Genesis 1: Exposition and Doctrine of Creation

[mark kennedy]

Lastly, there are idols which have immigrated into men's minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and also from wrong laws of demonstration. These I call Idols of the Theater; because in my judgment all the received systems are but so many stage-plays. (Francis Bacon, "The Idols of the Mind")​

There are some misconceptions about the Genesis 1 account of creation:

The Age of the Earth is Irrelevant:

First of all, the passage never tells us when the creation of the heavens and the earth occurred. Genesis 1:1 simple says God created the 'heavens and the earth' in the beginning. That means that the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

Genesis is an Historical Narrative:

No where in Genesis is there the slightest indication that it can be interpreted figuratively. The name of the book is derived from the genealogies:

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Genesis 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Genesis 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Genesis 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Genesis 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram's father; Genesis 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Genesis 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Genesis 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Genesis 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Genesis 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exodus 1:1-5; also Exodus 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exodus 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary)​

Creation from Nothing:

Genesis 1 uses a special word to describe God's creation of the 'heavens and the earth' (Gen 1:1), life (Gen 1:21) and man (Used 3 times in Gen 1:27). That word is 'bara' (bara' Strong's H1254 בָּרָא ) the Hebrew Qal form means: To shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).

The Hebrew word 'baw-raw' (H1254 בּרא bârâ') is used in the absolute sense and it means creation ex nihilo which means out of nothing, always in reference to God and mostly found in Genesis and Isaiah:

Created, Used 33 times: Gen:1:1, Gen:1:21, Gen:1:27 (3), Gen:2:3-4 (2), Gen:5:1-2 (3), Gen:6:7, Deu:4:32, Psa:89:12, Psa:102:18, Psa:104:30, Psa:148:5, Isa:40:26, Isa:41:20, Isa:42:5, Isa:43:1, Isa:45:7-8 (2), Isa:45:12, Isa:45:18 (2), Isa:48:7, Isa:54:16 (2), Jer:31:22, Eze:21:30, Eze:28:13, Eze:28:15, Mal:2:10 (Strong's)​

Day Means Day

yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום: From an unused root meaning to be hot. Day (as opposed to night), or day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1​

1. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
2. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
3. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
4. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
5. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
6. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
7. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)

Conclusively and definitively proving that evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

The Sun was Created in Genesis 1:1

Creationists commonly believe the sun was created on day 4, that simply doesn't stand up to a sound exposition of the text. The word used isn't 'bara' which would indicate the sun was created from nothing. Instead the passage says God 'made' (Strong's H6213 `asah עָשָׂה ) the sun and the moon to be lights in the heavens.

Basically it's saying God made `asah (H6213), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens, probably based on the same clearing of clouds or whatever atmospheric changes were required.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara', (H1254). Everything in the Genesis 1 account is written from the face of the earth, that's the perspective the narration describes creation from.

All Christians are Creationists:

Nearly half of the Nicene Creed discusses the creation:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven, (Nicene Creed)​

Does anyone seriously think that we should take creation figuratively because if we are then why wouldn't we take the Incarnation figuratively since they are inextricably linked? That doesn't even scratch the surface, there is original sin, the New Testament witness and the many absurdities of Darwinian logic. The purpose of this post is to open up the Genesis account of creation, to show how it's essential Christian doctrine, and clear up a few misconceptions.

The thread is intended for Creationists and my hope is that we will get a chance to study Genesis 1 together. I've been at this for years and I'm convinced that the secular world has focused on the doctrine of Creation because so much of redemptive history and the Gospel is inextricably linked to it. Just as God created the heavens and the earth the promise of the Gospel is that you can be a new creation (John 3:3, 16).

I have my differences with the Roman Catholic Church but I think this quote from Pope Benedict XVI is profoundly insightful:

"To omit the creation would be to misunderstand the very history of God with men, to diminish it, to lose sight of its true order of greatness..."The sweep of history established by God reaches back to the origins, back to creation...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVI" (VATICAN CITY, APRIL 23, 2011, Zenit.org)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

The Age of the Earth is Irrelevant:
First of all, the passage never tells us when the creation of the heavens and the earth occurred. Genesis 1:1 simple says God created the 'heavens and the earth' in the beginning. That means that the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.
​

As with any Creation by God, the age of the Created is not knowable.
Jesus created wine, unwitherd some limbs, caused the lame to walk,
the blind to see, the dead to rise.
If a dead man rises and walks, how "old" is he now?
If god created fruit trees for food, how "old" is the tree?

