Genesis 1 Again

[Greg1234]

This fits in with Beloussov's vertical tectonics theory

Just before the time that the idea of plate tectonics was being developed in the west, V.V Beloussov in Russia was formulating his theory of vertical tectonics or mantle diapirism, in order to explain continental geology. His text, published in 1956 in Russian, was translated into English in 1962, the year of publication of Hess's enunciation of seafloor spreading (Hess 1962). Beloussov described a vertical undulation theory as an alternative to concepts of horizontal mobility implied by continental drift, which later was transformed into plate tectonics. Much as in a lava lamp, material in the interior heats and rises, then cools and sinks. Chemical and phase change buoyancy were important, and the buoyancy was not entirely created by high temperature thermal expansion. Floating icebergs (phase changes) and rising salt domes (chemical plumes) are examples of what Beloussov had in mind. Horizontal motions were minimal and were essentially limited gravity-induced sliding of material from the top of the up-wellings. Beloussov considered the mantle to be gravitationally stratified and vertical tectonics to be the main form of convection. In his view, as the earth formed, the lower mantle expelled the light materials upward to form the crust and upper mantle., and dense material sank downward to form the core. In other words, the earth and the mantle are chemically stratified. Diapirs from upper-mantle layers were responsible for swells, folded mountain belts and rifts.

Beloussov (1956/1962) considered mantle diapirism the alternative to continental drift; he thought that it was required to form mountain belts and rift plateaus. Plumes are currently being used in a similar way to rationalize features that are not readily explained by simple rigid plate tectonics and horizontal motions. Adherents of plate tectonics rapidly shunted aside Beloussov's idea of vertical tectonics, deep diapirs, and plumes, but phoenixlike, his ideas have had several rebirths. (Gillian R. Foulger, Plates, plumes, and paradigms).
​

Indeed there have been cases where the plumes and vertical tectonics have been simultaneously referenced,

He and colleagues have a theory pointing to an upwelling of material through the Earth's mantle beneath the North Atlantic Ocean called the Icelandic Plume. (The plume is centered under Iceland.)

The plume works like a pipe carrying hot magma from deep within the Earth to right below the surface, where it spreads out like a giant mushroom, according to White. Sometimes the material is unusually hot, and it spreads out in a giant hot ripple.

The researchers believe that such a giant hot ripple pushed the lost landscape above the North Atlantic, then as the ripple passed, the land fell back beneath the ocean.​

Role in the flood event

Advocates of catastrophic plate tectonics will likely challenge me to provide an alternative mechanism. Although philosophically I have no need to provide an alternative, nevertheless I have an hypothesis to offer. It is the mechanism of vertical tectonics with a little horizontal motion, alluded to in the sections above. (At this moment in time, I lean towards meteorite impacts to start and/or sustain the Flood.) Evidence for vertical tectonics is ubiquitous on the continents. For instance, most of the mountain ranges of the world have marine fossils. Mount Everest is capped by limestone that contains marine crinoid fossils. This represents at least 9 km of vertical uplift, sea level fall, or both.

I believe the evidence used in support of plate tectonics can support vertical tectonics. With proper understanding, I believe mid-ocean ridges, ocean floor magnetic anomalies, and the ‘fit’ of the continents across the Atlantic, etc. can be explained within the paradigm of vertical tectonics during the Flood. I interpret the forearc areas of trenches as caused by rapid sedimentation and downward vertical tectonics of the ocean basins during the later stages of the Genesis Flood.​

 

[Doveaman]

The bible doesn't support that, people lived a certain number of years...Adam begat...etc. No indefinite period is possible.

Verse 2 of Genesis 1 tells us land and water existed before the first day-light. How long that land and water existed the Bible does not mention.

One can't do that. It was crowded enough with the live critters...forget the dead ones too.

What about those guys that are estimated to be taller than the ark itself – “a male and his female”?

I’m often told they were younglings at the time, but I’m not sure why younglings would be referred to as “a male and his female” (Gene 7:2). Sounds more like an adult married couple to me.

Speculation. No chaos really existed. It was all well planned, and the early part of the plan merely saw unformed (as we know it) stuff.

What we do not see, however, is how long that “unformed stuff” was present before the first day-light.

As for the verse, the bondage of sin and decay is something believers will be liberated from..so?

So I’m saying the bondage and decay appear to have been determined. Bondage and decay followed by renewal. Formless and void followed by re-creation. It’s a pattern throughout scripture.

“The creature itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God...At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved...But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared...He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. (Rom 8:21, Titus 3:3-5).

