Explain Genesis 1 literally to me

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

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

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

Philis said:

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

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

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philis said:

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

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

Thanks for your patience with me as I learn about this

Click to expand...

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

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


According to Paul:


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

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

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


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

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

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.


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

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

This is how the word is used in other passages:


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


Genesis

Antediluvian Period:


From Noah to Abram:


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

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Philis said:

Hi Mark,

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

mark kennedy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

mark kennedy said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

mark kennedy said:

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

Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

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

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

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

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

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

tupon

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

tupoV

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

tupouV

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

mark kennedy said:

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

Click to expand...

You need to do a bit more

mark kennedy said:

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

Click to expand...

Quite possibly,


Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

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

From Noah to Abram:

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

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

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

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

Philis said:

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

Click to expand...

He did place them in a sense but not in the sense that they did not exist before. The key expression is 'To give light upon the earth'. Remember that the perspective is from the 'surface of the earth'.

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

Click to expand...

They continually attack Creationists for believing God created life, supernaturally, as it is literally described in Genesis 1. How many examples do you need, it's all they do on here.

Darwinism rejects God as Creator in no uncertain terms and the arguments of theistic evolutionists do not differ from the ones made by atheists and agnostics by any significant margin. I think some of them believe God created something but it wasn't life, it was some primordial elemental that developed life as an expression of divine providence. Every now and then there is some passing reference to 'guided' evolution but God's role in that is like chasing ghosts in the fog.

With regards to the other miracles of the Bible they are strangely silent, their sole interest is attacking Creationists. That, in effect, is a rejection of God as Creator unless it is a qualified statement.

Hi Philis,

In recent years Gordon Wenham, for example, has written a decent commentary that provides a verse-by-verse answer to your question. Or some years prior, Rabbi Umberto Cassuto another good one.

In my view, not that I will address all my view here, the creation account is intended to be taken as part of the introduction to the books of Moses, and should especially be read in light of that. One of the major thematic patterns of these introductory chapters is that the present (from the vantage point of the narrative) is foreshadowed in the past.

Thus the "separations" of Genesis 1 may foreshadow the separations in the law of Moses--between clean and unclean, between children of Abraham and everybody else, between sin and righteousness, for example. God makes distinctions in what He has made.

This is not to say the separations in Genesis 1 are not to be taken at face value, only that the perspective is Mosaic. Note the focus in the creation account on man-centered "domestic animals," the Man's stewardship over the creation, and the narrowing down from broad heavens-earth-sea categories to the Man (Adam-Eve) in the Garden. Everything in the creation is God's, but the focus becomes the Man who alone is made in the image and likeness of God.

The Garden of Eden is the place where the Man meets God. It foreshadows the Mosaic Tabernacle and the Promised Land--where man's fellowship with God is restored after the Fall. And Noah is a kind of Adam in that both narratives connect themes of (1) man made in the image of God, (2) the command to be fruitful and multiply to fill a world with progeny, (3) nakedness and sin (cf Noah's drunkenness/nakedness). The Flood then becomes a cleansing holocaust on account of sin foreshadowing the later destruction of the Canaanites under Joshua (Moses's protege), and Noah's curse on Ham's son for Ham's sin also foreshadows Canaanite extermination for sin.

Of course a major implication of the creation narrative in the books of Moses is also that the God of Abraham is the God of the whole creation--and of all nations of humans in particular. Abraham is the beginning of God's program for eventually blessing all nations of the world (Genesis 12) following the tragic separations of the Fall. One day, an Eden-like future will be restored to the creation, as John points out in his Apocalypse (Revelation). The past will again prove to have foreshadowed the future's present.

Google John Walton and Rikk Watts. Both have good, well researched material with a fresh take on the creation account.

John
NZ

Philis said:

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

Click to expand...

The work God was doing was in the firmament. GAP believe a day is 1000 years so all of this took place in the last 12,980 years. Clearly the sun, moon and stars have been around a lot longer then that. OEC of course has a different way to understand these passages.

mark kennedy said:

They continually attack Creationists for believing God created life, supernaturally, as it is literally described in Genesis 1. How many examples do you need, it's all they do on here.