The age of Created things are not knowable.​

 

[mark kennedy]

As with any Creation by God, the age of the Created is not knowable.
Jesus created wine, unwitherd some limbs, caused the lame to walk,
the blind to see, the dead to rise.
If a dead man rises and walks, how "old" is he now?
If god created fruit trees for food, how "old" is the tree?

The age of Created things are not knowable.

The age of the earth is ambiguous but the time of the creation of life and man is pretty clear due to the begats. We have a credible and comprehensive chronology of man's history, in spite of the fact that it is less then precise due to the limits of ancient Hebrew.

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

Jesus said: If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

I have followed along and read many of your posts among the 'creation' threads and I know that you have a heart for, and believe yourself to be telling, the truth. I also share your passion.

Have you ever asked yourself 'why' God created this realm?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

Jesus said: If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

I have followed along and read many of your posts among the 'creation' threads and I know that you have a heart for, and believe yourself to be telling, the truth. I also share your passion.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I think the Scriptures are silent on why God created the universe in general and life in particular. As far as the quote, the Pharisees sometimes referred to themselves as leaders of the blind. When he says that the blind leading the blind will fall into the pit he is targeting them specifically. When the man born blind is healed in John 9, it's after Jesus had made a very strong statement:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)​

Then he proves it, I think this statement is in keeping with your admonition:

“For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” (John 9:39)​

It's a recurring them in John's Gospel and throughout the Scriptures, the light of revelation both natural and special revelation 'in Christ'. It's actually one of the themes of Genesis 1 if you look clearly at it:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Gen. 1:3)​

Have you ever asked yourself 'why' God created this realm?

This is where creation week started, did you ever ask yourself, what was that light? The answer is a little harder to nail down then you might think.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

I think the Scriptures are silent on why God created the universe in general and life in particular. As far as the quote, the Pharisees sometimes referred to themselves as leaders of the blind. When he says that the blind leading the blind will fall into the pit he is targeting them specifically.

So, you don't think it's true today that a blind man will lead a blind man into a pit unless we might be conversing with a Pharisee? Would one have to be conversing with the same actual Pharisees that Jesus was addressing?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

You asked:

This is where creation week started, did you ever ask yourself, what was that light? The answer is a little harder to nail down then you might think.

It was God. God is light. The Scriptures say so.

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

and:

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Just as the light that will exist after judgment will be the light of God and there will be neither sun or moon, the light before the sun or moon existed was the light of God. You see, God knew that He would have to create a secondary source of light because He also knew that until His plan came to completion, on the day of His judgment, we would need another source of light. God cannot live with sin and so He cannot be our light today. This is why the Shekinah glory of God left Israel. Israel was supposed to be obedient, but when they refused, God had to remove Himself from their presence or He would have destroyed them before everything was completed.

Yes, I have asked myself that question and have found the answer in the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi mark,

Well, let's go over your theology. You posted:

yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions יום: From an unused root meaning to be hot. Day (as opposed to night), or day (24 hour period) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1​

1. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
2. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
3. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
4. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
5. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
6. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
7. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)

Conclusively and definitively proving that evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

Ok, it is your position that the 7 days were literal roughly 24 hour days as we account time today, right? As I understand it then, that means that you believe the earth and the bodies of the universe existed for ages of time with no life whatsoever. Would that be a correct understanding? Then, about 6,000 years ago God stepped back into this realm that He created millions or billions of years before, yet sitting existing for nothing more than a star show for God and His angels, and populated the earth with all the trees and grass and sea creatures and land animals and finally man. It was on the fourth day of those six roughly 24 hour days that God then made the sun. So, for millions and billions of years what exactly was out there without the sun.

