Genesis 1 Again

[Doveaman]

Genesis 1:

[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT]In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth...

(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament...

(7) And God made the firmament...

(8) And God called the firmament Heaven.


It is interesting to know that the Hebrew word for "Heaven" in verse 1 is the same Hebrew word for "Heaven" in verse 8, and that this Hebrew word for "Heaven" – “Shamayim” – can also mean “Atmosphere”.

This means that Genesis 1, verse 1, can be read:

“In the beginning God created the Atmosphere and the earth.”

We may consider that verse 1 is a summary statement stating who did the creating and what was created, and the verses that follow, verses 2 through 31, goes into details on how this creation was accomplished.

It is also interesting to know that in verse 2 planet earth was already in existence, but in a chaotic state:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).

It is interesting to know also that the Hebrew word for "was" – “hayah” – can also mean “to become”.

This means that Genesis 1, verse 2, can be read:

“Now the earth had become formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep”

This sounds like a planet that might have experienced a global catastrophe that destroyed the planet’s biosphere.

Verses 3 through 31 may then be a description of how God created a new atmosphere and a new lithosphere in “six days” for planet earth. The hydrosphere was already present.

This means that Genesis 1 can be read:

“In the beginning God created the earth’s Atmosphere and the earth’s Lithosphere...Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

The creation account in Genesis 1 may very well be an account of the recreation of the earth’s biosphere following a global catastrophe.

 

[Blayz]

When did God create bacteria and viruses?

 

[artybloke]

Genesis 1:

[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT]In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth...

(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament...

(7) And God made the firmament...

(8) And God called the firmament Heaven.


It is interesting to know that the Hebrew word for "Heaven" in verse 1 is the same Hebrew word for "Heaven" in verse 8, and that this Hebrew word for "Heaven" – “Shamayim” – can also mean “Atmosphere”.

This means that Genesis 1, verse 1, can be read:

“In the beginning God created the Atmosphere and the earth.”

We may consider that verse 1 is a summary statement stating who did the creating and what was created, and the verses that follow, verses 2 through 31, goes into details on how this creation was accomplished.

It is also interesting to know that in verse 2 planet earth was already in existence, but in a chaotic state:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).

It is interesting to know also that the Hebrew word for "was" – “hayah” – can also mean “to become”.

This means that Genesis 1, verse 2, can be read:

“Now the earth had become formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep”

This sounds like a planet that might have experienced a global catastrophe that destroyed the planet’s biosphere.

Verses 3 through 31 may then be a description of how God created a new atmosphere and a new surface in “six days” for planet earth.

This means that Genesis 1 can be read:

“In the beginning God created the earth’s Atmosphere and the earth’s surface...Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

The creation account in Genesis 1 may very well be an account of the recreation of the earth’s biosphere following a global catastrophe.

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the begining of the universe. Considering that the first hearers of this poem were probably a bunch of agrarian bronze age people with no scientific knowledge or interest, which is more likely? That the book of Genesis would be meaningless until some 20/21st century literalist comes along and reinterprets it, or that it actually had real symbolic meaning to its first hearers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the begining of the universe. Considering that the first hearers of this poem were probably a bunch of agrarian bronze age people with no scientific knowledge or interest, which is more likely? That the book of Genesis would be meaningless until some 20/21st century literalist comes along and reinterprets it, or that it actually had real symbolic meaning to its first hearers?

1. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 mattered to Jesus, Who used Genesis to show the uniqueness of man.

2. God used Genesis 1 as a template for the workweek, q.v. the 4th Commandment.

3. Paul used Genesis 3 to preach the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45.

4. Luke used Genesis 5 to trace Jesus' ancestry back to Adam.

5. John used the literal story of Cain & Abel in 1 John 3:12.

6. The order of creation mattered to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9.

7. Noah and the Flood mattered to Jesus and Peter.

8. Jude mentions Enoch, 'the seventh from Adam'.

I'd say, in my opinion, you're wrong.

 

[artybloke]

1. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 mattered to Jesus, Who used Genesis to show the uniqueness of man.

And? In what way does that alter the poetic nature of the piece? Unless of course you're one of those barbarians who think poetry doesn't matter, or that poetic language can't contain truth.

2. God used Genesis 1 as a template for the workweek, q.v. the 4th Commandment.

As I don't actually keep the sabbath, and neither do you unless you go to church on Saturdays, this is irrelevant. And again, why does a symbol have to be factual?

As for the rest, so what? I'm afraid your literalist philosophy does not trump the vast amounts of evidence from the real world that a historical Genesis 1 is impossible.

 

[Jazer]

Genesis 1:

[FONT=&quot](1) [/FONT]In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth...

Gen 1:1In the beginning 7225 God 430 created 1254 853 the heaven 8064 and853 the earth 776.

There is actually another untranslated word involved. H853 could be translated that God "Himself" Created.

The creation account in Genesis 1 may very well be an account of the recreation of the earth’s biosphere following a global catastrophe.

If a day is 1000 years then 12,982 years ago science can confirm that the Earth was in a state of ruin. This was the end of the ice age and the beginning of the Neolithic age. This is what they call the "Holocene extinction".

Life Forms just before end of Ice Age and after Seven Days of Genesis

 

[Jazer]

neither do you unless you go to church on Saturdays

No one keeps the Sabath. In the Bible there was a man that was stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabath. They wanted to accuse Jesus for healing on the Sabath.

 

[Jazer]

When did God create bacteria and viruses?