Bondage and decay followed by rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. That’s the same Holy Spirit that was hovering over the “formless and void” followed by a new creation in Genesis 1. The pattern is consistent.

The part on the other side of where the stars are!

How does this explain the earth being stretched out above the waters?

"To Him that by wisdom made the heavens...To Him that stretched out the earth above the waters." (Ps 136:5-6).

They were made the same day!
When it says 'he made the stars also'...that should clue us in!

Some English translations say that, not all. Nor does the original Hebrew text.

My different state is in the time after creation.

Mine too.

Not in an imaginary time that can't be supported in some invented gap in day one or two or whatever.

That gap would fall between the events in verse 1 when the universe and the earth was first created and the events in verse 2 when the earth was, or became, “formless and void”. There is plenty of room for a gap there since the first day-light occurred after those events.

The spirit of God hovered over the waters..so there was light.

Then why was it “dark” while He hovered? Did God turn off His glory in verse 2 and then turned in back on in verse 3?

“And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters...Then God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Gen 1:2-3).

No...the sun and moon and stars came later...they mark the seasons and the light....they are not the only light...at least they weren't.

This view is not consistent with the “darkness” covering the earth while God’s glory was hovering nearby.

It is my view that the light on day 1 was sunlight that penetrated the darkness covering the earth. As the darkness gradually disappeared, the source of that light on day 1, 2 and 3 began to appear on day 4. It is my view that the light of each day in Genesis 1 was sunlight.

To conclude that the light on day 1, 2 and 3 was light from God’s glory is unnecessary and is not consistent with the “darkness” in verse 2 while God’s glory was present.

And no proof that any such stuff existed exists in or out of the bible. All things were created by him.....

I do agree all things were created by him:

In the beginning God created the universe, including the earth.

And the earth became formless and void.

Then God re-created the earth in six day.

That’s a summary of my theory.

Speculation. You can't support it.

It’s even more speculative to conclude that the day-light on the first three days was caused by the brightness of God’s glory before the sunlight took over on day 4.

Not really.
We have the rest of the bible, so such lost in space mental excursions can be avoided.

Well, you haven’t shown why the rest of the Bible is not consistent with my theory. So I’m not lost in space just yet.

When God said "it is finished" in chap 2, one assumes that the stars and sun and man and etc are included. If you want to exclude some things you better have solid gold bible wide reasons. You don't.

Like I said, they are all included in the recreation of the earth’s biosphere from its dark, chaotic state. My explanation of how they are included just happens to be different from yours.

The recreation of the earth’s biosphere from its dark, chaotic state would have opened up a new and clear window to the far heaven on day 4. To anyone looking through that newly created window, and who never saw the far heaven before, this would have been perceived as if the sun, moon and stars had just been formed, and they would have described that event just as they perceived it.

This is similar to the earth standing still as described in Joshua 10:13. "The earth standing still" was perceived by the observer as: “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Josh 10:13). This is not a scientific description of the observations, but it is a description of literal, historical events just as they were perceived and described by the observer. And science now gives us a better understanding of what was being observed and described.

The events in Genesis 1, even though not a scientific description, are a description of literal, historical events just as they were perceived and described by the author. And science now gives us a better understanding of what was being observed and described by the author.

 

[Doveaman]

Really? So, you know which interpretation of Genesis is the correct one?

Yes. And it’s pretty self-explanatory.

If I told you:

“Yesterday I baked a birthday cake for my son.

At 10 am I did A.

At 10:15 am I did B.

At 10:30 am I did C.

At 10:45 am I did D.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.”

How much interpretation do you need in order to understand who did it, what he did, when he did it, why he did it, and who he did it for?

It’s pretty self-explanatory, not much interpretation required, right?

Now you may decide to speculate on the oven I used to bake the cake, the flavor of the cake, the size of the cake, how the cake tasted, etc, etc, etc, but whether your speculation is FLAWED or ACCURATE does not in any way change the explanation I gave you above.

In other words, the accuracy of my explanation is not dependent upon the accuracy of your speculation.

Get it?

The point remains that either:
a) Christians do agree on what the correct interpretation of Genesis is and your comparison about the theories of the formation was FLAWED.
b) Christians do NOT agree on what the correct interpretation of Genesis is and your comparison about the theories of the formation was ACCURATE.

I’ll go with (c): Christians do agree on what the correct interpretation of Genesis is and it does not matter if my theory of the formation is FLAWED or ACCURATE.

