A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a geophysicist who worked 47 years in the oil business. I have always felt that YECs were correct that the Bible needs to be true, but their way to make it 'true' actually makes it false. Those who accepted science strangely would proclaim the Bible devoid of scientific information but then proclaim that we should believe the Bible is God's word. But that is a God who is clueless about what happened at creation. I will put up my view of Day 1 but the full write up can be found at the link below.

I hold to a Days of Proclamation view, where Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Nothing was created in Genesis 1. By making it pre-temporal, we avoid huge mis-matches between the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order of events in Geology. Anyway, here is day 1 and the link is below:

Proclamation 1

Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"

The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.

Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.

Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:

"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3

St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.

"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4

Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:

"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5

The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.

The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3

Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.

Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
The Migrant Mind: Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1
 

Heart2Soul

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 25, 2017
1,135
1,041
Tulsa
✟158,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am a geophysicist who worked 47 years in the oil business. I have always felt that YECs were correct that the Bible needs to be true, but their way to make it 'true' actually makes it false. Those who accepted science strangely would proclaim the Bible devoid of scientific information but then proclaim that we should believe the Bible is God's word. But that is a God who is clueless about what happened at creation. I will put up my view of Day 1 but the full write up can be found at the link below.

I hold to a Days of Proclamation view, where Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Nothing was created in Genesis 1. By making it pre-temporal, we avoid huge mis-matches between the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order of events in Geology. Anyway, here is day 1 and the link is below:

Proclamation 1

Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"

The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.

Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.

Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:

"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3

St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.

"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4

Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:

"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5

The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.

The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3

Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.

Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
The Migrant Mind: Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1
Genesis 1....the light God created here is not physical...it is His presence manifested against the darkness and void.
On the 4th day God created the sun, moon, and stars...He said let their be lights (plural)
And they shall divide day from night (not darkness) and they shall be for signs, and seasons, and for days and for years.
He created 2 great lights...one to rule by day and the lesser by night.
This is also when the measurement of time began. Up to that point time did not exist as we know it.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am a geophysicist who worked 47 years in the oil business. I have always felt that YECs were correct that the Bible needs to be true, but their way to make it 'true' actually makes it false. Those who accepted science strangely would proclaim the Bible devoid of scientific information but then proclaim that we should believe the Bible is God's word. But that is a God who is clueless about what happened at creation. I will put up my view of Day 1 but the full write up can be found at the link below.

I hold to a Days of Proclamation view, where Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Nothing was created in Genesis 1. By making it pre-temporal, we avoid huge mis-matches between the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order of events in Geology. Anyway, here is day 1 and the link is below:

Proclamation 1

Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"

The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.

Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.

Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:

"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3

St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.

"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4

Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:

"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5

The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.

The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3

Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.

Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
The Migrant Mind: Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1

Hi Gbob, welcome to CF!

I use to think of Genesis chapter 1 as a divinely inspired poem about Creation. And wonderful to read that way.

And to take a moment on that -- we certainly need of course to sometimes read it with that true listening we would need to gain from a wonderful poem -- to listen instead of only analysing, so as to gain the wonderful things the poem can do for us. With this true listening we are changed by the word. The scripture happens to us. This is why it exists: to alter us. So that kind of reading we all need to do at times.

----------
But, just like you, I want also to know small details about Creation that the Bible does not say. Many people want to know. It's human curiosity.

I used to think many years ago, and for most of my life, that Genesis chapter 1 was a poem about Creation.

Imagine my surprise to read for instance that in mainstream science we now know that Earth was definitely at one point a water world, without any dry land!

Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains
Water Could Have Drowned the Earth If Not for Ancient Supernova

And then, knowing the words of Genesis chapter 1 thinking..."wow!"....

And that was only one part.

Another amazing moment, a good 4 or 6 years ago, was when I read about a careful computer simulation of Earth's early climate that showed it would be as a certainty covered totally in clouds -- 24/7/365 -- for on the order of 1 billion years, and be highly cloudy for much longer after that also.