Who was it that tried to argue that history does not have anything to do with biology? He created them in the beginning. They say all the universe came from one seed. That one seed the size of a mustard seed had all the information needed to create the whole universe.

 

[Doveaman]

When did God create bacteria and viruses?

In the beginning.

 

[Delphiki]

It is so difficult to keep up with each Christian's interpretation of Genesis. Can't you guys agree on one standard so we have something falsifiable to debate?

 

[Doveaman]

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the begining of the universe.

Well, it was not meant to be a scientific account; it was meant to be a historical account from which we can learn spiritual truths and values.

Considering that the first hearers of this poem were probably a bunch of agrarian bronze age people with no scientific knowledge or interest, which is more likely?

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

That the book of Genesis would be meaningless until some 20/21st century literalist comes along and reinterprets it, or that it actually had real symbolic meaning to its first hearers?

Genesis does have symbolic meaning to all of its hearers. We can gain symbolic meaning from historical events.

Israel as a historical nation is symbolic of the Church.

 

[Doveaman]

It is so difficult to keep up with each Christian's interpretation of Genesis.

It is so difficult to keep up with each scientist's interpretation of moon formation.

Can't you guys agree on one standard so we have something falsifiable to debate?

You mean like a standard that does not include God? NO!

 

[Delphiki]

It is so difficult to keep up with each scientist's interpretation of moon formation.

Oye, not you too.

There is more than one hypothesis for the moon, with the collision model being the most plausible. Any scientist will tell you the same thing. That's consistent.

You mean like a standard that does not include God? NO!

Not at all. It's clear that whatever creationists would decide on would include God as a creator. That's kind of the definition of creationism. But how can you accept that your interpretation is different from AV's interpretation, is different from dad's is different from cupid dave, is different from Greg1234's, and so on, but you somehow "know" the evidence backing science is being misinterpreted?

I think before creationists should even deserve to debate on equal footing, they need to agree on a standard, probably even before they should present any evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

1. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 mattered to Jesus, Who used Genesis to show the uniqueness of man.

2. God used Genesis 1 as a template for the workweek, q.v. the 4th Commandment.

3. Paul used Genesis 3 to preach the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45.

4. Luke used Genesis 5 to trace Jesus' ancestry back to Adam.

5. John used the literal story of Cain & Abel in 1 John 3:12.

6. The order of creation mattered to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9.

7. Noah and the Flood mattered to Jesus and Peter.

8. Jude mentions Enoch, 'the seventh from Adam'.

I'd say, in my opinion, you're wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

Gen 1:1In the beginning 7225 God 430 created 1254 853 the heaven 8064 and853 the earth 776.

There is actually another untranslated word involved. H853 could be translated that God "Himself" Created.



If a day is 1000 years then 12,982 years ago science can confirm that the Earth was in a state of ruin. This was the end of the ice age and the beginning of the Neolithic age. This is what they call the "Holocene extinction".

Life Forms just before end of Ice Age and after Seven Days of Genesis

Sorry John, but the earth was not in a "state of ruin." And the extinctions you mentioned were mainly restricted to megafauna... it does not even qualify as a mass extinction event, like at the K-T boundary, or end of the Permian.

 

[Split Rock]

I'd say, in my opinion, you're wrong.

In your opinion, is Doveaman's "renewal" idea correct?

 

[Hentenza]

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the begining of the universe. Considering that the first hearers of this poem were probably a bunch of agrarian bronze age people with no scientific knowledge or interest, which is more likely? That the book of Genesis would be meaningless until some 20/21st century literalist comes along and reinterprets it, or that it actually had real symbolic meaning to its first hearers?

Hebrew poetry uses parallelism and is not rhythmical. Genesis 1 and 2 are not Hebrew poetry. Here is a short primer on Hebrew poetry parallelism that might help you.

Parallelism in Hebrew Writing

 

[Doveaman]

Oye, not you too.

Yup.

There is more than one hypothesis for the moon, with the collision model being the most plausible. Any scientist will tell you the same thing. That's consistent.

There are more than one theory for Genesis 1 as well, and I’m sure one of them is more plausible.

Not at all. It's clear that whatever creationists would decide on would include God as a creator. That's kind of the definition of creationism.

I’m glad you noticed.

But how can you accept that your interpretation is different from AV's interpretation, is different from dad's is different from cupid dave, is different from Greg1234's, and so on,

For the same reason that scientific theories differ. We observe the facts recorded in Genesis and we form theories based on those facts. We then go with the theory that, in our personal opinions, seem more plausible. We may differ on our theories, but we agree on the biblical essentials.

In the non-essentials - liberty. In the essentials - unity. In all things - charity.

Besides, not all scientists agree with the collision model of moon formation.

but you somehow "know" the evidence backing science is being misinterpreted?

If your theories do not mesh with that facts of Scripture then your evidence is being misrepresented.

I think before creationists should even deserve to debate on equal footing, they need to agree on a standard, probably even before they should present any evidence.

My theory is not seeking equal footing with your science. Your science is biased against the facts of Scripture. My theory isn't.

 

[Delphiki]

Well, the first mistake you're making, that science doesn't, is to assume your hypothesis is "fact" before you've even managed to prove anything (i.e. "facts of Scripture").

Science is about making observations and finding evidence to arrive at the facts, which are then explained in theory. That's part of what makes it useful and practical.

Speaking of which, have there been any practical applications of creationism yet? Anything in agriculture? Medicine? Technology?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is so difficult to keep up with each Christian's interpretation of Genesis. Can't you guys agree on one standard so we have something falsifiable to debate?

You mean like "God"?