Genesis 1:5 THE FIRST DAY (KJV)

[Diamond72]

There are a lot of YEC people who believe "The First Day" is a literal 24 hour day. So in the literal Bible what happened on this first "day"? Usually they God created

בָּרָ֣א bā-rā)

the Earth on the first day. But what does "Earth" mean in this verse? We are told "the earth was without form, and void". We have a ton of questions here and so far we have only defined ONE word, the word DAY. There are a lot of words here that need defined but it is usually agreed that we are talking about the word "earth". So WHAT does this word: "earth" mean in the literal Bible. JUST THE BIBLE. If you want to ONLY use the Bible to define the word DAY then we have to apply the same rule to the word: "Earth". What does JUST the BIBLE say the word "Earth" means? Then we have to go though all the words to look at just what the literal Bible says. You reject science for what a day is so it is only fair that you can not use science to define what the rest of the words in the passage say or mean. GAP people say there was a GAP of time between beginning and "the earth was without form and void". We see this term used also in Jeremiah 4:23 "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and void; and at the heavens, and their light was gone." The Bible defines the Bible so how do we use these terms in Jeremiah to understand what the term "formless and void" means in Genesis one. No cheating. You can not use Science because you have already rejected science when you define day as a 24 hour day. So we can not use science to define any of the other words in the literal passage. In the literal bible what was Jeremiah: "looking" at?

 

[davetaff]

Hi a day with the Lord is a thousand years.

‭2 Peter 3:8 ESV‬
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

bible.com

According to Peter this is a fact not to be overlooked so its important so the only thing missing on the ark was man in the image of GOD that was Adam he was destroyed in the flood so God set about creating av new Adam and that Adam is Jesus Christ at his second comming.

Love and Peace
Dave

 

[Ted-01]

I see this as a strange argument that people make continually.

To approach any part of Scripture as "scientist" on a quest to find how God did what He did, is a foolish errand, IMHO. Why, because God wasn't writing a scientific paper, He was doing something much different. It's a mistake to a treat a piece of literature as a textbook when it clearly wasn't written that way. When folks parse a piece of literature, the various meanings/common usages of words, terms and phrases we're doing a wise thing... however, there's a point when it goes too far. The science-minded folks seem to do this, taking it too far, very often. I've seen this with other "groups", to be sure, but "science" is the topic in this thread, so I'm focusing on that.

The oft quoted 2 Peter 3:8 ESV is a great example of this taking things too far. It's obvious to all that we don't use it when looking at all Scripture or in daily life... I am not closing in on being 23 million years old... the Sabbath doesn't last 1,000 years. But when the science-minded try to shoehorn a gap theory or TE, oh, yes... it's definitely 1,000 years... heck, it's actually a billion years or so.

I've heard popular scientists over the last few decades, yammer on things outside of their wheelhouse. They act like because they have a degree or two in the science fields, they're equipped to speak authoritatively on subjects like literature, theology, metaphysics, etc., I disagree strongly! While I think that everyone should feel free to discuss any subject, the unfortunate piece is the authoritative part... and worse yet is that folks, Christians, seem to suck it up. That's heartbreaking to me. I think that any authoritarian will have a lot to answer, in the end. Since the Scriptures were not written as a textbook suitable for scientific scrutiny is clear to most, I can only guess that the reason some folks treat otherwise is because they're outside their own wheelhouse. Perhaps it would be a wise move for the so-called scientists (and the folks that love them) to stay away from literature, as it doesn't seem to be a "strong suit".

 

[Ace777]

But when the science-minded try to shoehorn a gap theory or TE, oh, yes... it's definitely 1,000 years... heck, it's actually a billion years or so.

The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science. Science confirms that the Bible is true and the Bible confirms that science is true. People can believe what they want. No one is going to change anyone else opinion and interpretation.

 

[Ted-01]

The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science. Science confirms that the Bible is true and the Bible confirms that science is true. People can believe what they want. No one is going to change anyone else opinion and interpretation.

I agree with most, if not all of this.

However, I believe that the Bible (God), is under no obligation to "confirm" science. I see science according to the archaic definition of the word... which would simply be "knowledge". In total, it is man's acquired body of knowledge, and as such, I do not believe that God is obligated to confirm what men have gathered.

I do not hold to definitions of the word "science" that speak to the "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained" (Oxford). To me, that's absolute bunk.