Which meant that since according to science life on Earth started between 3.8 and 4.3 bn years ago, meaning it would begin under constant cloudiness (sorta like how life can be in some areas of Earth, thriving under constant cloudiness).

And then I read in Samuel that visions are the normal way God communicates with us:
"The boy Samuel ministered before the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions."


Suddenly I began to realize Genesis chapter 1 was not only a poem.

It was evidently a vision with a small amount of narration from God, just like the vision in Acts chapter 10 was a vision with a small amount of narration from God -- just enough so that the recipient would have some partial understanding of what he was seeing (instead of no understanding at all).

Is it starting to make sense in a new light? See, the sun and moon and stars were not visible until the fourth day of the vision (the vision of course being from the perspected of the surface of the Earth (not like a modern astronomy video that zooms through space, etc.), because they days of the vision were actual individual days or stylistically representative days (as visions usually use a stylistic representation) of actual days. Actual days, widely apart in time.

Ergo, to a very high likelihood, the reason the normal night and day cycle began on day 1 was exactly because just like now, that light of day 1 was our sun beginning to shine! It's how everything suddenly fits together, and all problematic aspects are suddenly removed, from the astrophysics knowledge point of view. Much time passes during verse 1, and verse 2 is later in time than verse 1, just like anyone would expect....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1....the light God created here is not physical...it is His presence manifested against the darkness and void.
On the 4th day God created the sun, moon, and stars...He said let their be lights (plural)
And they shall divide day from night (not darkness) and they shall be for signs, and seasons, and for days and for years.
He created 2 great lights...one to rule by day and the lesser by night.
This is also when the measurement of time began. Up to that point time did not exist as we know it.

The reason I don't go with the poetry idea is that this doesn't read like a poem. People say it is a poem but it doesn't look like Psalms kind of poetry. It reads as an account. And where it says, "and God said..." if that is false, then God is clueless about what happened at creation. Over and over in this chapter we are told "And God said..." If god is making false statements about nature, then He can't be the creator. Only the creator would know what happened at the beginning because no human was there.
 
Upvote 0

Heart2Soul

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 25, 2017
1,135
1,041
Tulsa
✟158,650.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The reason I don't go with the poetry idea is that this doesn't read like a poem. People say it is a poem but it doesn't look like Psalms kind of poetry. It reads as an account. And where it says, "and God said..." if that is false, then God is clueless about what happened at creation. Over and over in this chapter we are told "And God said..." If god is making false statements about nature, then He can't be the creator. Only the creator would know what happened at the beginning because no human was there.
Agree...but He gave it to us through Moses...anyway I didn't catch the light thing myself until last year...then it was like ohhhhh 2 separate times He said let there be light but they are 2 separate lights....the physical and the life giving light of His Spirit.
And many times Jesus is referred to as the light of the world.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Agree...but He gave it to us through Moses...anyway I didn't catch the light thing myself until last year...then it was like ohhhhh 2 separate times He said let there be light but they are 2 separate lights....the physical and the life giving light of His Spirit.
And many times Jesus is referred to as the light of the world.

As Howard Hendricks prof at Dallas Seminary said, in the Bible eveerything is "context, Context, Context". Given that Genesis 1:1 starts by defining the context, the creation of the world, it is really hard to see that it is suddenly talking about spiritual light. Secondly, as a geophysicist, I worked with lots of atheists. I asked an atheist boss one time if genesis 1 could be considered poetry and that it wasn't meant to convey scientific information, would you believe it?? He laughed and said, "It still wouldn't be Truuuueeee". People want truth, even atheists. I had asked him that question because a guy who held somewhat similar beliefs to yours told me that this nonliteral view would attract atheists. It doesn't. Why? As my boss said, it still wouldn't be true. And by truth, he meant matches reality, not some idea of what theology is true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lismore
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I am a geophysicist who worked 47 years in the oil business. I have always felt that YECs were correct that the Bible needs to be true, but their way to make it 'true' actually makes it false. Those who accepted science strangely would proclaim the Bible devoid of scientific information but then proclaim that we should believe the Bible is God's word. But that is a God who is clueless about what happened at creation. I will put up my view of Day 1 but the full write up can be found at the link below.