Just to refresh your understanding, here's the Scriptural explanation:

God made two great lights--the greater lighthttp://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-44 to governhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-45 the day and the lesser light to governhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-46 the night.http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-47 He also made the stars.http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-48 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night,http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-49 and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-50 And there was evening, and there was morninghttp://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-51--the fourth day.

So, it is your understanding that the earth and whatever else may have been out there in the universe existed for millions and billions of years. But, our sun and moon and all the vegetation necessary to sustain life and life itself in the form of living creatures wasn't created until the 6 literal days of the creation week. Would that be a fair understanding of your framework?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Smidlee]

I believe there is a good reason there were light on the first day before the sun especially back then people believe they were the creation of the sun and stars .... wait a minute that belief is still around.
I don't believe Jesus is the "electromagnetic waves" of the world which is all the sun gives off. So I believe there is a little more meaning to light than just the stuff the sun gives off. If you want to split hairs you could say the sun wasn't visible until the sixth day. We know from scripture in the future we will no longer need the sun yet "light" will still be around. Light as I know it is "information" sent from my eyes which detects electromagnetic waves at a certain wavelength , a creation of my mind/brain.
.

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Just as the light that will exist after judgment will be the light of God and there will be neither sun or moon, the light before the sun or moon existed was the light of God. You see, God knew that He would have to create a secondary source of light because He also knew that until His plan came to completion, on the day of His judgment, we would need another source of light. God cannot live with sin and so He cannot be our light today. This is why the Shekinah glory of God left Israel. Israel was supposed to be obedient, but when they refused, God had to remove Himself from their presence or He would have destroyed them before everything was completed.

You wrote it better than I could. This would suggest the "true" light is the Glory of God and the sun is more of an artificial light. We will "see" things a lot more clearly in the present of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

Well, let's go over your theology.

Sounds good...

Ok, it is your position that the 7 days were literal roughly 24 hour days as we account time today, right? As I understand it then, that means that you believe the earth and the bodies of the universe existed for ages of time with no life whatsoever. Would that be a correct understanding?

Yes and yes...

Then, about 6,000 years ago God stepped back into this realm that He created millions or billions of years before, yet sitting existing for nothing more than a star show for God and His angels, and populated the earth with all the trees and grass and sea creatures and land animals and finally man. It was on the fourth day of those six roughly 24 hour days that God then made the sun. So, for millions and billions of years what exactly was out there without the sun.

What it was out there for is pure speculation and don't get me wrong, I'm comfortable with the universe being created 6.000 years ago. I just don't think the Scriptures speak directly to when the universe and the earth was created so the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to Christian theism and Biblical hermeneutics. The creation of life is another matter.

One more thing that is very significant, the sun was created in Genesis 1:1.

Just to refresh your understanding, here's the Scriptural explanation:

"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. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." (Gen 1:16-17)​

So, it is your understanding that the earth and whatever else may have been out there in the universe existed for millions and billions of years.

That's right...

But, our sun and moon and all the vegetation necessary to sustain life and life itself in the form of living creatures wasn't created until the 6 literal days of the creation week. Would that be a fair understanding of your framework?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That's pretty close but my understanding is that the earth was covered in water and thick clouds until creation week started. It may have happened immediately following the original creation or it may have been billions of years, the Scriptures are silent on that point.

I believe there is a good reason there were light on the first day before the sun especially back then people believe they were the creation of the sun and stars .... wait a minute that belief is still around.

It was God. God is light. The Scriptures say so.

There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

and:

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Just as the light that will exist after judgment will be the light of God and there will be neither sun or moon, the light before the sun or moon existed was the light of God. You see, God knew that He would have to create a secondary source of light because He also knew that until His plan came to completion, on the day of His judgment, we would need another source of light. God cannot live with sin and so He cannot be our light today. This is why the Shekinah glory of God left Israel. Israel was supposed to be obedient, but when they refused, God had to remove Himself from their presence or He would have destroyed them before everything was completed.

Ok, the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep in the dark. Then God says, 'Let there be light', this light might not have been the light from the sun since the clouds would have prevented this. It might have been the 'Shekhinah' glory of God. I won't go into why this seems likely to me but it's one way of reading the passage and making sense of the narrative without disturbing the original wording.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

So, you don't think it's true today that a blind man will lead a blind man into a pit unless we might be conversing with a Pharisee? Would one have to be conversing with the same actual Pharisees that Jesus was addressing?

