Explain Genesis 1 literally to me

Philis · #1 6th July 2012, 01:06 PM

I'm wondering if anyone who take Genesis chapter 1 literally can explain it to me, verse by verse. I'm particularly interested in how the waters above the stars got there. Were the waters on earth first and then zipped out into the far reaches of the universe?

In addition to literally understanding it, I'd like to know the reason He did it that way. Why did God make a bunch of water and then seperate it? Why not just make it seperate in the first place? Why make light and then the sun, why not just make it all at once?

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

Dieselman · #2 6th July 2012, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Philis

I'm wondering if anyone who take Genesis chapter 1 literally can explain it to me, verse by verse. I'm particularly interested in how the waters above the stars got there. Were the waters on earth first and then zipped out into the far reaches of the universe?

In addition to literally understanding it, I'd like to know the reason He did it that way. Why did God make a bunch of water and then seperate it? Why not just make it seperate in the first place? Why make light and then the sun, why not just make it all at once?

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the earth." This is a summary. The beginning refers to the beginning of time; something which makes sense in dealing with physical entities, but which is a manufactured concept in relation to the eternity of Heaven.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." This means that the earth was in a gasseous state in the beginning, so it had not cooled and solidified. In other words, it began as energy and then became a solid planet. That there was darkness is VERY significant. Why? Because there was nothing to offer light; no stars, no sun, nothing in the universe but a mass of gasses that would become the earth. The story of the creation deals with the viewpoint of the planet earth, and not any other point in the universe.

"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Matter goes from solid to liquid to gas as it heats, and from gasseous to liquid to solid as it cools. If the planet was cooling, it would be liquid before it became solid. Thus, "on the face of the waters."

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Big bang cosmology posits that from a singularity the universe burst forward. If such a concentration of energy existed, it would likely produce light; exactly as described in verse 3.

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." How does one divide light from darkness? By blocking the light. In other words, if a solid object blocks a light beam what lies on the other side now resides in darkness. This is the solidification of the earth. It is now a solid planet whose mass separates darkness from light. It is also in rotation, as described subsequently. When the Bible states that the evening and the morning were the first day, it can only mean a single rotation of the earth since EVERYTHING in Genesis 1 is told from the prospective of the earth. Evolutionists say that the days could have been 10 million years long. If that were true, then the nights would be equally long. Nothing could survive without light for that period.

When people attack Biblical doctrine using science, they are displaying both arrogance and ignorance; particularly ignorance because they do not understand the limitations of science. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It cannot study things that defy nature. It cannot study the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, which is a good thing. If God could be proven, there would be no faith, and without faith, there is no salvation. God in His wisdom knew the hearts of man before man walked the face of the earth.

I'll go into more details later. The big thing you have to realize is that there are NO THEORIES in science which can account for origination without violating the laws of physics. Nothing any man has ever theorized is any more plausible than even the most incredible of events in God's creation.

Philis · #3 6th July 2012, 02:25 PM

Dieselman, thanks for responding. I'll wait until you go over the rest of the chapter so that I can get the big picture before asking questions.

mark kennedy · #4 6th July 2012, 02:51 PM

My view of the Genesis account is pretty straight forward. It is taken from the perspective of the 'surface of the earth', remember the 'Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep'. The way Scripture describes the earth before creation is that it was in utter darkness and covered with water. When God says, 'let there be light', I don't think he was creating the sun per se, just letting the light reach the earth. Of course he had to separate the land from the waters, the land was under water when it started. He was separating the water in the firmament (expanse) between the sky and the ocean, probably indicating indicting the thick clouds covering the face of the deep. Basically he is parting the clouds and exposing dry land.

There is mention of the sun, moon and stars but I don't think that is when they were created. They were actually created in verse 1 before creation week started, how long before I have no idea. Like I said, it's from the perspective of the surface of the earth so the 'creation' of the sun, moon and stars' is really just them appearing on the 'surface' of the earth.

You really have to get into the the literary style. For instance, some will claim two account of creation but that's not true. First there is a general statement that God created the heavens and the earth. Then there is an elaboration of the creation in six days. Then a more detailed of the creation of man. Kind of like describing the outside of a box, then whats inside the box and then taking a look at something in particular that is in the box. That's the literary style and it's fairly unique in the opening chapter of Genesis.

Originally Posted by Philis

I'm wondering if anyone who take Genesis chapter 1 literally can explain it to me, verse by verse. I'm particularly interested in how the waters above the stars got there. Were the waters on earth first and then zipped out into the far reaches of the universe?

In addition to literally understanding it, I'd like to know the reason He did it that way. Why did God make a bunch of water and then seperate it? Why not just make it seperate in the first place? Why make light and then the sun, why not just make it all at once?

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

I've done a number of expositions on the subject, this is a summation of the main points of doctrine involved in Origins Theology for me:

Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, all evolutionists who are honest emphasis this point. It's based on naturalistic assumptions as opposed to what Darwin called 'miraculous interposition'. The creation of Adam would have been a 'miraculous interposition' but Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

I have actually had Theistic Evolutionists try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam:

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπος) as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)

From Noah to Abram:

8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)

These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Philis · #5 6th July 2012, 03:59 PM

Hi Mark,

Your post is long and it's good to read through. I find that if I try to respond to 14 different points at once things become difficult to keep track of. I'm not ignoring or brushing your post off I just want to start off by focusing on a single question to get the discussion moving.

There is mention of the sun, moon and stars but I don't think that is when they were created. They were actually created in verse 1 before creation week started, how long before I have no idea. Like I said, it's from the perspective of the surface of the earth so the 'creation' of the sun, moon and stars' is really just them appearing on the 'surface' of the earth.

So in verse 16 and 17 when it says that God made the two great lights and the stars, and that He placed them in the firmament, you don't think that it's a literal account of what happened?

Dieselman · #6 6th July 2012, 04:24 PM

The sun, moon and stars were created on day four, and after that there is no mention of that which was called light.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And 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.

According to Big Bang theory, all of the universe came from one source. It is not inconsistent with science or Biblical teachings that the source of light begame the sun, moon, stars, other planets, and the entire universe.
On day three,
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So, then, there were fruit bearing trees in existence BEFORE the sun existed. Light existed. The planet was in rotation. Gravity existed. Land and water existed. However, before there were any stars there were trees BEARING FRUIT and grass on the earth. This is NOT CONSISTANT with an old earth interpretation, which assumes that all life came about when the earth and the universe were very old.

I believe the sequence of events makes the story of creation 100% impossible. It therefore requires belief in a God who can do the impossible. Just as He does consistently throughout the history of His interaction with man, God chooses to display his authority by doing that which simply cannot be done.

mark kennedy · #7 6th July 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Philis

Hi Mark,

Your post is long and it's good to read through. I find that if I try to respond to 14 different points at once things become difficult to keep track of. I'm not ignoring or brushing your post off I just want to start off by focusing on a single question to get the discussion moving.

So in verse 16 and 17 when it says that God made the two great lights and the stars, and that He placed them in the firmament, you don't think that it's a literal account of what happened?

The response went before the quote, the part below the quote of the OP was just for reference, figured you would just browse it. The exposition of Romans is important, you should understand, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

Now as far as vs 16,17. Yes they are literal but the creation here is not when the stars, sun and moon were created, that happened at the very beginning. Like I said, the perspective of the narrative is from the surface of the earth. When God 'placed' them I think he was establishing the seasons and exposing the light of these bodies, not created them Ex nihilo.

Bear in mind did a lot of back and forth before I finally settled on YEC. I could have easily rearranged some things and been a theistic evolutionist, no problem. My problem with evolution theologically is that it is a categorical rejection of God as Creator. The real reason I'm not a TE now has more to do with the scientific evidence, especially with regards to the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.

Marshall Janzen · #8 6th July 2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

My problem with evolution theologically is that it is a categorical rejection of God as Creator.

It would only seem that way to someone who didn't believe God is the author and sustainer of the natural processes scientists investigate. But, in such a case, I think it would be more important to correct that faulty view of God's relation to nature than to accept evolution. First things first.

Philis · #9 6th July 2012, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

The response what before the quote, the part below the quote of the OP was just for reference, figured you would just browse it. The exposition of Romans is important, you should understand, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

Now as far as vs 16,17. Yes they are literal but the creation here is not when the stars, sun and moon were created, that happened at the very beginning. Like I said, the perspective of the narrative is from the surface of the earth. When God 'placed' them I think he was establishing the seasons and exposing the light of these bodies, not created them Ex nihilo.

So He didn't literally place them in the firmament, he just made them appear there right?

My problem with evolution theologically is that it is a categorical rejection of God as Creator.

I've never heard a TE say that God isn't the creator. Do you have references for this? Or maybe some clarification?

Assyrian · #10 6th July 2012, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

I have actually had Theistic Evolutionists try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam:

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπος) as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)
This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

This is how the word is used in other passages:
tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.
Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Really Mark? Papias reposts his genealogy comparison and you describe it as 'Spam' when you had just posted the tupos study you keep repeating. It wouldn't be so bad if you hadn't been shown again and again what an abysmal attempt at a word study it was. Last time you posted it I gave you a summary of our discussions on the topic. Here is is again.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7570424-5/#post57933501

The first time I challenged you, http://www.christianforums.com/t7519755-3/#post56447292 you gave a half hearted attempt at a defense and when I took that apart, http://www.christianforums.com/t7519755-4/#post56462122 you just gave up.
The second time I challenged on it, http://www.christianforums.com/t7532.../#post57030658 you never even replied.
The third time, I just referred back to the previous posts you could not answer. http://www.christianforums.com/t7524.../#post57370591
All you could say in defense was “I don't care about those links”.

Of course you didn't reply to that either.

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Genesis is foundational to Christian theism, the following narratives are directly connected to New Testament doctrines and testimony:

You need to do a bit more

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

That's right, the literal 'Adam' was a figure of Christ.

Quite possibly,

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:
1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)
From Noah to Abram:
8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)
These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Do I need to go through these again pointing out things like Romans 1:18-22 and Heb. 11:3 making absolutely no mention of a six day creation?