Genesis 1:5 THE FIRST DAY (KJV)

[Ace777]

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

Eve did not come until much later. In Genesis chapter one we have male and female. We did not have man and women until the Garden of Eden in Chapter two. This is the difference between food gathers and food producers.

 

[Platte]

Eve did not come until much later. In Genesis chapter one we have male and female. We did not have man and women until the Garden of Eden in Chapter two. This is the difference between food gathers and food producers.

Eve was created on day 6 like Adam. Chapter 1 and 2 refer to the same event.

 

[Ace777]

Eve was created on day 6 like Adam. Chapter 1 and 2 refer to the same event.

Do you not understand what I am saying or are you just adamant about what you believe?

 

[Platte]

Do you not understand what I am saying or are you just adamant about what you believe?

It’s not about what you are saying or what I believe. According to the Bible: Eve was created on day 6 like Adam. Chapter 1 and 2 refer to the same event.

 

[Ace777]

Chapter 1 and 2 refer to the same event.

They do not but you can believe what you want. So you believe the world began on Oct 29 4004 BC ?
We can all agree that was a real day and a real week. I think God finished His work on that day.

 

[Platte]

They do not but you can believe what you want. So you believe the world began on Oct 29 4004 BC ?
We can all agree that was a real day and a real week. I think God finished His work on that day.

You can believe what you want. I’ll go with what the Bible says.
Creation was approximately 6000 years ago and took six 24 hour days for God to complete. Not very complicated. Not sure why so many Christians try to complicate things. Recorded History supports it. The first civilization supports it. History of writing supports it. History of language supports it. First known book supports it. No life outside of earth of any kind has been discovered
Hmmm first known civilization is Mesopotamia. Where is that located? Middle East.
Yeah Creation was 6000 years ago as per the Bible (based on detailed chronology) and took 144 hours for God to complete just like God said in the Bible.

 

[Ace777]

Creation was approximately 6000 years ago and took six 24 hour days for God to complete

That is exactly what I got through saying. ONLY you do not want to act like it was a real week at all.

If we run a search for 6,000 years ago we see: "People began cultivating crops such as wheat, barley, rice, and millet, as well as domesticating animals like cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs." Interesting how the Bible says the same thing: Genesius 2:15 "Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.

This is what we call recorded history. Although the oral tradition came first and later on they recorded and wrote it all down.

 

[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.

Does science consider people living to be 1000 years old prior to Flood? Do they make any determination as to what differences in the atmosphere would be required (a lot higher concentrate of oxygen - different thickness of the atmosphere, etc.). And how that would also impact things such as carbon dating.

 

[Ace777]

Does science consider people living to be 1000 years old prior to Flood?

Science says they never lived past the age of 30 which means they did not age. They did not get older. No one dies from natural causes they were all hunted down and killed like an animal. Science can only study the evidence we have to study and look at what we have to look at. So we have to draw our conclusions from that. But I do study the cause of death of the remains of people that have been found like Cheddar man.

 

[Platte]

Science says they never lived past the age of 30 which means they did not age. They did not get older. No one dies from natural causes they were all hunted down and killed like an animal. Science can only study the evidence we have to study and look at what we have to look at. So we have to draw our conclusions from that. But I do study the cause of death of the remains of people that have been found like Cheddar man.

Limitation of science.

 

[Ace777]

Limitation of science.

They are limited by the evidence that God gives us to study.

 

[Ace777]

Limitation of science.

We are only limited by the evidence that God gives us to study which is quite substantial. God wants us to know what He has done. He wants us to be align with Him, HIS plan and His purpose.

 

[Platte]

We are only limited by the evidence that God gives us to study which is quite substantial. God wants us to know what He has done. He wants us to be align with Him, HIS plan and His purpose.

Well I'm glad that you can admit science is limited - because obviously it is.

 

[Ace777]

Well I'm glad that you can admit science is limited - because obviously it is.

If science had all the answers and solutions I would not have needed to become a Christian.

 

[Zenos777]

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

I have an interesting observation. The word "Day" is the Hebrew word "Yom or Yome" it means to be hot. The bible talks about 6 days of creation. Some believe it is a literal 6 days. However, the same word "Day" is used in Gen: 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the "day" that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
To take Gen: 1 day as being literal, one must take Gen 2:4 to be literal. Well, that make no sense. In the same manner, If you allow the word day means a "a period of time" than we have a better understanding of creation.

 

[Ace777]

The bible talks about 6 days of creation.

In the beginning God created a day. It was not the first day that is a translation error. You cannot have a first until you have a second day.

In carpentry we have a pattern and everything is a copy but not an exact copy. They use the word paradigm now.

 

[Zenos777]

In the beginning God created a day. It was not the first day that is a translation error. You cannot have a first until you have a second day.

In carpentry we have a pattern and everything is a copy but not an exact copy. They use the word paradigm now.

I am a little loss at what you are trying to say, I understand day 1 without day 2, but what is your point. please.

 

[Ace777]

I am a little loss at what you are trying to say, I understand day 1 without day 2, but what is your point. please.

This comes from Gerald Schroeder:

The Creation of Time​

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The Torah could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Torah would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of "second days." The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Torah views time from near the beginning looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches to earth based time. And therefore the biblical description of time changed.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Zenos777]

This comes from Gerald Schroeder:

The Creation of Time​

Each day of creation is numbered. Yet Nahmanides points out that there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! That message, as Nahmanides points out, is that there is a qualitative difference between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative. The Torah could not write “a first day” on the first day because there had not yet been a second day relative to it. Had the perspective of the Bible for the first six days been from Sinai looking back, the Torah would have written a first day. By the time the Torah was given on Sinai there had been hundreds of thousands of "second days." The perspective of the Bible for the six days of Genesis is from the only time in the history of time when there had not been a second day. And that is the first day. From the creation of the universe to the creation of the soul of Adam, the Torah views time from near the beginning looking forward. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the soul of humanity, the Bible perspective switches to earth based time. And therefore the biblical description of time changed.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

Good point. I believe you are not in disagreement with my statement but rather you added support to the narrative. I appreciate the work you have labored on this subject. The question I have is how do we know Nachmanides is correct?

 

[Zenos777]

Sabbath Shalome