I'm saying that's the context, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees when he says if a the blind lead the blind they fall into a pit. Of course that's not limited to Pharisees in it's application, I never meant to suggest it was. I was trying to expound on an important theme in John's Gospel:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:3-5)​

Notice how it's saying Christ is Creator and the light of life. Nearly half of the Nicene Creed is pretty much a paraphrase of this passage. That's why creation as doctrine is essential Christian theism, this theme runs throughout John's Gospel and the entirety of the Scriptures. I'd say there is a much larger hermeneutic principle involved then Jesus scathing indictment against the Pharisees.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

The age of the earth is ambiguous but the time of the creation of life and man is pretty clear due to the begats. We have a credible and comprehensive chronology of man's history, in spite of the fact that it is less then precise due to the limits of ancient Hebrew.

I find not one of the begats makes mention of age or years.
This is a "Steer-Clear" indicator that they are not to be used
for such purposes.

 

[mark kennedy]

I find not one of the begats makes mention of age or years.
This is a "Steer-Clear" indicator that they are not to be used
for such purposes.

Based on the following Scriptures the following dates can be calculated. Have you never Read?

Would you like to see the dates through the United Kingdom? The reason it's called Genesis is because of the genealogies and you want to pretend they don't make mention of 'age or years'? Seriously!

Based on the calculations by Remus Genealogies Adam to Jacob.

 

[miamited]

I was trying to expound on an important theme in John's Gospel:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:3-5)
​

Hi mark,

Yes, and I was tryng to expound on an important theme in Matthew's gospel. It certainly seems odd to me that you post all these Scriptural references to God and His Son being light, but you seem to have difficulty understanding what the source of the light when God first began His work in this realm of His creation could be.

You asked me if I had ever given the issue any thought and then said that it was harder to understand than I might imagine. Well, no, I have given the issue much thought and I haven't found it at all hard to understand. God can create anything out of nothing. When God says, "Let there be light...", there doesn't have to be a 'source' of that light. Light can just appear. It is our limited human understanding that causes us to think, because that's all we know, that light must have a source of some physical form. That for there to be light in the universe there must be a star to produce it. Friend, that's merely a limitation of our understanding and knowledge.

Do you realize that for a woman to conceive a child there must be human sperm introduced into a human egg. That is absolutely the only way it can be done, even today. You can check any science book in all of the world and that's what it will tell you. Even invitro fertilization requires sperm to be introduced into an egg. Yet, for believers in God, we know that there actually is one other way. That is for God to will it to be so. So, I believe that if God wills for light to exist without a source, at least one that we know of, then it will come to be.

See, this is where we all get tripped up from time to time. We try to limit the abilities of God to only be able to do the things that we can explain somehow. Or rather to causes that we can explain based on the natural properties of the world, or in this case, the universe. The God that I serve can command light to exist and yet have no visible or explainable cause other than He just said so.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted




​

 

[miamited]

I find not one of the begats makes mention of age or years.
This is a "Steer-Clear" indicator that they are not to be used
for such purposes.

Hi SW,

Really????

When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image;http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 and he named him Seth.http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/5.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

You don't see any mention of age or years there? Ok

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi mark,

Yes, and I was tryng to expound on an important theme in Matthew's gospel. It certainly seems odd to me that you post all these Scriptural references to God and His Son being light, but you seem to have difficulty understanding what the source of the light when God first began His work in this realm of His creation could be.

No, I'm not having any trouble with it at all, it was the Shekhinah glory of God. The same glory that filled the Tabernacle raised Christ from the dead:

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:4)​

It wasn't the sun because the firmament had not been separated yet. This same glory will fill the skies at the Parosia.

You asked me if I had ever given the issue any thought and then said that it was harder to understand than I might imagine. Well, no, I have given the issue much thought and I haven't found it at all hard to understand. God can create anything out of nothing. When God says, "Let there be light...", there doesn't have to be a 'source' of that light. Light can just appear. It is our limited human understanding that causes us to think, because that's all we know, that light must have a source of some physical form. That for there to be light in the universe there must be a star to produce it. Friend, that's merely a limitation of our understanding and knowledge.