I hold to a Days of Proclamation view, where Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning for the universe. Nothing was created in Genesis 1. By making it pre-temporal, we avoid huge mis-matches between the order of events in Genesis 1 and the order of events in Geology. Anyway, here is day 1 and the link is below:

Proclamation 1

Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"

The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.

Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.

Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:

"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3

St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.

"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4

Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:

"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5

The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.

The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3

Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.

Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
The Migrant Mind: Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1
I read your link and thought..Really?

You were incorrect in many places. The Bible doesn't teach evolution was the method of creating animals and people.
At one point you tried to make the argument the Bible doesn't say it was instant then seem to insert long time periods for evolutionism to work. Problem. The Bible presents each day as a day. But, I'm really not interested in arguing that point. The biggest fail for your proclamations is trying to force evolutionism between the lines.

In doing so you do this...no, you don't make Genesis a poem but instead make is some sort of simple story. Here's a question that has to be answered...in the formation of man via the animal kingdom....when did mankind fall? How did original sin come about?
Unknowingly to you, you don't have an answer for that question. When the religion of Theistic-Eolutionism realizes it can't answer that question...red flags ought to pop up everywhere.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I read your link and thought..Really?

You were incorrect in many places. The Bible doesn't teach evolution was the method of creating animals and people.
At one point you tried to make the argument the Bible doesn't say it was instant then seem to insert long time periods for evolutionism to work. Problem. The Bible presents each day as a day. But, I'm really not interested in arguing that point. The biggest fail for your proclamations is trying to force evolutionism between the lines.

In doing so you do this...no, you don't make Genesis a poem but instead make is some sort of simple story. Here's a question that has to be answered...in the formation of man via the animal kingdom....when did mankind fall? How did original sin come about?
Unknowingly to you, you don't have an answer for that question. When the religion of Theistic-Eolutionism realizes it can't answer that question...red flags ought to pop up everywhere.


Well, There is a time that a single pair, Adam and Eve did fall. At my blog, if you read up from the post you find so distasteful you will find why I believe in an early Adam and eve. The four blog posts above the Days of proclamation lay out all the evidence for why we have to have an old Adam, and then I locate Eden, and the flood. I will post tomorrow the creation of man and problems in Genesis 4. I can assure you that I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, who were tempted by the snake. I am not the normal kind of evolutionist who doesn't believe that the Bible is true. The posts on my blog are designed specifically to support the historicity of the Biblical story.

Just remember, when God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, it was the earth doing something that God had empowered it to do. When God said let the waters bring forth... it was then the waters doing something.
When God said for the third time Let the earth bring forth living creatures, it was him telling us that evolution happened. Go read the series then make up your mind. I know how hard it is for you to think God evolved us, but go read the data. Tomorrow I will have a post on how God created man AND evolved him. At least it isn't the ordinary trype normally claimed. It is something that is different
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, There is a time that a single pair, Adam and Eve did fall. At my blog, if you read up from the post you find so distasteful you will find why I believe in an early Adam and eve. The four blog posts above the Days of proclamation lay out all the evidence for why we have to have an old Adam, and then I locate Eden, and the flood. I will post tomorrow the creation of man and problems in Genesis 4. I can assure you that I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, who were tempted by the snake. I am not the normal kind of evolutionist who doesn't believe that the Bible is true. The posts on my blog are designed specifically to support the historicity of the Biblical story.

Just remember, when God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, it was the earth doing something that God had empowered it to do. When God said let the waters bring forth... it was then the waters doing something.
When God said for the third time Let the earth bring forth living creatures, it was him telling us that evolution happened. Go read the series then make up your mind. I know how hard it is for you to think God evolved us, but go read the data. Tomorrow I will have a post on how God created man AND evolved him. At least it isn't the ordinary trype normally claimed. It is something that is different
You do an awful lot of reading between the lines.