 

[Jazer]

I’m often told they were younglings at the time, but I’m not sure why younglings would be referred to as “a male and his female” (Gene 7:2). Sounds more like an adult married couple to me.

His is added in the translation. I have heard of cats getting married, but not younglings.
Marriage began with Adam and Eve. At some universities they still teach animal husbandry.

 

[Doveaman]

His is added in the translation. I have heard of cats getting married, but not younglings.
Marriage began with Adam and Eve. At some universities they still teach animal husbandry.

"You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female." (Gen 7:2).

The Hebrew word translated "female" in the verse above -"ishshah" - is used when referring to an adult female or wife.

The Brachiosaur Parade

 

[Jazer]

The Hebrew word translated "female" in the verse above -"ishshah" - is used when referring to an adult female or wife.

I have been told that there are species other then people that mate for life.
It would make sense in the animal kingdom for the male to stick around to help protect the next generation.

 

[artybloke]

It would make sense in the animal kingdom for the male to stick around to help protect the next generation.

Dunnock males often mate with 2 or 3 females in a season. Most birds mate only for the mating season. There are animals that largely mate for life (swans for instance) but there are also species which meet only to mate, then go their seperate ways. Tiger cubs are brought up exclusively by tiger females; the male is nowhere to be seen after mating. This happens in most whale species too; lions have harems of females.

There are as many ways of bringing up children in the wild as there in human beings; there are even examples of gay animals performing nannying jobs in animal communities such as penguins.

 

[artybloke]

“Yesterday I baked a birthday cake for my son.

At 10 am I did A.

At 10:15 am I did B.

At 10:30 am I did C.

At 10:45 am I did D.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.”

I'd need to know, for instance, that it isn't the opening page of the novel you're writing, and that the 'I' isn't the narrative voice of the fictional character telling the story. Your writing a novel doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you a storyteller.

The Genesis account of creation belongs to the genre 'story'; not the genre, 'history.'

 

[Greg1234]

I'd need to know, for instance, that it isn't the opening page of the novel you're writing, and that the 'I' isn't the narrative voice of the fictional character telling the story. Your writing a novel doesn't make you a liar, it just makes you a storyteller.

The Genesis account of creation belongs to the genre 'story'; not the genre, 'history.'

Is that why it's supported by physical science?

 

[artybloke]

Is that why it's supported by physical science?

Every single piece of physical evidence leads to the conclusion that the universe is old, the earth is old, that the big bang most probably happened, that evolution definitely did, and that there is nothing in the Genesis account that is in the least bit supported by physical science.

And every single so-called creation scientist I've ever come across is a liar, a dissembler, a fraud or a self-decieved fantasist: take your pick. Even the average ufologist occassionally gets something right; but I've never seen a creationist ever get science right.

Sorry to disappoint you. Meanwhile, in the real rather than the solipsistic fantasy world of creationism...

 

[Greg1234]

Every single piece of physical evidence leads to the conclusion that the universe is old, the earth is old,

There are scientific communities that support an old earth and not Darwinism so I don't see why you would think it comes from Darwinian science.

that the big bang most probably happened, that evolution definitely did, and that there is nothing in the Genesis account that is in the least bit supported by physical science.

Which scientific community are you talking about?

 

[Doveaman]

Genesis 1 Again

Here are a number of scriptures referring to a future global catastrophe God will bring on the earth. They remind us of the conditions described in Genesis 1 and give support to the re-creation theory described in the OP.

“See, the day of the LORD is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger — to make the land desolate...The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.” (Isa 13:9-11).

“Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come...before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark, and the clouds return”. (Eccl 12:1-2).

“I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you; I will bring darkness over your land, declares the Sovereign LORD.” (Ezek 32:7-8).

In the future global catastrophe, the light of the sun, moon and stars will, for a time, not be visible as a result of a dark cloud God will bring over the earth.

Genesis 1 also alludes to a dark cloud (the waters) covering the earth. Assuming this dark cloud (the waters) in Genesis 1 was caused by a global catastrophe, it could have been the cause of the sun, moon and stars not being visible on the first three days of creation week.

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

This "waters" would have included the rain clouds above, the thick fog in the planetary boundary layer, and the surface water covering the land.

Genesis 1 also tells us:

“Then God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it; and it was so. God called the expanse ‘sky.’” (Gen 1:6-8).

The expanse created on day two could have been formed simply by God removing the thick fog from within the planetary boundary layer. The planetary boundary layer would then serve as the division (sky) that separated the water above (rain clouds) from the water below (surface water).