Click to expand...

It is described as God breathing life into man. You think that God literally breathes? I didn't think He would need to do that until Jesus came around. Maybe the word "breathe" is figurative?

Darwinism rejects God as Creator in no uncertain terms and the arguments of theistic evolutionists do not differ from the ones made by atheists and agnostics by any significant margin. I think some of them believe God created something but it wasn't life, it was some primordial elemental that developed life as an expression of divine providence. Every now and then there is some passing reference to 'guided' evolution but God's role in that is like chasing ghosts in the fog.

Click to expand...

Do you think God created you? What was His role in that?

With regards to the other miracles of the Bible they are strangely silent, their sole interest is attacking Creationists. That, in effect, is a rejection of God as Creator unless it is a qualified statement.

Click to expand...

Well, this is the origins theology forum so I would expect that the focus would be origins and not other miracles in the bible.

The following is an understanding of the first creation narrative from an Ancient Near East perspective, as such I believe it's probably as literal as you're going to get.

Gen 1:1 Title for what is to come

Gen 1:2-13 The First Three Days In which God creates the realms of his temple.

Gen 1:2-5 Day 1 in which the way that time flows is set up, God brings in the dawn by saying let there be light and decrees that this is how it should go.
Gen 1:6-8 Day 2 in which God creates the mechanisms for weather, namely the firmament to separate the rain water reservoirs from the earth, complete with windows that he'll use to rain on the earth (cf. Gen7:11)
Gen 1:9-13 Day 3 in which God creates the land and food sources for the animals.

Gen 1:14-31 Second Three Days In which God fills these spaces with his Creatures.

Gen 1:14-19 Day 4 in which God creates the lights of heavens for signs of seasons, years and days
Gen 1:20-23 Day 5 in which God creates the creatures of the waters, the birds who fly are included as they are seen to fly/swim between the firmament and earth, we also have reassurance of God's power over the sea monsters, the sea is seen as a chaos in which only monsters live, but since God created the creatures that live in there to frolic we need not be as afraid. Also a sign of creation having an innate reason for being rather than being subject to what humans need.
Gen 1:24-25 Day 6a in which God creates the beasts of land
Gen 1:26-27 Day 6b God creates man, he creates man imago dei, this is it the pinnacle of God's temple work he is putting an image of himself in the temple so that creation can have it's purpose and so that the worship coming through the temple can have it's nexus point and which it will then get passed on to the creator.
Gen 1:28-31 Day 6c God finishes up his creation of man by giving him, the living image this unheard of in ANE theology of man privilege, he makes man ruler over creation second only to himself.

Gen 2:1-3 The Seventh Day
Having finished his creative acts, God now settles down and takes control of the universe, the temple is his control centre, he is the emmanuel.

It's not necessary to explain Genesis in literal terms. God IS the creator of all and man/woman must obey him or there will be problems.

Assyrian said:

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

Click to expand...

It is spam and like I told him, I have a Bible if he wants to reference the genealogies. I keep repeating the τύπος study because it doesn't mean what you have zealously proclaimed to be the informed understanding. When Adam is refereed to as a 'figure' of Christ it does not mean he is a figure of speech representing humanity. Adam, the person, is identified with his descendants and the name can be used in the Old Testament as exactly that. Not because Adam is a myth or a metaphor but because we all descended from him and you know it.

Typology is not an effective tool for reducing something you don't believe, to a figure of speech. I've seen your tactics fail to produce a substantive and coherent argument again and again. You play the critic but pedantic corrections are not a basis for a sound exposition, it's an effective way of derailing discussions and burying them in an avalanche of spam and personal attacks. You and Papias being the the most prolific users of that particular trolling tactic.