You're single pair of Adam and Eve is kinda strange...what happened to the other people? Didn't they fall?
Seeing how you located Eden then I would assume you don't believe in a world wide flood as Eden would have been completely destroyed in Noahs flood.

"Let the earth bring forth grass" doesn't point to God using evolutionism. Simply put, there was dirt and then God caused grass to grow.

You. seem to have God evolving man....If evolutionism is true then why was Eve formed from Adams rib? Why is she called the mother of all? Why does Paul say Adam was formed first?

You still need to explain away the fall and original sin if God used evolutionism.
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Let the earth bring forth grass" doesn't point to God using evolutionism. Simply put, there was dirt and then God caused grass to grow.

The problem is that the command was directly to the earth/ground/water. It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation, "And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5. Therefore any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather Said something, not to have made something but rather to have commanded something.

The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. How can one not notice that other verses such as Gen. 1:11 does not state "Let there be vegetation...and there was..." or "Let there be living creatures...and there was..." but rather the command is directly to the land. The command was spoken ... "And it was so". What was so? I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

The structure of Genesis 1 is plain in that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?
 
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

Theophilus2019

Active Member
Jun 25, 2019
67
93
72
Surrey
✟54,927.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1 self evidently was never written to be taken literally. The clue is in given in that sun and moon weren’t created until “day” 4. So what defined the “days” until then? In ancient times days were defined by the sun rising and setting. They didn’t have clocks. So you can’t take Genesis 1 as literal and also read it as literal 24 hour days of creation. The God-breathed language won’t let you do that. Genesis 1 appears to be written as a timeless picture for all ages.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You do an awful lot of reading between the lines.

You're single pair of Adam and Eve is kinda strange...what happened to the other people? Didn't they fall?
Seeing how you located Eden then I would assume you don't believe in a world wide flood as Eden would have been completely destroyed in Noahs flood.

"Let the earth bring forth grass" doesn't point to God using evolutionism. Simply put, there was dirt and then God caused grass to grow.

You. seem to have God evolving man....If evolutionism is true then why was Eve formed from Adams rib? Why is she called the mother of all? Why does Paul say Adam was formed first?

You still need to explain away the fall and original sin if God used evolutionism.

uhhh... single pair of Adam and Eve means only two people on earth. That is what single pair means.

Of me reading between the lines: LOL, I always think other people don't look deep enough. lol

The Bible clearly says the EARTH BROUGHT FORTH LIVING CREATURES. If I say "let Larry mow the lawn, It isn't me out there sweating like a pig. It is Larry. Similarly God delegated the bringing forth of life to the Earth.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that the command was directly to the earth/ground/water. It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation, "And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5. Therefore any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather Said something, not to have made something but rather to have commanded something.

The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. How can one not notice that other verses such as Gen. 1:11 does not state "Let there be vegetation...and there was..." or "Let there be living creatures...and there was..." but rather the command is directly to the land. The command was spoken ... "And it was so". What was so? I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

The structure of Genesis 1 is plain in that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?

Agreed it is mediated agency and in my blogpost on the topic, I pointed out that most of the early church fathers thought that the Earth did the work. They read it as we do.
 
Upvote 0

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 1 self evidently was never written to be taken literally. The clue is in given in that sun and moon weren’t created until “day” 4. So what defined the “days” until then? In ancient times days were defined by the sun rising and setting. They didn’t have clocks. So you can’t take Genesis 1 as literal and also read it as literal 24 hour days of creation. The God-breathed language won’t let you do that. Genesis 1 appears to be written as a timeless picture for all ages.

It might have been meant to be taken literally if they are days of planning for the universe and not days of creation themselves.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem is that the command was directly to the earth/ground/water. It should be very clear that any reading or interpretation of Genesis 1 revolves around fiat or commands as the sole instrument of creation, "And God said". That the sole and only operative agent was God's commands is further supported in Psalm 33:6, Heb. 11:3, and 2 Peter 3:5. Therefore any "God made" statements are explanatory, for on each day it is clear that God has not Done something but rather Said something, not to have made something but rather to have commanded something.