There's a couple of problems here, for one it doesn't say God created the 'light', God just said 'Let it be'. It doesn't say in Genesis 1 that God created the sun on day 4, it just says that God made the sun and moon to rule the day and night respectively. What it says is that God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1, life (Gen 1:21) and man (Gen 1:27).

Notice the emphasis on the creation of man:

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27)​

That's a Hebrew parallelism, repeated 3 times for emphasis which indicates the heart of the emphasis. The rule of thumb is speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where the Scriptures are silent. My interest in Genesis 1 is creation and this 'light' that initially appears is mentioned in passing I think is the Shekhinah glory of God but I'm not that concerned with it. The heart of the emphasis is on God creating life in general and man in particular.

Do you realize that for a woman to conceive a child there must be human sperm introduced into a human egg. That is absolutely the only way it can be done, even today. You can check any science book in all of the world and that's what it will tell you. Even invitro fertilization requires sperm to be introduced into an egg. Yet, for believers in God, we know that there actually is one other way. That is for God to will it to be so. So, I believe that if God wills for light to exist without a source, at least one that we know of, then it will come to be.

There's a special word for that in Genesis 1:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding (H2232 zara`) seed (Gen 1:11)​

That's not creation, it's procreation. The light at the beginning of creation was not created, that was a manifestation. So is this:

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)​

That's why I brought up John's Gospel:

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (John 1:4)​

Light, life, creation...are you starting to see a pattern here?

See, this is where we all get tripped up from time to time. We try to limit the abilities of God to only be able to do the things that we can explain somehow. Or rather to causes that we can explain based on the natural properties of the world, or in this case, the universe. The God that I serve can command light to exist and yet have no visible or explainable cause other than He just said so.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well Ted, I don't want you to take this as a rebuke but that's where you and I see this differently. My God is the light of life and creation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

I see a lot of problems in this exegesis. I'll just focus on those, as many things I agree with. Some of the problems are more serious than others. The serious ones are in the latter portions of this response, below the line.

Lastly, there are idols which have immigrated into men's minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and also from wrong laws of demonstration. These I call Idols of the Theater; because in my judgment all the received systems are but so many stage-plays. (Francis Bacon, "The Idols of the Mind")​

There are some misconceptions about the Genesis 1 account of creation:

The Age of the Earth is Irrelevant:

Anytime the Bible reveals something, I'm very reluctant to call it irrelevant. It may not seem to have an immediate apparent point, but as I live and grow, I've leaned the Bible has no vestigial parts.

First of all, the passage never tells us when the creation of the heavens and the earth occurred. Genesis 1:1 simple says God created the 'heavens and the earth' in the beginning. That means that the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

I think you're making the mistake of taking chapter and verse breaks too seriously. They are man-made and play no hermeneutical role. The passage seems to be saying that God created the heavens and unformed and empty earth, and then light all in one day. That's what I get when I read Gen. 1:1-5 as a single passage. There's no gap intended between vs. 1 and 2.

The ancients divided the world into 3 parts for descriptive purposes—the land sea and sky. Moses for instance said, "God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them." Since land is the portion of creation we dwell on, it make sense for God to reveal its beginnings.

On day one, God created the unformed and unfilled land (Gen. 1:1-2). I'm of the personal opinion that erets always means land, and never earth in the sense of a land/sea unit. That's because in scripture, I always see earth and sea spoken of as distinct, such as in Ex. 20:11.

IOW's the solid land we now stand on, was not solid when it was created on day 1, and it had no inhabitants. It was then made solid on day 3, and populated on days 5 & 6. When you get rid of the verses, that's seems to be the very straightforward, basic idea.

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah

Just a quick note on this, I don't believe toledoth here is referring to genealogies, but rather accounts or histories. Also, the genealogy that follows the book of Adam couldn't be Adam's genealogy. Genealogies belong to descendants, not ancestors. If it started with Adam, and ended with Noah, it would then be Noah's genealogy. In the case of Christ's genealogy, he is the last descendant, not the first ancestor. Thus it is Christ's genealogy, not Adam's or Abraham's.