If Genesis 1 is indeed a re-creation event following a global catastrophe, the events described during creation week can be explained as follow:

Following the global catastrophe,

As the dark clouds covering the earth began to clear up, light from the sun began to penetrate the earth's atmosphere to reach the earth surface. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

As the thick fog within the planetary boundary layer began to disappear, the expanse of the sky began to appear. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

As the surface water receded from the earth's surface exposing the land to the sun-light penetrating the atmosphere, vegetation began to grow. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

As the clouds covering the earth continued to clear up, the sun, moon and stars, which were hidden by those clouds, began to appear. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the rest is history.

 

[artybloke]

There are scientific communities that support an old earth and not Darwinism so I don't see why you would think it comes from Darwinian science.



Which scientific community are you talking about?

No there are not. They are not scientists; but frauds and liars.

 

[dad]

Verse 2 of Genesis 1 tells us land and water existed before the first day-light. How long that land and water existed the Bible does not mention.

Well, being in day one, the exact hour would not matter.

What about those guys that are estimated to be taller than the ark itself – “a male and his female”?

???? Sounds like thin ice interpretation to me...

I’m often told they were younglings at the time, but I’m not sure why younglings would be referred to as “a male and his female” (Gene 7:2). Sounds more like an adult married couple to me.

Explain??

What we do not see, however, is how long that “unformed stuff” was present before the first day-light.

So it was early in the day...is that some big news?

So I’m saying the bondage and decay appear to have been determined. Bondage and decay followed by renewal. Formless and void followed by re-creation. It’s a pattern throughout scripture.

Pipe dreams. Just because the earth in the early stage was not formed as it is now, does not mean we can add some conspiracy theory of bondage and decay. Unsupported. Inadmissible as evidence.

“The creature itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God...At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved...But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared...He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. (Rom 8:21, Titus 3:3-5).

Bondage and decay followed by rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. That’s the same Holy Spirit that was hovering over the “formless and void” followed by a new creation in Genesis 1. The pattern is consistent.

No. Not at all. You superimpose a pattern where it is not said to have belonged. You mix something that talks of saved people, with the early part of day 1 for no apparent reason.

How does this explain the earth being stretched out above the waters?

"To Him that by wisdom made the heavens...To Him that stretched out the earth above the waters." (Ps 136:5-6).
Some English translations say that, not all. Nor does the original Hebrew text.
Mine too.

Well obviously some land must have gotten above the waters or we would be swimming as we speak!

That gap would fall between the events in verse 1 when the universe and the earth was first created and the events in verse 2 when the earth was, or became, “formless and void”. There is plenty of room for a gap there since the first day-light occurred after those events.

There is plenty of room for a gap wherever you want to stick one I suppose. However, one may not attack some particular day of creation and gap it to death!

Then why was it “dark” while He hovered? Did God turn off His glory in verse 2 and then turned in back on in verse 3?

“And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters...Then God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Gen 1:2-3).
This view is not consistent with the “darkness” covering the earth while God’s glory was hovering nearby.

Maybe darkness on the deep was part of the plan. It need not turn out the lights on whatever God was hovering in.

It is my view that the light on day 1 was sunlight that penetrated the darkness covering the earth.

Nope. The sun was not created then.

As the darkness gradually disappeared, the source of that light on day 1, 2 and 3 began to appear on day 4. It is my view that the light of each day in Genesis 1 was sunlight.

See above.

To conclude that the light on day 1, 2 and 3 was light from God’s glory is unnecessary and is not consistent with the “darkness” in verse 2 while God’s glory was present.

No need to conclude anything. But we can conclude that the un and stars and moon were not here on day 1! As for the light, there is no reason that it could not have come from God.

I do agree all things were created by him:

In the beginning God created the universe, including the earth.

And the earth became formless and void.

Then God re-created the earth in six day.

That is not what the bible says. It says God created the heaven and the earth, and then goes on to explain that on that day, the earth was still void of form. If we paint a picture, the first few strokes might seem that way too.

It’s even more speculative to conclude that the day-light on the first three days was caused by the brightness of God’s glory before the sunlight took over on day 4.

No need to conclude that. Whatever the early light was doesn't need to be known. However the day that the sun was created is known.

Well, you haven’t shown why the rest of the Bible is not consistent with my theory. So I’m not lost in space just yet.

I'll ponder that.

