Creation, An Exposition of Genesis and the New Testament Witness

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the sun was not visible for 3 days. My point stands that rotation compared to the sun in one point in the sky, plus a rotating reference point, not likely too near a pole is needed for 24 hours.
Exactly, and there was. Remember, God said "Let there be light. The light was separated from the darkness the only way it can be; by the earth solidifying and becoming solid, thus blocking light from the portion on the other side of the light. The revolution of the planet makes one day. On day four, from the singularity called light, all the suns, moons and starts came into being. Scientists call this the "Big Bang" and believe that from a single unknown source the entire universe formed more or less as it is today. In fact, it is still expanding. So science and the Bible agree on the Big Bang and the Bible states it happened on the fourth day of creation.

Rejecting the creation is, in fact, rejecting the world of God.
You have to reject the Fourth Commandment, written by the finger of God (Exodus 20:11).
You have to reject the special formation of man.
You have to reject that fall of man.
You have to reject that through one man (Adam) sin and death came into the world so by one man (Christ) the world was saved.
You have to reject the Great Flood, which also fortells the eventual destruction of the world and the salvation through one man (Christ).
You have to pretend that you know more than Jesus Christ, who taught and believed that every word of the Scriptures are true.
You have to establish some sort of criteria by which you decide which parts of the Bible you accept and which parts you reject.

Essentially, you become a prophet in your own religion which pays lip service to the Bible while rejection the true nature of God by denying that His miracles ever happened.
The fact is, if you claim to believe evolution and the Bible you really don't understand either. They are mutually exclusive.

There are NO passages in the Bible which support evolution; not a single one. If evolution was true in any form, Christ would have told us.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Exactly, and there was. Remember, God said "Let there be light. The light was separated from the darkness the only way it can be; by the earth solidifying and becoming solid, thus blocking light from the portion on the other side of the light. The revolution of the planet makes one day. On day four, from the singularity called light, all the suns, moons and starts came into being.

So the first three days, there was a light side and a dark side but no lights from our sun or moon?
I'm not following how this is described.
God separates light from dark on day one, then three days later he makes the sun, moon and the stars.
I'm a big fan of literalism, so this doesn't work well.

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are NO passages in the Bible which support evolution; not a single one. If evolution was true in any form, Christ would have told us.

Now your quoting me directly from about two years ago. My exact words.

God created each kind of animal in the Garden for Adam to name.
Evidently evolution works becasue there are some 16,000 new species
found each year. Granted, "Species" are not kinds.

Evidently evolution works becasue the limited numbers of kinds from the Ark
have expanded to fill the earth with more variety than would fit on an Ark.

It seems my dog has evolved from wolves. All you have to do is raise wolves
and seperate them by behavior and temperament and their physical body
changes dramatically in a very few generations.

Raising animals and picking certain characteristics "evolves" animals.

Peoples minds evolve:
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

God acknowledges change in the environment:
Ecclesiastes 3:1[URL='http://www.biblestudytools.com/ecclesiastes/3.html'] [/URL]
1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
Isaiah 43:19
19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland.


Either the animals have evolved or God has:

LEV 11:46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, 47to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

Perhaps serpents are dumber than before:

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You can't eat from any tree in the garden'?"


So we can artificially evolve or even domesticate animals:

Job 12:7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

Evolution must happen for The Garden animals to spread into ecological niches.
Evolution must happen to make specific breeds.
Evolution must happen to fill the earth after the Flood.

" ...ask the animals, and they will teach you"
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The perspective of Genesis one is from the surface of the earth, not space. Light could get through just as it is on a rainy day but you can't see the sun, moon or stars for the clouds. When creation starts there is utter darkness, then God says, 'let there be light'. Over the course of creation God is adjusting the atmosphere, separating the water above from the waters below. Apparently the think clouds went all the way to the surface of the earth, instead of clouds floating above the earth as we see now. This thinning out of the clouds continued at least until day four when the sun, moon and stars became regularly visible.