I also agree that few, or less, would change their opinion to mine, and am fairly confident that I will not change my opinion, either. However, for the sake of polite conversation/discussion, I would allow the Oxford definition to an agreed upon usage.

 

[Ace777]

"knowledge"

, I believe that the Bible (God), is under no obligation to "confirm" science.

Both the Bible and Science are the law of God. In Science we call them laws of physics. It is actually the Bible people think they can break the law and get away with it. But understanding law in the Bible is different from understanding the laws of physics.

Knowledge does come from God. He gives us the ability to understand because He wants us to know what He is doing.

I do not believe that God is obligated to confirm what men have gathered.

Nor is He obligated to mans interpretation and understanding of the Bible. Paul talks about how people need to be fully convinced in what they believe but I am not quite sure why if what they believe is not accurate.

 

[Ted-01]

Both the Bible and Science are the law of God. In Science we call them laws of physics. It is actually the Bible people think they can break the law and get away with it. But understanding law in the Bible is different from understanding the laws of physics.

Knowledge does come from God. He gives us the ability to understand because He wants us to know what He is doing.


Nor is He obligated to mans interpretation and understanding of the Bible. Paul talks about how people need to be fully convinced in what they believe but I am not quite sure why if what they believe is not accurate.

See, now this is as you predicted... that we disagree.

The other day, you said, in another thread, that you didn't like the word "Omnipotent" used in speaking of God. So, where in the Word of God are we told about a Law of Physics? It isn't there... also, I think we'd be able to find several leading (astro)physicists that would say that what we know about physics might be completely different in another part of the universe... but our God would still be there too.

The way that I understand Scripture's use of the word "knowledge", its primary thrust is about the knowledge of God... knowing Him, and then intimately. Not general knowledge. Does God both want and allow humans to learn and know things? I think so. But I see nowhere in Scripture God telling folks how smelt metals, and giving engineering tips, or anything of the like. He doesn't seem to teach any "sciences", whatsoever. Likewise, I never understood Paul to be trying to convince anyone to be convinced of any of the leading breakthroughs in learning anything but Jesus Christ and the doctrines that Paul taught.

 

[Ace777]

So, where in the Word of God are we told about a Law of Physics?

If you do not believe the laws of physics are true you would be the very first person who ever said that.

what we know about physics might be completely different in another part of the universe.

When the laws of physics break down then we have quantum physics. I have run into a lot of people. Einstein included that did not like quantum physics at all. Even Musk created AI as a product of physics and quantum physics and he is very concerned about the harm that can be done using this. Of course Bill Gates does not care as long as he is putting money in his pocket and can avoid paying taxes.

The other day, you said, in another thread, that you didn't like the word "Omnipotent"

Lately I have been getting away form KJV a bit and I do prefer the word Almighty. Omnipotent reminds me of someone that can produce a lot of babies. Compared to the idea that there is nothing more powerful than God. I know a girl in a wheel chair and she things God is amazing and loves to talk about how awesome God is. People who need comfort the most depend on God the most.

But I see nowhere in Scripture God telling folks how smelt metals, and giving engineering tips, or anything of the like.

Genesis 4:22 says, "Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron" (ESV) or "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" (KJV). Tubal-cain was the son of Lamech's wife Zillah and the brother of Naamah

The Bible takes place in the Brass age and there is a lot in the Bible about the different metals. For engineering Moses was clearly a civil engineer and a city planer. He talks about the laws of sanitation and how to control disease . During their 40 years in the desert you can see where they camped because there was water, which in the desert is called an oasis and the camp sight is foot shaped.

He doesn't seem to teach any "sciences"

Both Moses and Abraham had the best education that was available in their day. If anyone it was Abraham that invented science. He was the first person to separate truth from error. He was a chaldean from Ur where they developed the technology to build the ‎Ziggurat that God was so upset with them. Even though I do not understand why. That was when he confused the langauge and scattered the people.

If you remember with Moses there were a lot of plagues in Egypt and he tired to get his brother the Pharaoh to do something about it. But we are told the Pharaoh was stiff necked and would not listen to Moses.