The recreation of the earth’s biosphere from its dark, chaotic state would have opened up a new and clear window to the far heaven on day 4. To anyone looking through that newly created window, and who never saw the far heaven before, this would have been perceived as if the sun, moon and stars had just been formed, and they would have described that event just as they perceived it.

It doesn't say 'Adam perceived that the sun was just made'. In fact no one was created yet to perceive anything! So what went down in no way needs to conform to what men would have perceived!

This is similar to the earth standing still as described in Joshua 10:13. "The earth standing still" was perceived by the observer as: “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Josh 10:13). This is not a scientific description of the observations, but it is a description of literal, historical events just as they were perceived and described by the observer. And science now gives us a better understanding of what was being observed and described.

?? Yoou think they know what came down in the Joshua affair?

The events in Genesis 1, even though not a scientific description, are a description of literal, historical events just as they were perceived and described by the author.

False. The author, Moses was not there. Neither was Adam when the sun was made. Gong.....

 

[Doveaman]

It doesn't say 'Adam perceived that the sun was just made'. In fact no one was created yet to perceive anything! So what went down in no way needs to conform to what men would have perceived!

...False. The author, Moses was not there. Neither was Adam when the sun was made. Gong.....

God could have projected the observer into the past through the revealing of past events in the form of visions. The observer would then simply record what he saw in the way he perceived it.

The Apostle John had a similar experience which resulted in a written record of future events, the book of Revelation. The first and last books of the Bible could have been inspired similarly - through visions.

On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches...Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." (Rev 1:10-11, 4:1).

The author of Genesis could have been similarly told, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches. Come up here, and I will show you what has taken place already."

In light of the fact that no human was present during the creation events, then the only way those events could have been revealed is through divine dictation or divinely inspired visions.

Since the events were recorded as if from the point of view of an observer, and since divinely inspired visions is the method God often use to give revelations, then I'll go with divinely inspired visions.

Listen to My words: "When a prophet of the LORD is among you, I reveal Myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams." (Num 12:6).

 

[dad]

God could have projected the observer into the past through the revealing of past events in the form of visions. The observer would then simply record what he saw in the way he perceived it.

Heavens!! So all that just to have God not make the sun and moon, and stars on the day of creation they are said to be made on!? Wow. That is mental gymnastics at work.

The Apostle John had a similar experience which resulted in a written record of future events, the book of Revelation. The first and last books of the Bible could have been inspired similarly - through visions.

On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, which said: "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches...Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." (Rev 1:10-11, 4:1).

The author of Genesis could have been similarly told, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches. Come up here, and I will show you what has taken place already."

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we can wave that magic interpretation wand over one day, one could wave it everywhere I guess. So Adam wasn't really made the same day as animals? Poof...Adam was what, transported into the future, and saw himself being formed of the dust, but it was really long after the animals were made? Heck, one could run amok with that sort of willi nilly speculation, and really make the bible fit their pet theories. One problem, it is crazy talk.

I light of the fact that no human was present during the creation events, then the only way those events could have been revealed is through divine dictation or divinely inspired visions.

But the account that God gave us is composed of six days. The creation order is given, day by day. So one can't fly into the middle of one of these days, and start gluing millions of years in there, just so it jives with so called science.


The apostles and Jesus and others in the New Testament refer to the time of creation, and old Testament prophets as well. They didn't say 'Lord of all the earth, and heavens, which were here before the earth was'! You couldn't find a crowbar big enough to pry the creation of the stars and heavens away from creation week.

 

[USincognito]

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

Wow. That was just awful.

OK so the surface of the earth is held up by geologic columns above what we call the water table.

I cannot believe some of the stuff people actually assert around here. Wow. Just wow.

 

[British Bulldog]

I have been told that there are species other then people that mate for life.
It would make sense in the animal kingdom for the male to stick around to help protect the next generation.

Humans pair bond for a long time for the benefit of protecting and bringing up their children, but we are far from being a monogamous species. The shape of the human penis gives us an interesting insight into that part of our history: Secrets of the Phallus: Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: Scientific American .

 

[SkyWriting]

No there are not. They are not scientists; but frauds and liars.

What you name them is not relevant. We confider what they say on its merits, not who they are, or what they have done in the past. Even liars, murderers, and thieves tell the truth most of the time. Sin can only piggy-back on goodness.

 

[SkyWriting]

I cannot believe some of the stuff people actually assert around here. Wow. Just wow.

Hey I didn't invent the term. I just read it from a peer reviewed source.

If people complain that the Bible says that the earth is supported by "pillers" I respond that "columns" is the current terminology.