The distinction is also that the fiats were mediate not immediate. How can one not notice that other verses such as Gen. 1:11 does not state "Let there be vegetation...and there was..." or "Let there be living creatures...and there was..." but rather the command is directly to the land. The command was spoken ... "And it was so". What was so? I would suggest that based on the plain reading of the account that "what was so" is God setting in motion all of the laws for the incipient powers, elements, material, etc. as to the natural processes of phenomena to be produced? The immutable God ordered the processes then just as we see today.

The structure of Genesis 1 is plain in that "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed ... God saw that it was good." must be explanatory/post-fulfillment otherwise God's spoken commands were neither sufficient and false according to the other Bible passages. And again the verse explicitly reiterates the mediate agency as to God commanding the earth/land...how is this not a created process?
I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day.
 
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

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Genesis 1 self evidently was never written to be taken literally. The clue is in given in that sun and moon weren’t created until “day” 4. So what defined the “days” until then? In ancient times days were defined by the sun rising and setting. They didn’t have clocks. So you can’t take Genesis 1 as literal and also read it as literal 24 hour days of creation. The God-breathed language won’t let you do that. Genesis 1 appears to be written as a timeless picture for all ages.
You forget, there was light.

Many other portions of the Bible present Genesis as literal.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
uhhh... single pair of Adam and Eve means only two people on earth. That is what single pair means.

Of me reading between the lines: LOL, I always think other people don't look deep enough. lol

The Bible clearly says the EARTH BROUGHT FORTH LIVING CREATURES. If I say "let Larry mow the lawn, It isn't me out there sweating like a pig. It is Larry. Similarly God delegated the bringing forth of life to the Earth.
Correct. At one time there was only two humans.

You seem to be avoiding origin sin. Did the fall happen like Genesis says or some other way?
 
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

Gbob

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 28, 2019
80
37
73
College Station
✟33,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi 57, You wrote in one post: "I still fail to see the point. God did it or directly caused it. What ever the process was it took less than 1 day. "

It was created on one day IF and only IF you already assume Genesis 1 is a set of 24 hour days. I don't hold that assumption. I believe Genesis 1 is the planning stage for the future creation of the universe. The clue that we are not dealing in normal days is the lack of sun in the first 3 days. That my friend is in the bible--sun wasn't created for a few days.

Yes, God caused it, but the Earth DID it. Like setting up one of those domino chains, you might cause all of them to tumble if you push one, but the rest fall because of the previous domino--in otherwords, the dominoes knock down all dominoes except the first domino. That is how I view that God did evolution.

In a second note you wrote:"You seem to be avoiding origin sin. Did the fall happen like Genesis says or some other way? "

I believe the Fall happened exactly as described to the first pair, so don't claim that my view of evolution wouldn't have a first pair. I went to a lot of work to figure out how to have a first pair in my view. So I am NOT avoiding original sin.

Each brought forth only took 24 hours if one already agrees that the days are normal 24 hours. I don't agree with that for the reason above. I think your objection is that there was light. Light isn't the sun.

In a final note your suggest that Genesis 1 isn't presented as planning. It is if you look at the grammar closely. God didn't say "Let there be light and it was so". God said "Let there be light" Someone else, the human writer said "and it was so" God didn't say that phrase. I remember as a child watching Walt Disney's TV show when he was describing how he planned for Disney Land. He actually as I recall said, Let's put Frontier land over there, let's put Future land there... Disneyland had not yet been built. Walt Disney was planning his place. No one at that time could say of Disney's plan 'and it was so" But now we can say "and it was so" Same thing with Genesis.

The advantage of this approach is that it gets us out of the problem of order of events in Genesis 1 which don't match geology. this is a big stick atheists use to convince people that the Bible is full of falsehoods. I for one, don't want to leave them that club.
 
Upvote 0