 

[CoffeeNick]

There are a lot of YEC people who believe "The First Day" is a literal 24 hour day. So in the literal Bible what happened on this first "day"? Usually they God created

בָּרָ֣א bā-rā)

the Earth on the first day. But what does "Earth" mean in this verse? We are told "the earth was without form, and void". We have a ton of questions here and so far we have only defined ONE word, the word DAY. There are a lot of words here that need defined but it is usually agreed that we are talking about the word "earth". So WHAT does this word: "earth" mean in the literal Bible. JUST THE BIBLE. If you want to ONLY use the Bible to define the word DAY then we have to apply the same rule to the word: "Earth". What does JUST the BIBLE say the word "Earth" means? Then we have to go though all the words to look at just what the literal Bible says. You reject science for what a day is so it is only fair that you can not use science to define what the rest of the words in the passage say or mean. GAP people say there was a GAP of time between beginning and "the earth was without form and void". We see this term used also in Jeremiah 4:23 "I looked at the earth, and it was formless and void; and at the heavens, and their light was gone." The Bible defines the Bible so how do we use these terms in Jeremiah to understand what the term "formless and void" means in Genesis one. No cheating. You can not use Science because you have already rejected science when you define day as a 24 hour day. So we can not use science to define any of the other words in the literal passage. In the literal bible what was Jeremiah: "looking" at?

Great point about consistency in interpretation! You're right, if we're going to take a literal 24-hour day approach, we should apply the same principle to understanding the rest of the passage. I think it's a great idea to explore how the Bible defines the word "earth" and other terms, like "formless and void", within its own context. The Jeremiah 4:23 reference is a good starting point. It seems like Jeremiah is describing a desolate, post-judgment scene. If we apply that understanding to Genesis 1, it could suggest that the "earth was without form, and void" is describing a state of devastation or chaos, rather than a pristine, newly created earth

 

[Ace777]

If we apply that understanding to Genesis 1, it could suggest that the "earth was without form, and void" is describing a state of devastation or chaos, rather than a pristine, newly created earth

All the more we wonder why the KJV uses the word replenish rather than to fill and plenish the earth.

I think it's a great idea to explore how the Bible defines the word "earth"

There does seem to be different meanings for he word "earth". This can mean the ground or this could mean Eden. Or this could mean the whole planet. Genesis chapter two seems to be a story about Eden. Genesis chapter one seems to be a story of the whole earth. We think of Eden as being pristine and new, where perhaps the whole earth was in a state of ruin.

 

[Platte]

Hi a day with the Lord is a thousand years.

‭2 Peter 3:8 ESV‬
[8] But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. | English Standard Version Revision 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

bible.com

And 1000 years is one day. Aren’t we right back to 1 day.

Or maybe that was a metaphorical statement describing Gods patience.

You don’t want to take Genesis literal even though there is nothing metaphorical in its delivery. But something that has a metaphorical delivery you take literal. Smh.

 

[Platte]

The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no contradiction between the Bible and Science. Science confirms that the Bible is true and the Bible confirms that science is true. People can believe what they want. No one is going to change anyone else opinion and interpretation.

How about the problem that the Bible is always true but science sometimes isn’t.

 

[Ace777]

How about the problem that the Bible is always true but science sometimes isn’t.

The Bible is true but no one seems to understand the Bible. So the Bible is subject to translation and interpretation. A lot of the Bible does not even get translated. Every book in the world would not be enough to explain what is in the Bible.

Next the Bible has up to 100 layers of understanding. A day can be a 24 hour day, a day can mean a week, a day can mean 1,000 years. If we just follow the rules of Bible interpretation that we learn in Bible college.

There is a myth that Science is proven wrong and that is not true. First of all if it can be proven wrong then it was never science. NEXT Science is not proven wrong so much as we have more information. Einstein did not falsify Newton. Newton's laws still as they always have and they fit just fine into Einstein's laws that he adds to what Newton discovered.

"Some ideas have been perpetuated as scams, such as the flat Earth theory, which was initially proposed as a jest and later exploited to cast doubt on religious beliefs. Similarly, the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism has ancient roots, tracing back to the time of Abraham, the patriarch of Ur and the Chaldeans. Remarkably, Abraham was not only a spiritual leader but also a skilled scientist, adept in astronomy and mathematics.

Consider Noah, too. In an era when skepticism prevailed, he embarked on the monumental task of constructing an ark—a vessel capable of preserving an entire biodiverse ecosystem. The scientific knowledge required for such an endeavor was immense, from understanding hydrodynamics to designing a structure that could withstand the forces of a global flood."