God did walk in The Garden with Adam, so I can accept that God was in the Garden area at the time.
It's odd to think that Special Creation is described from a walking, human type perspective but I'll give it a go.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the first three days, there was a light side and a dark side but no lights from our sun or moon?
Exactly. There was a single point of light.
How large it was, it's location in relation to the Earth etc is unknown, but since we no longer have an entity called "light" it makes sense that from it the sun, moon and stars were formed.
The problem is that you see light as possible only in it's present form. It's entirely possible that there was another entity like the sun; maybe bigger; that worked to light the planet until God made the rest of the universe on day four. This is what the Bible describes.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God created each kind of animal in the Garden for Adam to name. Evidently evolution works becasue there are some 16,000 new species
found each year. Granted, "Species" are not kinds.
Evolution as promoted isn't about the changes in species or the adaptations over time, it is promoted as an explanation for the diversity of ALL life, pretending that all living things had a single progenitor and replication errors caused the diversity of life.
Evidently evolution works becasue the limited numbers of kinds from the Ark
have expanded to fill the earth with more variety than would fit on an Ark.
The only provable "evolution" can be attributed to the "Go forth and multiply" of all animals from the ark.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Evolution as promoted isn't about the changes in species or the adaptations over time, it is promoted as an explanation for the diversity of ALL life, pretending that all living things had a single progenitor and replication errors caused the diversity of life.
The only provable "evolution" can be attributed to the "Go forth and multiply" of all animals from the ark.

Yes, and we can introduce animals to a new environments and they adapt to fit niches. Or they adapt to pollution. They adapt in many measurable ways. And we can "evolve" species through animal breeding programs. Like chickens with lots of white meat but unable to use that muscle and fly.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Now your quoting me directly from about two years ago. My exact words.

God created each kind of animal in the Garden for Adam to name.
Evidently evolution works becasue there are some 16,000 new species
found each year. Granted, "Species" are not kinds.

Evidently evolution works becasue the limited numbers of kinds from the Ark
have expanded to fill the earth with more variety than would fit on an Ark.

It seems my dog has evolved from wolves. All you have to do is raise wolves
and seperate them by behavior and temperament and their physical body
changes dramatically in a very few generations.

Raising animals and picking certain characteristics "evolves" animals.

Actually selective breeding produces hybrids, the strong tendency to to revert back to the parent form. Darwin even described the 'bane of horticulture', to be infertility. Adaptive evolution is fundamentally different since the traits are permanently fixed and inheritable. I think it might have been one of the reasons God wanted them to spread across the face of the globe early, it would result in innumerable varieties. When so many wanted to join together to build the Tower of Babel is was expressly, not be scattered across the face of the earth, it was in defiance of divine guidance. This was the basis for spiritual Babylon, the tower it should be understood, was actually intended to be a city.

Peoples minds evolve:
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

God acknowledges change in the environment:
Ecclesiastes 3:1
1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:
Isaiah 43:19
19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland.

Either the animals have evolved or God has:

LEV 11:46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, 47to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.

Some interesting thoughts

Perhaps serpents are dumber than before:

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You can't eat from any tree in the garden'?"

The term, 'serpent', is really more of a proper name for the Devil. We know this from Revelations:

And the great dragon was cast out — that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev. 12:9)​

So we can artificially evolve or even domesticate animals:

Job 12:7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

Evolution must happen for The Garden animals to spread into ecological niches.
Evolution must happen to make specific breeds.
Evolution must happen to fill the earth after the Flood.

" ...ask the animals, and they will teach you"

I've always thought that should be obvious, a boat load of animals were the parents of all the birds, reptiles and mammals across the earth. There is only one way that happens, adaptive evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Day 1: God 'lets' the light in, thus creating the first day (Gen. 1:4).
But the bible doesn't say "the first day," or even "day one", it says "one day." Here is how "יום אחד" is used elsewhere "Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul." (1 Sam. 27:1 ESV)

Day 2: God creates the upper atmosphere, called the 'firmament' (Gen. 1:7).
Again, the text doesn't say "day two" or even "the second day" it says "a second day."

Day 3: God separates the land from the seas and creates plant life (Gen. 1:10).
Again, the text doesn't say "day three" or even "the third day" it says "a third day."

Day 4: God then, 'sets', the heavenly lights in the visible sky (Gen. 1:17).
Again, the text doesn't say "day four" or even "the forth day" it says "a forth day."

Day 5: God creates the birds of the air and marine life (Gen. 1:21).
Again, the text doesn't say "day five" or even "the fifth day" it says "a fifth day."