The Sun was Created in Genesis 1:1

Creationists commonly believe the sun was created on day 4, that simply doesn't stand up to a sound exposition of the text. The word used isn't 'bara' which would indicate the sun was created from nothing. Instead the passage says God 'made' (Strong's H6213 `asah עָשָׂה ) the sun and the moon to be lights in the heavens.​

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

At this point, I'll get a little more dogmatic in my disagreements.

Mark, you're just wrong on this. 'asah can absolutely be used to depict the creation or the bringing of something into existence. 'asah and bara' can be interchangeable, in fact, they are used interchangeably in this very chapter.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make ('asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created (bara') man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ​

'asah is a very basic word in the hebrew meaning to do or to make. And it's very clear how God was using this word in the first chapter of Genesis. God said "let's make." Then he brought something into existence.

Now what you're trying to do here is say that God only made the sun, moon and stars visible on day four, but that makes no sense for a myriad of reasons. Had he wanted to say this, it would have been very easy as there are many hebrew words, such as ra'ah He could have used. But how would a word like the make any sense on day 4 when no man was there to observe what had become visible? Who would it have been made visible to? God? Angels? They would have seen it from day 1.

That's not at all what's going on in this passage, and the word 'asah does lend you any support. The sun moon and stars were not made visible to anyone on earth, they were brought into existence. God made them, just as he made man.

If God were bringing the sun, moon and stars into existence the word used would have been 'bara',...

As I've demonstrated above, totally and completely false. 'asah is used in this very chapter interchangeably with bara'. It's the same word Moses used in his summary of the creation week (Ex. 20:11).

Mark, all you're doing is presenting an alternate form of the gap-theory, which has been thoroughly refuted.

Many of the other things you stated I agree with, but the errors above are serious.​

 

[mark kennedy]

I see a lot of problems in this exegesis. I'll just focus on those, as many things I agree with. Some of the problems are more serious than others. The serious ones are in the latter portions of this response, below the line.

No, I don't honestly believe you are serious about any of this.

Anytime the Bible reveals something, I'm very reluctant to call it irrelevant. It may not seem to have an immediate apparent point, but as I live and grow, I've leaned the Bible has no vestigial parts.

That's nice...

I think you're making the mistake of taking chapter and verse breaks too seriously. They are man-made and play no hermeneutical role. The passage seems to be saying that God created the heavens and unformed and empty earth, and then light all in one day. That's what I get when I read Gen. 1:1-5 as a single passage. There's no gap intended between vs. 1 and 2.

Actually there is.

The ancients divided the world into 3 parts for descriptive purposes—the land sea and sky. Moses for instance said, "God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them." Since land is the portion of creation we dwell on, it make sense for God to reveal its beginnings.

How do you know how the ancients divided things? The point is pedantic.

On day one, God created the unformed and unfilled land (Gen. 1:1-2). I'm of the personal opinion that erets always means land, and never earth in the sense of a land/sea unit. That's because in scripture, I always see earth and sea spoken of as distinct, such as in Ex. 20:11.

Exactly! In Genesis 1:1,2 the earth is unfilled and unformed. So you do realize there is a logical separation between Gen. 1:1 and the first day of creation after all.

IOW's the solid land we now stand on, was not solid when it was created on day 1, and it had no inhabitants. It was then made solid on day 3, and populated on days 5 & 6. When you get rid of the verses, that's seems to be the very straightforward, basic idea.

Then whats the problem?

Just a quick note on this, I don't believe toledoth here is referring to genealogies, but rather accounts or histories. Also, the genealogy that follows the book of Adam couldn't be Adam's genealogy. Genealogies belong to descendants, not ancestors. If it started with Adam, and ended with Noah, it would then be Noah's genealogy. In the case of Christ's genealogy, he is the last descendant, not the first ancestor. Thus it is Christ's genealogy, not Adam's or Abraham's.

A genealogy is a history.

At this point, I'll get a little more dogmatic in my disagreements.