The notion that science is “proven wrong” is indeed a common misconception. Allow me to break it down:

1. Scientific Theories and Falsifiability:
   • Science operates based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomena that has withstood rigorous testing.
   • Importantly, scientific theories are falsifiable. This means that they can be tested and potentially disproven through evidence. If a theory fails a crucial test, it is revised or replaced.
   • However, the ability to be falsified doesn’t invalidate a theory; rather, it demonstrates its scientific nature.
2. Advancement of Knowledge:
   • Science continually evolves as we gain more information and refine our understanding.
   • Einstein’s theory of relativity did not invalidate Newton’s laws of motion. Instead, it expanded our understanding of the universe.
   • Newton’s laws remain accurate within their applicable contexts (e.g., everyday situations), while Einstein’s theories provide a more comprehensive framework (especially at high speeds or in strong gravitational fields).

In summary, science isn’t about proving things absolutely right or wrong; it’s about refining our understanding based on evidence. Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theories coexist harmoniously, each contributing to our broader scientific knowledge.

 

[Platte]

The Bible is true but no one seems to understand the Bible. So the Bible is subject to translation and interpretation. A lot of the Bible does not even get translated. Every book in the world would not be enough to explain what is in the Bible.

Next the Bible has up to 100 layers of understanding. A day can be a 24 hour day, a day can mean a week, a day can mean 1,000 years. If we just follow the rules of Bible interpretation that we learn in Bible college.

There is a myth that Science is proven wrong and that is not true. First of all if it can be proven wrong then it was never science. NEXT Science is not proven wrong so much as we have more information. Einstein did not falsify Newton. Newton's laws still as they always have and they fit just fine into Einstein's laws that he adds to what Newton discovered.

"Some ideas have been perpetuated as scams, such as the flat Earth theory, which was initially proposed as a jest and later exploited to cast doubt on religious beliefs. Similarly, the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism has ancient roots, tracing back to the time of Abraham, the patriarch of Ur and the Chaldeans. Remarkably, Abraham was not only a spiritual leader but also a skilled scientist, adept in astronomy and mathematics.

Consider Noah, too. In an era when skepticism prevailed, he embarked on the monumental task of constructing an ark—a vessel capable of preserving an entire biodiverse ecosystem. The scientific knowledge required for such an endeavor was immense, from understanding hydrodynamics to designing a structure that could withstand the forces of a global flood."

The notion that science is “proven wrong” is indeed a common misconception. Allow me to break it down:

1. Scientific Theories and Falsifiability:
   • Science operates based on empirical evidence, observation, and experimentation. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomena that has withstood rigorous testing.
   • Importantly, scientific theories are falsifiable. This means that they can be tested and potentially disproven through evidence. If a theory fails a crucial test, it is revised or replaced.
   • However, the ability to be falsified doesn’t invalidate a theory; rather, it demonstrates its scientific nature.
2. Advancement of Knowledge:
   • Science continually evolves as we gain more information and refine our understanding.
   • Einstein’s theory of relativity did not invalidate Newton’s laws of motion. Instead, it expanded our understanding of the universe.
   • Newton’s laws remain accurate within their applicable contexts (e.g., everyday situations), while Einstein’s theories provide a more comprehensive framework (especially at high speeds or in strong gravitational fields).

In summary, science isn’t about proving things absolutely right or wrong; it’s about refining our understanding based on evidence. Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theories coexist harmoniously, each contributing to our broader scientific knowledge.

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Like it says and conveys the exact message He desired.

 

[Ace777]

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Do you believe that God is infinite and beyond our ability to put into a box.

 

[Platte]

Do you believe that God is infinite and beyond our ability to put into a box.

Yes. I also believe the Bible is the Word of God. Do you? If you don’t just say so.

 

[Ace777]

Yes. I also believe the Bible is the Word of God. Do you? If you don’t just say so.

Are you trying to accuse me of not being a christian. Isn't that against the rules?

 

[Platte]

Are you trying to accuse me of not being a christian. Isn't that against the rules?

no when I asked you earlier you didn’t answer. No offense

 

[Ace777]

you didn’t answer

I do not see what it accomplishes. People want to argue and it does not seem to accomplish anything.

 

[Platte]

All the more we wonder why the KJV uses the word replenish rather than to fill and plenish the earth.

I missed this, what’s the issue with KJV when it instructs Adam and Eve to replenish the Earth?