All of these references are indefinite in the biblical text. While some who have interpreted the text have suggested these should be definite, and that is an interpretation that goes beyond what is actually said in the biblical text. Whether this interpretation is right or wrong, it should not be confused as being equivalent to the authority of Scripture itself.

The NASB is one of the few English translations that actually translate this as it is written in the Hebrew text, the following is from the NASB:

And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But the bible doesn't say "the first day," or even "day one", it says "one day." Here is how "יום אחד" is used elsewhere "Now I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul." (1 Sam. 27:1 ESV)

Genesis 1:5
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, one day.
KJV: and the morning were the first day.
INT: morning day one (Bible Hub Interlinear)

Again, the text doesn't say "day two" or even "the second day" it says "a second day."

Genesis 1:8
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שֵׁנִֽי׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, a second day.
KJV: and the morning were the second day.
INT: morning day A second (Englishman's Concordance, Bible Hub)


Again, the text doesn't say "day three" or even "the third day" it says "a third day."

Genesis 1:13
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שְׁלִישִֽׁי׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, a third day.
KJV: and the morning were the third day.
INT: morning day A third (Englishman's Concordance, Bible Hub)

Again, the text doesn't say "day four" or even "the forth day" it says "a forth day."

Genesis 1:19
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם רְבִיעִֽי׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, a fourth day.
KJV: and the morning were the fourth day.
INT: morning day A fourth (7243. rebii, Bible Hub)

Again, the text doesn't say "day five" or even "the fifth day" it says "a fifth day."

Genesis 1:23
HEB: בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם חֲמִישִֽׁי׃ פ
NAS: and there was morning, a fifth day.
KJV: and the morning were the fifth day.
INT: morning day A fifth (2549. chamishi, Bible Hub)

All of these references are indefinite in the biblical text. While some who have interpreted the text have suggested these should be definite, and that is an interpretation that goes beyond what is actually said in the biblical text. Whether this interpretation is right or wrong, it should not be confused as being equivalent to the authority of Scripture itself.

The text is clear, day one, day two...etc. The semantical point your trying to makes lacks any real substance.

The NASB is one of the few English translations that actually translate this as it is written in the Hebrew text, the following is from the NASB:

And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
'the first day' (NIV), 'marking the first Day' (NLT), 'the first day' (NASB)...'and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.' (Young's Literal Translation)

New International Version
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

New Living Translation
God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

English Standard Version
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

New American Standard Bible
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

King James Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
God called the light "day," and He called the darkness "night." Evening came and then morning: the first day.

International Standard Version
calling the light "day," and the darkness "night." The twilight and the dawn were day one.

NET Bible
God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

New Heart English Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. There was evening and there was morning, one day.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
God named the light [day], and the darkness he named [night]. There was evening, then morning-the first day.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

New American Standard 1977
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

King James 2000 Bible
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

American King James Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

American Standard Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Darby Bible Translation
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day.

English Revised Version
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Webster's Bible Translation
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night: and the evening and the morning were the first day.

World English Bible
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." There was evening and there was morning, one day.

Young's Literal Translation
and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

(Gen. 1:5)
Your clinging to a minority translation, which is perfectly fine, the NASB seems to be a fine translation. The fact of the matter is the numbering of the days of creation make it clear that it was all done in a six day period. The tedious and pedantic semantical hair spliting hardly seems a substantive argument to the contrary.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

paul becke

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Well obviously the beasts, 'of the field', are the original parents of living creatures that span the globe in all their vast array. For me it came down to genetics, over time genomes collect mutations, mistakes in the copy of DNA. At this time there were pristine gene pools so much more diversity was possible and they flourished.
No, Mark. Evolution is plain wrong.There are no fossils showing intermediate stages of an evolution, no evidence of the 'making' of new body-parts from old ones. Just very minor adaptations, such as those finches' beaks, which, in fact, reverted once the weather-modified environment reverted to normal. Likewise changes caused by the selective breeding, for instance, of dogs, which when returned to the general population, revert to the norm of the general population, again.