Oh goodie...

Mark, you're just wrong on this. 'asah can absolutely be used to depict the creation or the bringing of something into existence. 'asah and bara' can be interchangeable, in fact, they are used interchangeably in this very chapter.

They can be used interchangable if asap is connected to bara in the immediate context. The way they are in the passage your quoting here:

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make ('asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created (bara') man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ​

Then the general description is followed by the creation of man, constructed in the form of a parallelism, to indicate this passage is the heart of the emphasis. That's why it's repeated three times, three parallel statements repeated for emphasis.

'asah is a very basic word in the hebrew meaning to do or to make. And it's very clear how God was using this word in the first chapter of Genesis. God said "let's make." Then he brought something into existence.

'asah is used 2600 times in the Old Testament and used as a synonym for create only about 60 times. It's used in that way here only because it's being used in parallel to bara. But I've already shown you that you just ignored it.

Now what you're trying to do here is say that God only made the sun, moon and stars visible on day four, but that makes no sense for a myriad of reasons.

Hold on, yes that's what I'm saying and no you don't have a myriad of reasons.

Had he wanted to say this, it would have been very easy as there are many hebrew words, such as ra'ah He could have used. But how would a word like the make any sense on day 4 when no man was there to observe what had become visible? Who would it have been made visible to? God? Angels? They would have seen it from day 1.

Had the sun, moon and stars been created on day four it would have been a 'bara' creation. The narrative is from the surface of the earth, the sun, moon and stars became visible through God's clearing and separating of the atmosphere.

That's not at all what's going on in this passage, and the word 'asah does lend you any support. The sun moon and stars were not made visible to anyone on earth, they were brought into existence. God made them, just as he made man.

No they were not 'brought into existence', that's not the meaning of asah and you know it.

As I've demonstrated above, totally and completely false. 'asah is used in this very chapter interchangeably with bara'. It's the same word Moses used in his summary of the creation week (Ex. 20:11).

All you've demonstrated is your stubborn insistence on equivocating 'bara' and 'asah'.

Mark, all you're doing is presenting an alternate form of the gap-theory, which has been thoroughly refuted.

It's not a theory, it's the literary feature that renders the age of the earth and the universe irrelevant whether the earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old. There is only one reason you would argue so relentlessly for this and it has nothing to do with essential doctrine. It's the same reason you would make such a convoluted mess of the genealogies. I know what your doing and it's not to defend the testimony of Scripture.

Many of the other things you stated I agree with, but the errors above are serious.

Actually you are arguing in circles and your primary argument is an equivocation fallacy that has been soundly refuted. Now your resorting to ad hominem remarks which tells me you have nothing else. I've never seen a Creationist implode like this before, one guy argued this in circles through a PM volley but you're the first I've seen to do this in an open forum.

It's circular, fallacious and it's sad to see.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Calminian]

...They can be used interchangable if asap is connected to bara in the immediate context. The way they are in the passage your quoting here:

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make ('asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created (bara') man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ​

Then the general description is followed by the creation of man, constructed in the form of a parallelism, to indicate this passage is the heart of the emphasis. That's why it's repeated three times, three parallel statements repeated for emphasis.

Mark, there is no rule that 'asah must be with bara' to speak of a creative act. When God speaks of the creation of the land animals, He uses 'asah without bara'. Moses recaps the creation here, and does not use the word bara', only 'asah.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.​

'asah can be used in many ways, and there's no bara' rule when it speaks of a creative act. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff.

Had the sun, moon and stars been created on day four it would have been a 'bara' creation. The narrative is from the surface of the earth, the sun, moon and stars became visible through God's clearing and separating of the atmosphere.

Yes, they were created on day 4, and as I've shown, 'asah can mean create or bring something into existence. Regarding land animals, 'asah is used without bara'.

Gen. 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.​

Using your logic, these beasts were not created on day 6, since God would have used bara' instead of 'asah. They were only made visible.

But of course that interpretation would be absurd. They were brought into existence, and God used the word 'asah. I have no idea why you're fighting this.

I've now shown you 2 places in Genesis chapter 1, where 'asah is used to express a creative act, and the second one doesn't have bara' in it. What more proof could you possible need?