When it is used in Roman 5 it is used to speak of the person Adam, the first parent of all humanity, that is not my opinion, that's the Strong's definition of 'Adam'. As far as 'type' sometimes translated 'figure' the clear meaning is not figure of speech as you would have us believe:

Strong's G5179 - typos - τύπος (from τύπτω G5180) These two examples of how that exact form of the word is used:


With all the spam links you provide in your response not a single mention of the actual meaning of the word. You would have people running in circles, chasing down an ongoing discussion where you conflate and confuse the issues with these vain spam tactics. The word does not mean a figure of speech, it simply means a type, precursor, pattern or in the case of Timothy, an example. When it is used of Adam it means the literal person Adam just as when it is used of Timothy it means the literal person Timothy.

In that long and tedious post of yours not once do you honestly admit the actual meaning of the word τύπος. You do not discuss how it is properly rendered in the translations or properly understood in a sound exposition of the text. You don't mention it because you don't care about it, your purpose in posting to these discussions is not to build up peoples understanding of the Scriptures but to tear down the work of others.

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

Click to expand...

Every time you challenge me you drag the subject off topic with pointless and obscure statements like this one. Interject a 'six day' into the statement and the pedantic rationalization neutralizes the real meaning. The issue here is creation, injecting the qualifier 'six day' is a meaningless rationalization and diversionary tactic, nothing more.

Romans 1:18-22 speaks of God's natural revelation in Creation and Hebrews 11:3 is about how 'by faith' we believe in the Creation as a foundation to understanding and receiving the Gospel. Every time you challenge me you are increasingly irrelevant in your personal attacks and you couldn't find a sound exposition of the Scriptures with a road map.

It doesn't seem to matter if it's the meaning of 'firmament', 'type' or 'Adam' theistic evolutionists always to the same exact thing. Instead of building up believers with a functional understanding of the language and meaning of Scripture, they want to bury it in an avalanche of spam and fallacious personal attacks.

It would not be so bad if you ever did anything else.

Philis said:

It is described as God breathing life into man. You think that God literally breathes? I didn't think He would need to do that until Jesus came around. Maybe the word "breathe" is figurative?

Click to expand...

God literally 'breathed' life into Adam but not in the sense that I think God has lungs and breaths air. At some level you have to reflect on the figurative language being used, Jesus even used parables because:


We have all heard John 3:16 and have a pretty good idea what it means to be 'born again'. Here in John 3 Jesus is admittedly using earthly language to explain a spiritual even, the rebirth of the human spirit as a result of believing the Gospel. We know that God made Adam a living soul, we know that God made you a living soul, we know that we become a new creature in Christ at our conversion. What is not so easy to grasp is were the natural creation here overlaps with the spiritual.

I won't preach semantics to you on this one, we can dispense with an expositional word search. The language is not really all that hard to understand, it just take a little time for it to dawn on you.

Do you think God created you? What was His role in that?

Click to expand...

Of course he created me but not in the same sense he created Adam, Christ alone was created in that sense since the creation of Adam. I really don't know how much intervention there was in making me a living soul, I doubt seriously it requires God make a supernatural effort for my organs, bones and muscles to form. As far as becoming a living soul, God alone knows the answer to that one. I do know that our rebirth requires a miracle, the most important miracle of your life.

Well, this is the origins theology forum so I would expect that the focus would be origins and not other miracles in the bible.

Click to expand...

Unless they are the same miracle: Creation, the resurrection and rebirth are all the same miracle just different manifestations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

progmonk said:

The following is an understanding of the first creation narrative from an Ancient Near East perspective, as such I believe it's probably as literal as you're going to get.

Gen 1:1 Title for what is to come

Gen 1:2-13 The First Three Days In which God creates the realms of his temple...

Gen 2:1-3 The Seventh Day
Having finished his creative acts, God now settles down and takes control of the universe, the temple is his control centre, he is the emmanuel.

Click to expand...

That sounds pretty close except there was no Temple, the Tabernacle would not even be prepared until the time of the Exodus. I don't know what ANE perspective you are working from here but God was with Adam on a daily basis in the original creation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.