But the whole 'house of cards' was ruined and came toppling down, when Crick realised that the strands of DNA constitued a digital code, a computer-type language - except quaternary, rather than binary - explaining the manner in which the item was to develop - instructions. Only an intelligence - and that of a mind-blowingly high order in the case in point - can create information.

Even the E-Coli, single-cell virus is constituted of a breath-takingly sophisticaterd and complex design - a plan only a super-intelligence of the kind that deist, Einstein was always rhapsodising about. Apparently when enormously magnified, it shows what amounts to a kind of factory, including all the functions and departments to be found in the most modern factory of man's devising and many more.

Most people without an academic education have far too much sense to believe that either nothing could produce everything, or that everything could come together in accordaqcne with the most sophisticated designs and plans - by an endless series of coincidences. In fact, the universe is not old enough for a minuscule natural item to be formed by coincidences, chance. Still less, conjectured proteins that might - according to their fond belief - have created the initial natural 'thang' from which all the rest of life, i.e. living creatures, could have sprung.
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The text is clear, day one, day two...etc. The semantical point your trying to makes lacks any real substance.

Note: Your Hebrew quotes do not reflect the English text and demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the Hebrew language i.e. "a third day" is "יום שלישי", but "and there is morning, a third day" is "ויהי בקר יום שלישי"; however, "בקר יום שלישי" is just a sentence fragment that makes little sense.

This is how "one day" is written in Gen. 1 (I have linked to translate.google.com so you can see how it is translated.)

יום אחד

This is how "The first day" is written in Hebrew. (Again, I have linked to translate.google.com so you can see how it is translated.) NOTE: The following phrase is not in the text of Ge. 1 anywhere!

היום הראשון


For comparison, let's see how the NIV translates יום אחד elsewhere:

(Gen. 27:45 NIV) When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him, I'll send word for you to come back from there. Why should I lose both of you in (יום אחד) one day?"
(Gen. 33:13 NIV) But Jacob said to him, "My lord knows that the children are tender and that I must care for the ewes and cows that are nursing their young. If they are driven hard just (יום אחד) one day, all the animals will die.
(Num. 11:19 NIV) You will not eat it for just (יום אחד) one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days,
(1 Sam. 27:1 NIV) But David thought to himself, "(יום אחד) One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand."
(Isa. 9:14 NIV) So the LORD will cut off from Israel both head and tail, both palm branch and reed in a (יום אחד) single day;

When one looks at the normal way that NIV translators translate יום אחד it becomes very clear that their unique translation of this phrase in Ge. 1:5 was motived by more than just the words of the text. Similar inconsistences are seen in many other English translation; all which would translate יום אחד in these verses similar to the way it is translated in the NIV.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Note: Your Hebrew quotes do not reflect the English text and demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the Hebrew language i.e. "a third day" is "יום שלישי", but "and there is morning, a third day" is "ויהי בקר יום שלישי"; however, "בקר יום שלישי" is just a sentence fragment that makes little sense.

This is how "one day" is written in Gen. 1 (I have linked to translate.google.com so you can see how it is translated.)

יום אחד

This is how "The first day" is written in Hebrew. (Again, I have linked to translate.google.com so you can see how it is translated.) NOTE: The following phrase is not in the text of Ge. 1 anywhere!

היום הראשון

Google wouldn't be my first choice for an exegesis of Old Testament Hebrew.

For comparison, let's see how the NIV translates יום אחד elsewhere:

(Gen. 27:45 NIV) When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him, I'll send word for you to come back from there. Why should I lose both of you in (יום אחד) one day?"
(Gen. 33:13 NIV) But Jacob said to him, "My lord knows that the children are tender and that I must care for the ewes and cows that are nursing their young. If they are driven hard just (יום אחד) one day, all the animals will die.
(Num. 11:19 NIV) You will not eat it for just (יום אחד) one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days,
(1 Sam. 27:1 NIV) But David thought to himself, "(יום אחד) One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand."
(Isa. 9:14 NIV) So the LORD will cut off from Israel both head and tail, both palm branch and reed in a (יום אחד) single day;

It can be translated one, single, first or a 'single day'.

One ('echâd, ekh-awd' אֶחָד ); a numeral from H258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first. The KJV translates Strong's H259 in the following manner: one (687x), first (36x), another (35x), other (30x), any (18x), once (13x), eleven (with H6240) (13x), every (10x), certain (9x), an (7x), some (7x), miscellaneous (87x).

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one H259 place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (Gen 1:9)

The name of the first H259 is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; (Gen 2:11)

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one H259 of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (Gen 2:21)​

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one H259 flesh. (Gen 2:24)

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first H259 day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. (Gen 8:5)​

When one looks at the normal way that NIV translators translate יום אחד it becomes very clear that their unique translation of this phrase in Ge. 1:5 was motived by more than just the words of the text. Similar inconsistences are seen in many other English translation; all which would translate יום אחד in these verses similar to the way it is translated in the NIV.

The Hebrew phrase you are belaboring so much is 'one' (H259 אֶחָד 'echad), 'day' (H3117 יוֹם yowm), or 'day one' or the 'first day'. This is pretty obvious unless you are determined to confuse the meaning.
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Google wouldn't be my first choice for an exegesis of Old Testament Hebrew.



It can be translated one, single, first or a 'single day'.

One ('echâd, ekh-awd' אֶחָד ); a numeral from H258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first. The KJV translates Strong's H259 in the following manner: one (687x), first (36x), another (35x), other (30x), any (18x), once (13x), eleven (with H6240) (13x), every (10x), certain (9x), an (7x), some (7x), miscellaneous (87x).

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one H259 place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. (Gen 1:9)

The name of the first H259 is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; (Gen 2:11)

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one H259 of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (Gen 2:21)​

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one H259 flesh. (Gen 2:24)

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first H259 day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. (Gen 8:5)​



The Hebrew phrase you are belaboring so much is 'one' (H259 אֶחָד 'echad), 'day' (H3117 יוֹם yowm), or 'day one' or the 'first day'. This is pretty obvious unless you are determined to confuse the meaning.


Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the Hebrew language; "one day" is correct, "day one" is not. In Hebrew, like Spanish, adjectives follow the noun, in English they precede the noun.

For example in English we say:

white house
but in Spanish and Hebrew we say:

"house white" i.e. "casa blanca" or "בית לבן" (Google link provided)
Here are some more example that demonstrate the noun - adjective order in Hebrew

We are all the sons of one man (Gen. 42:11 NIV) lit. "man one"

Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? (Mal. 2:10 NIV) lit. "God one & Father one"

The first chariot had red horses (Zech. 6:2 NIV) lit. "horses reds" Note: adjectives can be plural in Hebrew.


=====================================================

The main point is that you are free to interpret this however you like, but you have gone well beyond Scripture when you insist that this is how everyone else MUST interpret it. What you are offering is an interpretation of Scripture and not Scripture itself!

The reality is that length of a day in Genesis 1 has been debated since the very beginning of the Church. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian all believed that creation took place over 6,000 years i.e. six - one thousand year days. Augustine believed that all 6 days took place instantaneously. For you to suggest that you have THE ANSWER to a question that godly men have been struggling to answer for two thousand years is nothing but arrogance. There is good reason why the early church never considered this a point of doctrine on which to divide!
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the Hebrew language; "one day" is correct, "day one" is not. In Hebrew, like Spanish, adjectives follow the noun, in English they precede the noun.

For example in English we say:

white house
but in Spanish and Hebrew we say:

"house white" i.e. "casa blanca" or "בית לבן" (Google link provided)
Here are some more example that demonstrate the noun - adjective order in Hebrew

We are all the sons of one man (Gen. 42:11 NIV) lit. "man one"

Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? (Mal. 2:10 NIV) lit. "God one & Father one"

The first chariot had red horses (Zech. 6:2 NIV) lit. "horses reds" Note: adjectives can be plural in Hebrew.


=====================================================

The main point is that you are free to interpret this however you like, but you have gone well beyond Scripture when you insist that this is how everyone else MUST interpret it. What you are offering is an interpretation of Scripture and not Scripture itself!

The reality is that length of a day in Genesis 1 has been debated since the very beginning of the Church. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyprian all believed that creation took place over 6,000 years i.e. six - one thousand year days. Augustine believed that all 6 days took place instantaneously. For you to suggest that you have THE ANSWER to a question that godly men have been struggling to answer for two thousand years is nothing but arrogance. There is good reason why the early church never considered this a point of doctrine on which to divide!
You don't have a point here, the days of creation are numbered for a reason, the same reason it is called creation week. Augustinian didn't believe the six days of creation happened instantaneously, he believed that when God created it happened instantaneously. No one is struggling with the doctrine of creation, the Genesis account of creation is clear, you either believe it or you don't.