All you've demonstrated is your stubborn insistence on equivocating 'bara' and 'asah'.

Well, when scripture is explicit, yes, I can be stubborn.

It's not a theory, it's the literary feature that renders the age of the earth and the universe irrelevant whether the earth is 6,000 years old or billions of years old. There is only one reason you would argue so relentlessly for this and it has nothing to do with essential doctrine. It's the same reason you would make such a convoluted mess of the genealogies. I know what your doing and it's not to defend the testimony of Scripture.

I have no idea what you're accusing me of, Mark, but I believe I've demonstrated a proper handling of scripture, showing the terms in question in context. I'll leave the accusations to you.

Actually you are arguing in circles and your primary argument is an equivocation fallacy that has been soundly refuted. Now your resorting to ad hominem remarks ...

ad hominem remarks? Sorry, you're the one coming unglued and attacking. I'm just engaging in calm cool biblical reasoning . I don't need to attack.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, there is no rule that 'asah must be with bara' to speak of a creative act. When God speaks of the creation of the land animals, He uses 'asah without bara'. Moses recaps the creation here, and does not use the word bara', only 'asah.

That's right, it can be used interchangeably with bara, if you bothered to read the lexicon definitions it's only used that way 60 out of 2600 times.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.​

Right, during creation week the work God did was 'asah' because God created the heavens and the earth 'bara' in Genesis 1:1.

'asah can be used in many ways, and there's no bara' rule when it speaks of a creative act. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff.

Lexicons, dictionaries, concordances, the tools a proper exegetical study is done with, you wouldn't understand.

Yes, they were created on day 4, and as I've shown, 'asah can mean create or bring something into existence. Regarding land animals, 'asah is used without bara'.

God made `asah ( עָשָׂה Strongs H6213 ), the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. That doesn't mean he brought them into existence but the idea is that he made them visible enough that they could 'rule' the day and night. The stars underwent no actual changes but were set, 'nathan' ( נָתַן nä·than' Strong's H1443) in the heavens.

Gen. 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.​

Try reading it in context:

"And God made H6213 the beast of the earth after his kind..." (Gen. 1:25)​

That verse is talking about procreation, thus 'after his kind'.

Using your logic, these beasts were not created on day 6, since God would have used bara' instead of 'asah. They were only made visible.

I'm not locked into that logic, it's not a mathematical formula. Asah can be used in that way but it's the exception not the rule, with 'bara' is used only of God doing a creation from nothing. Asah has a broader range of meaning, so what?

But of course that interpretation would be absurd. They were brought into existence, and God used the word 'asah. I have no idea why you're fighting this.

I'm not fighting anything, it's just a straightforward exegetical study for me. You keep trying to make major points from minor proofs.

I've now shown you 2 places in Genesis chapter 1, where 'asah is used to express a creative act, and the second one doesn't have bara' in it. What more proof could you possible need?

That's not a proof, that's a point. After you abandoned all scholarship on the issue you want to argue about subtle variance of meaning with no regard for context. Your not proving anything, your actually begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Well, when scripture is explicit, yes, I can be stubborn.

That would be a first, you've been trying to fit the Scriptures into your interpretation throughout this discussion. The essential doctrine involved hasn't interested you in the slightest.

I have no idea what you're accusing me of, Mark, but I believe I've demonstrated a proper handling of scripture, showing the terms in question in context. I'll leave the accusations to you.

No, I don't think you have, in fact I know better.

ad hominem remarks? Sorry, you're the one coming unglued and attacking. I'm just engaging in calm cool biblical reasoning . I don't need to attack.

There is no Scriptural reason for the sun, moon and stars to be created on day 4 and there is ample reason to conclude they were created in Genesis 1:1. The creation of life in general and man in particular is inextricably linked to essential doctrine but the creation of angels is a subject the Scriptures are silent about.

Nothing to get excited about, it's actually kind of fascinating, I've never seen a Creationist chasing his tail in circles like this before. Usually when they want to debate something like this, they have a point. The only ones I ever seen argue in circles like this were Theistic Evolutionists.

Have a nice day
Mark