began putting it to use because up to that point, the
cosmos' natural laws governing matter didn't exist yet.

● Gen 1:3 . . Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

The Earth wasn't illuminated by celestial sources till the fourth day when God
created the Sun, Moon, and Stars; so the light in this verse is controversial.

According to 2Cor 4:6 the light wasn't introduced from outside the cosmos, rather,
it came from within, i.e. the cosmos was created to be self illuminating. In other
words: God himself wasn't the light spoken into existence per Gen 1:3

In the very beginning, the earth was chaotic, incoherent, and had neither form nor
function. As such it was unsuitable for human habitation (Isa 45:18). To get it into
a useful condition, it was necessary to subject the earth to law and order. (cf. Prov
6:23 where law is depicted as light)

● Gen 1:4a . . And God saw the light, that it was good

God didn't see the light until He said let there be light; meaning of course that
natural light didn't exist until God made it.

God declared that light is good; but He didn't declare that darkness is good. In
point of fact, darkness typically represents bad things in the Bible; while light
typically represents good things. It's been a rule of thumb from the very beginning.

NOTE: It's curious to me that most Bible students have no trouble readily
conceding that everything else in the first chapter of Genesis is natural, e.g. the
cosmos, the earth, the atmosphere, water, dry land, the Sun, the Moon, the stars,
aqua life, winged life, terra life, flora life, and human life. But when it comes to light
they choke; finding it impossible within themselves to believe that Genesis just
might be consistent in its description of the creative process.

● Gen 1:4b-5a . . and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the
light Day, and the darkness He called Night.

Defining the properties of Day and Night may seem like a superfluous detail, but
comes in very handy for organizing the three days and nights related to Christ's
crucifixion and resurrection per Matt 12:40.
_

Increasing evidence suggests that Genesis 1 is a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. This understanding provides insights into the light created on Day 1 vs sunlight on Day 4.

First, it seems that in Ancient Near East understanding, the light of the sun and light of morning and evening were believed to be separate sources. Without modern understanding, one can see why. There is daylight *before* the sun rises, and after the sun sets it is still light out for awhile. Apparently the connection wasn't made or understood that the sun was still responsible for all of it. This prescientific ancient understanding would explain why there could be light on Day 1 without the sun: because they believed that daylight was a separate light source from the sun (again, from their perspective, before the sun rises and after it sets, it is still light out).

Second, it has now been discovered that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 closely corresponds to the sequence of events Egyptian pagan creation myths. In Egyptian creation myths, the cosmos starts out in undifferentiated chaos too (formless and void). And then the first thing created is light. The sun, moon, and stars aren't created until the fourth or fifth event in the sequence.

The differences, of course, are stark. In the Egyptian creation myths all these things--light, waters, earth, sky, luminaries, etc.--are different deities. But in Genesis, they are simply created things and there is one God.

Genesis 1 reads like a point by point refutation of pagan Egyptian cosmology.

See: Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

 

[TB2]

.
● Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.

There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is a
creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep those two
kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they are as unalike as
sand and gravel.

Creation days are a bit problematic because there were no sunrises or sunsets to be
seen on Earth till the fourth day. And-- when you think about it --a strict
chronology of evening and morning defines neither a natural day nor a calendar
day, rather, it defines overnight; viz: darkness (Lev 24:2-4). In order to obtain a
full 24-hour day, we'd have to define creation's Days as a day and a night rather
than an evening and a morning.

In other words: the evenings and mornings relative to creation days aren't solar
events. The terms are merely index flags indicating the beginning and end of an
unspecified period.

Well; thus far Genesis defines Day as a time of light rather than a 24-hour
amalgam of light and dark; plus there was no Sun to cause physical evenings and
mornings till creation's fourth Day so we have to come at this issue from another
angle apart from physical properties.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the sixth
Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God create beasts
but the sixth.

However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by several
million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should be taken to
represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an unreasonable estimation;
for example:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)

The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same
word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in Gen 2:4
refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it
defends the suggestion that each of the six Days of creation were longer than 24
hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and not all that easy to
interpret sometimes.

Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about everybody
who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days of creation
consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up stumped when
trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and
factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous,
etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.

NOTE: Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies--
two different languages telling the same story. He believed that science and religion
complement each other: science answers questions that religion doesn't bother to
answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer.

For example: theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking understood pretty well how the
cosmos works; but could never scientifically explain why it should exist at all. Well;
in my estimation, the only possible answer to the "why" is found in intelligent
design; which is a religious explanation rather than scientific. Religion's "why" is
satisfactory for most folks. No doubt most scientists would prefer something a bit
more empirical.
_

It is consensus understanding of Old Testament scholars that "yom" in Genesis 1 is best understood as regular, 24-hour days. It provides the basis for the the 6 day work week + Sabbath rest in Exodus. We can't revise Genesis in light of modern scientific understanding, but should let Scripture speak for itself.

Scientific evidence shows the earth and universe are billions of years old: True

Scripture says God created everything in six (regular) days: True.

Is there a contradiction? Only if Genesis was intended to be a modern scientific account. But it's not. It's a theological polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths.