Genesis 1 Again

[AV1611VET]

So, you're are saying that like scientists regarding the moon, Christians do not know which interpretation of Genesis is correct. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.

So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[sandwiches]

So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?

Somehow I doubt it.

Well, that's because you're wrong. I find that very interesting and I post regularly on other threads and fora about just such topics.

At any rate, I find it more interesting when people who claim to base their entire lives on what they "know" their deity desired and meant admit that no one knows for sure what Genesis meant. I doubt you'd ever make such an admission, AV, but I could surely be wrong.

 

[Nostromo]

In addition, since the three divisions of the OT are history, poetry and prophecy, and Genesis 1 is neither poetry nor prophecy, this means it is history.

Doesn't Jesus describe the divisions as "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms"?

 

[AV1611VET]

At any rate, I find it more interesting when people who claim to base their entire lives on what they "know" their deity desired and meant admit that no one knows for sure what Genesis meant.

God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.

It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible; and as I'm fond of saying, if a person can't get past Genesis 1, he's in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't Jesus describe the divisions as "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms"?

Oops! Indeed, the NT speaks of 'the law and the prophets'.

I was thinking of this when I typed it:

Okay. The Bible is God's Autobiography.

It is the only Writing on the face of the earth that got here supernaturally. No other writing even comes close.

Consider these facts:

1. Written over a period of 1500 years.
2. In 3 languages, on 3 continents.
3. By some 40+ subauthors.
4. Who had various vocations from husbandmen to fig pickers to kings.
5. And under a variety of circumstances from peace to rebellion to war.
6. In freedom and in captivity.
7. By the rich and famous, as well as the poor and downtrodden.

And yet, despite all the above variables, It fits together like a hand in a glove, as if It had one single Author.

And here's the kicker --- It generated a nation of people who, by all practical purposes, should not be in existence today, and even wrote the history of their nation in advance.

Consider also the mathematical (divine?) layout of the Old Testament today:

The Old Testament consists of 39 books, arranged as follows:

• 17 [historical] --- 5 [poetical] --- 17 [prophetical]

Further subdivided as follows:

• 5 [books of Moses] --- 12 [books of history]
• 5 [books of poetry]
• 5 [books by major prophets] --- 12 [books by minor prophets]

Note: in the five books by the major prophets, you have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Let's look at this "fulcrum":

Book of Lamentations consists of 5 chapters, as follows:

• Chapter 1 = 22 verses
• Chapter 2 = 22 verses
• Chapter 3 = 66 verses
• Chapter 4 = 22 verses
• Chapter 5 = 22 verses

The two major prophets before Lamentations are pre-Caanan writings.

The two major prophets after Lamentations are post-Caanan.

And speaking of Canaan, we can further break the 12 historical and 12 prophetical books down into 9 + 3 by considering pre and post-Canaan writings.

Perfect mathematical divine balance in just the Old Testament alone.

And the Bible's preservation over the centuries? I won't even go there.

Specifically this part: 17 [historical] --- 5 [poetical] --- 17 [prophetical].

My mistake.

 

[Jazer]

So what? Americans bicker over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Is that equally interesting to you?

Somehow I doubt it.

It is not unusual for the Supreme court to have a split decision where the vote of one person makes the decision. All you need is to get 5 of them to agree and they can strike down the "Child Online Protection Act". If we can protect our children against a predator then why can't we protect them against the Supreme Court Justices that seem to be in the back pocket of the highly profitable porn industry. I so look forward to the day when the government shall be upon His shoulder.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[Doveaman]

So, you're are saying that like scientists regarding the moon, Christians do not know which interpretation of Genesis is correct. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.

It’s interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.

So, you’re saying you created a strawman. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.

But to answer you accusation: No, that is not what I’m saying.

Many Christians agree that Genesis is a literal account of creation, just as scientists agree the moon was literally formed.

We then form theories on how those creation events may be explained, just as scientists form theories on how the moon’s formation may be explained.

Not knowing all the scientific details of the events does not mean we do not know they are literal events.

 

[AV1611VET]

It’s interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.

I get that too, bro.

Just ask them to go back and highlight in red where you made [whatever] claim, then watch them sing a different tune.

 

[sandwiches]

God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.

It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible; and as I'm fond of saying, if a person can't get past Genesis 1, he's in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.

Glad to see I wasn't wrong.

 

[sandwiches]

It’s interesting how you accuse me of making a claim I did not make, and then accuse me of admitting to making a claim I did not make.

So, you’re saying you created a strawman. That's an interesting admission, I'd say.

But to answer you accusation: No, that is not what I’m saying.

Many Christians agree that Genesis is a literal account of creation, just as scientists agree the moon was literally formed.

We then form theories on how those creation events may be explained, just as scientists form theories on how the moon’s formation may be explained.

Not knowing all the scientific details of the events does not mean we do not know they are literal events.

Let's review. Scientists have several theories on how the moon was formed because they admittedly do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct. You then compared that to the differing interpretations Christians have of Genesis. So, now you're saying that your comparison wasn't accurate, then?

 

[sandwiches]

I get that too, bro.

Just ask them to go back and highlight in red where you made [whatever] claim, then watch them sing a different tune.

Lot of yakking for someone who usually bails out when cornered or shown wrong.

 

[Jazer]

Lot of yakking for someone who usually bails out when cornered or shown wrong.

First you have to actually produce something.

 

[Doveaman]

I guess the bottom line on that type of case, is that one cannot say the bible says any recreation happened.

The bible does not specifically say “recreation” in Genesis 1. It says “creation”. But what's interesting is that in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for “created” – "bara" - can be extended to mean "to create something new". And we do know the bible tells us recreation does happen:

“When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth...‘Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth’...in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth” (Ps 104:30,Isa 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13).

So if we read between the lines of all reality we might find a “recreation” in Genesis 1.

One cannot omit the far heavens being included in what was meant that was created, one can only speculate that what was meant excluded them.

I agree. And that’s not what I’m speculating.

From the rest of the bible, however, I doubt that that position could be supported strongly.

Fine by me, since that’s not my position.

Seems to me that that whole basic sort of line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with science and what man thinks he 'knows'.
My own feeling is that it would be better to align what man claims he sort of knows, with what God says.

Actually, my line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with God’s word.

Genesis 1, verse 2, tells us:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).

This is a description of the state of the earth even before the six day creation events began. What this tells me is that the earth existed in a chaotic state before the creation events began.

How long the earth existed in this chaotic state the bible does not mention, but the bible does say the earth existed. We can then speculate on how this chaotic earth ties in with the six day creation events that followed.

When God says..."He made the stars also" (after just mentioning the sun and moon were made that creation week no less)

The Hebrew word for "made" – "asah" – can also mean "to bring about", "to attend to" or "to put in order".

I think "to put in order" sounds just about right since Genesis 1 is about God creating order from chaos.

This means that Genesis 1:16 can be read:

"Then God ordered two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He ordered the stars also."

-- it is best to place the stars and sun and moon in the creation, rather than straining to try to find some recreation.

Well, as explained above, I do place the stars and sun and moon in the creation events, but not as being recreated, but as being reordered.

“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years’...Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.” (Gen 1:14-18).

The sun and moon were made to regulate the seasons, days and years in our present world relative to the creation of new life forms here on earth.

If the seasons, days and years were different in prehistory (and they most likely were) then our solar system would have functioned differently and a reordering of our solar system would have been necessary to create the new seasons, days and years we experience today.

From an earth bound perspective this event would have appeared as a creating of new conditions in the far heavens due to the reordering of our solar system.

It makes sense therefore that the Hebrew word for “made” – “asah” – in the verses above can also mean “to put in order”.


I should also be noted that in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word “asah” (English: "made&#8221 refers to the sun and moon only. It is not in the original Hebrew text when referring to the stars. The original Hebrew text does not tell us the stars were made. This English word, "made", was added by the translators for better readability in the English.

The YLT is a better translation:

"And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary — and the stars — for the rule of the night". (Gen 1:16).

The stars were not "made also", as translated by other versions. Instead, the stars ruled the night also, as translated by the YLT version.

 

[Doveaman]

Let's review. Scientists have several theories on how the moon was formed because they admittedly do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct. You then compared that to the differing interpretations Christians have of Genesis. So, now you're saying that your comparison wasn't accurate, then?

I'm saying we know the creation events occurred as described in Genesis 1 but we do not know all the scientific details. We can only form theories about those details, and admittedly we do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct.

 

[Doveaman]

God didn't give us Genesis 1 so we could scratch ourselves to death wondering what it says.

It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible; and as I'm fond of saying, if a person can't get past Genesis 1, he's in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.

Glad to see I wasn't wrong.

I still think you're wrong.

We do know what Genesis 1 says. It is one of the most clear-cut passages in the Bible. And we have gotten past that.

But like any good scientist, we like to speculate about what is not said or about what is not observed.

 

[artybloke]

Actually you find Darwinism nowhere. QUOTE]
That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.

Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.

Try 'historic Truth'.

If that's too hard, try 'true history'.

 

[Doveaman]

That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.

Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.

So if Genesis is not intended to be science then it's symbolic or false. Got it.

 

[dad]

The bible does not specifically say “recreation” in Genesis 1. It says “creation”. But what's interesting is that in Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for “created” – "bara" - can be extended to mean "to create something new". And we do know the bible tells us recreation does happen:

“When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth...‘Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth’...in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth” (Ps 104:30,Isa 66:17, 2 Peter 3:13).

Plainly that refers to men. We are not, as the creation week was by chapter 2 in Genesis.."finished"! We are more a work in progress. Big difference.

So if we read between the lines of all reality we might find a “recreation” in Genesis 1.
I agree. And that’s not what I’m speculating.
Fine by me, since that’s not my position.
Actually, my line of interpretation is an attempt to align God's word with God’s word.

Genesis 1, verse 2, tells us:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).

This is a description of the state of the earth even before the six day creation events began. What this tells me is that the earth existed in a chaotic state before the creation events began.

It seems to indicate that the planet was not yet formed in the way we know. But chaos seems a stretch...I assume the Great Scientist knew just what He was doing, and that it was that way in that stage of the first day for a reason. Inferring more is taking liberty, no? Evos seem to think the universe is in chaos. Mindless movement, no reason or design or purpose, but the truth is quite the opposite.

How long the earth existed in this chaotic state the bible does not mention, but the bible does say the earth existed. We can then speculate on how this chaotic earth ties in with the six day creation events that followed.
The Hebrew word for "made" – "asah" – can also mean "to bring about", "to attend to" or "to put in order".

How long, then it took the waters to be divided from the land should be equally an open question? Yet I think most people seem to realize it was that first day..no?

I think "to put in order" sounds just about right since Genesis 1 is about God creating order from chaos.

Well, more like from nothing! Chaos is your preffered word to describe the earliest phase of the Master plan and operation.

This means that Genesis 1:16 can be read:

"Then God ordered two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He ordered the stars also."
Well, as explained above, I do place the stars and sun and moon in the creation events, but not as being recreated, but as being reordered.

“Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years’...Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.” (Gen 1:14-18).

The sun and moon were made to regulate the seasons, days and years in our present world relative to the creation of new life forms here on earth.

Funny nowhere in the bible I have seen such a fantastic distinction! Example:
Psalm 136:3-9
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever. 4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. 5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever. 6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. 7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever: 8 The sun to rule [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]by day: for his mercy endureth for ever: 9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever. "

If the seasons, days and years were different in prehistory (and they most likely were) then our solar system would have functioned differently and a reordering of our solar system would have been necessary to create the new seasons, days and years we experience today.

Speculation.

From an earth bound perspective this event would have appeared as a creating of new conditions in the far heavens due to the reordering of our solar system.

The stars and sun and moon are all existing because of the earth in a way. They are connected and made for us here. How unlike the so called science 'meaningless little speck of dust' doctrine!

It makes sense therefore that the Hebrew word for “made” – “asah” – in the verses above can also mean “to put in order”.

No doubt that creation week involved a lot of putting stuff in order. The thing in one cannot get that stuff to have been here before they were created that week. There is no need to explain away the rest of the universe or omit it from the creation, when all things that were made, were made, and without Him was not anything made.

Sorry, on this particular point you have a weak case.

 

[dad]

Actually you find Darwinism nowhere. QUOTE]
That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.

Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.

This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'.