Creation is essential doctrine, especially the creation of life. There is no controversy, there is no doctrinal dispute, there is no real question with regards to the creation account. You either believe it you don't, just like the gospel.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No, Mark. Evolution is plain wrong.There are no fossils showing intermediate stages of an evolution, no evidence of the 'making' of new body-parts from old ones. Just very minor adaptations, such as those finches' beaks, which, in fact, reverted once the weather-modified environment reverted to normal. Likewise changes caused by the selective breeding, for instance, of dogs, which when returned to the general population, revert to the norm of the general population, again.

I think it is pretty obvious that evolution happens on a vast scale just not at the level Darwinians have been telling us. Darwin said that if it could be proven that a single organ could not have arisen from sight, successive modification his theory would completely break down. My view is that none of the organs, from cellular organelles could have arisen in this way, yet it is constantly insisted we must believe exactly that. I retain the right to remain unpersuaded.

But the whole 'house of cards' was ruined and came toppling down, when Crick realised that the strands of DNA constitued a digital code, a computer-type language - except quaternary, rather than binary - explaining the manner in which the item was to develop - instructions. Only an intelligence - and that of a mind-blowingly high order in the case in point - can create information.

I would agree with that as far as it goes but comparative genomics has given us an evidencial line that is vastly more empirical. My worldview is that God created life and provided for the adaptive evolution of living things as a part of the originally created genomic molecular machinery.

Even the E-Coli, single-cell virus is constituted of a breath-takingly sophisticaterd and complex design - a plan only a super-intelligence of the kind that deist, Einstein was always rhapsodising about. Apparently when enormously magnified, it shows what amounts to a kind of factory, including all the functions and departments to be found in the most modern factory of man's devising and many more.

Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics, something natural science appears to be completely incapable of doing. He believed God existed but remained an agnostic until the day he died. I think when you look at scientific advancement you have to realize it is deliberately limited and the existential questions should be left to philosophers and theologians.

Most people without an academic education have far too much sense to believe that either nothing could produce everything, or that everything could come together in accordaqcne with the most sophisticated designs and plans - by an endless series of coincidences. In fact, the universe is not old enough for a minuscule natural item to be formed by coincidences, chance. Still less, conjectured proteins that might - according to their fond belief - have created the initial natural 'thang' from which all the rest of life, i.e. living creatures, could have sprung.
From the law of biogenesis to the laws of inheritance we have been shown that life comes from life and life works a certain way, following core principles. Evolution as natural history is largely, in the entirely, presuppositional. The universe may well be billions of years old but life didn't begin on this planet until God created it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Yes, and we can introduce animals to a new environments and they adapt to fit niches. Or they adapt to pollution. They adapt in many measurable ways. And we can "evolve" species through animal breeding programs. Like chickens with lots of white meat but unable to use that muscle and fly.
What you are referring to is micro evolution. Most Christians who believe the bible account of creation, have no issue with that. The real issue is with evolution as a macro change. The common ancestor theory that all things including man evolved from the same ancestor. That is patently unbiblical. Man and the chicken did not evolve from the same ancestor. Now birds of all types may have evolved over time from different kinds of birds etc. But they were always birds and never anything else. Same goes for any other creature. The wording of Genesis is "kind" and the animals are plurality. So there were many different kinds of birds and sea and land creatures from the moment of their creation. They never evolved from one thing into many. They were created in the many.

And as far as the light is concerned it is irrelevant as to when it was created in comparison to the sun and stars. God created light as a thing. He later created stars and the sun to reflect that thing upon the universe. The fact that the sun was created after the plants were placed on the earth is really no big deal. For one thing it was only 24 hours max that they were without light. The earth was perfectly suited for them to last until the sun came into being. If God can create all there is including the chemicals that keep the sun going and the perfect temperature to warm the earth without burning it up, he could easily sustain what ever needed to be sustained in order for it to survive until the sun was created. It's really no big deal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0