Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

[Neogaia777]

Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2 verse 4, concludes with "This is a history of a/the, or an "heavens and a earth", in the day of or when one was made, ect... Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 is a "summary" of an "entire creation", beginning to end, which is why the fall, is not even mentioned there, being an insignificant "blip on the radar" of the amount of time it was covering...

Then we get into the details of a creation in and from Genesis 2:5 and on....
The details it gets into from Genesis 2:5 on, are not even mentioned in Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4, because they are insignificant and not even worth mentioning, in or to an account that covers the time-frame and time-span of an entire creation from beginning to end...

The chapter and verse break should have been or occurred between Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 2:5...

And it can read (Genesis 2:4) "This is and account and brief summary of an entire history of a Heavens and a Earth from beginning to end, in the day or age or time that one was made, or they are made, when they are made", ect, ect...

But someone says: The order of creation differs in the two stories...

About the vegetation or plants, it does seem to, but that is the only thing that seems to, or is the one and only thing that may differ, as it does not say anything at all about days (of creation or whatever) after Genesis 2:5...?

The vegetation (and creation of man) is the one and only thing that does or does seem to differ IOW's...

In Genesis 1 it says the vegetation was made on day three, and man on day six, but in Genesis 2:5 or after Genesis 2:5 it says that God hadn't made any vegetation to sprout up yet, when He created man, but makes no mention of days...

Maybe He just meant in that "region" where He had put man, or where He had made man (from the dust there, ect) or that He did not make the Garden of Eden there yet, in that region, ect...? And made man and the Garden of Eden at or around the same time, ect...? While in other places in or of the Earth there was already vegetation, ect...? Maybe that region might have even been a dessert maybe, before God made the Garden of Eden and man there, ect...? Made him (Man, Adam) to keep it, or do upkeep on it and take care of it, ect...? And both happened on day six maybe, ect...?

Or it could be something else maybe also...?

I believe the "days" are "ages", and that in Genesis 2:5 on, it is all day six, and that we are still in day six now, and that day six will not end until day seven starts, ect, and I don't believe day seven has started yet, but that day seven begins with Christ's returning to rule and reign and set up the Kingdom, God's Kingdom on Earth, ect, after armaggeddon, ect, and and is the "thousand year reign" (not literal) (or not literally a literal thousand years) but is the "age" of Christ ruling and reigning, and is the day of God's rest, ect... It hasn't happened yet, but will happen soon, ect... Or day seven will be starting sometime "relatively soon", ect...

Anyway,

If you take each "day" to mean an "age" then the Creation account in Genesis 1 lines up with science or what science has to say about Creation, or the way life, this planet, (and even the universe, or this universe) came about, ect...?

Oh and about "making the great luminaries" or the sun and moon (and stars), I think He was talking about clearing away all the dark clouds, dust and ash, from volcanic activity, ect, from the air or sky in the Earth, ect... Anyway, taking those away to "reveal" the sun and moon and stars to shine on the Earth clearly for the first time, ect...

The first two days are talking about the universe, ect... For the most part anyway, as they are also talking about the initial formation of stars and/or planets, ect...

And someone says, that it's the creation of the animals that differs also...?

Man and animals were both on the sixth day, same "age" and were kind of made together, in that they are closely related (land beasts, animals) and came about on the same day (sixth day) or age...?

God also may have "placed" animals in the Garden for Adam also... Or caused animals to come to him (Adam) in the Garden, ect... (maybe)...?

I think it's just a technicality at best (that part)...? Considering how closely land animals, especially mammals, and man are related, and happened on the same day, or in the same age or period of time or time period...

Thoughts...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

 

[Jonaitis]

"And there was evening and there was morning, the [insert number] day."

How do you explain this statement and repetition of it after each day?

 

[Neogaia777]

"And there was evening and there was morning, the [insert number] day."

How do you explain this statement and repetition of it after each day?

I don't know, but I just know they are not literal days, or not one of our days, but God's... There are many things that they/it can refer to and/or mean...?

Ever heard of golden ages and dark ages in an age...? That is usually used to describe a nation or a system of things, during the lifespan of a nation or a system of things...?

Well, each age is a system of things also... A period of darker times in that age or more "golden" times in that age, it could mean that possibly...?

Ever heard a "day with God is like a thousand years" and how it was never meant to be a literal thousand years, but a thousand years was meant to be representative of an "age" or was always representative of a lifespan, or a lifespan of an age...?

The "thousand years" was used many times in the Bible and it was almost always never meant to be taken literally, or was ever a "literal" "thousand years" either, hardly ever, it was always representative of the lifespan of an age, or era, ect, of a system of things, like the age or era of, say, for example, the creatures of the sea or the sea creatures ruling the earth for an "age" or era or time, ect... And that would be "one day" to God, ect, just as an example...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

"And there was evening and there was morning, the [insert number] day."

How do you explain this statement and repetition of it after each day?

It would have to be the "day and night" of an "age" or era, ect...

Whatever that might represent or mean...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

"And there was evening and there was morning, the [insert number] day."

How do you explain this statement and repetition of it after each day?

Oh, and looking at it now, it puts evening first always then a coming morning at the end of each day always, at the end or close of that (day) or each day always, because the new morning was the start of a new day, or always introduced a new day or a next day... And was how they use to measure the days back then; was the morning was the start of a new day, and the ending of an evening was the ending or closing of the previous day, which would make sense or would explain why it would end or close with that saying at the end of each day, and before getting into a new or next one...

Which could mean each age or era ended in kind of dark or darker period also maybe...? With a "dawning" I guess you could say, of a new age or era possibly...? Or start of a new day/age/era, ect... Which would be why it would say that at the end of a, or each day/age/era, ect...

God Bless!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Thoughts...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

My thoughts are this. The purpose of the Bible is to tell the story of God's redemption of humanity. The purpose of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is not to explain "how" the Universe came to exist. Rather, the purpose is to explain "why" the Universe came to exist. My advice is not to get too wrapped up wondering how long the days lasted and in what order did the days occur. Rather, the main point and purpose of the creation narrative is to explain that:
1. The Universe was created by God.
2. The Universe was created with a plan.
3. The Universe was created with a purpose that was good.

Thus, by looking beyond these three truths is to go beyond the original intended scope of the genre.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I don't know, but I just know they are not literal days, or not one of our days, but God's... There are many things that they/it can refer to and/or mean...?

The only thing we ought to pull from these passages is that God created the Universe in a way that was ordered, methodical, and deliberate.

 

[Neogaia777]

My thoughts are this. The purpose of the Bible is to tell the story of God's redemption of humanity. The purpose of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is not to explain "how" the Universe came to exist. Rather, the purpose is to explain "why" the Universe came to exist. My advice is not to get too wrapped up wondering how long the days lasted and in what order did the days occur. Rather, the main point and purpose of the creation narrative is to explain that:
1. The Universe was created by God.
2. The Universe was created with a plan.
3. The Universe was created with a purpose that was good.

Thus, by looking beyond these three truths is to go beyond the original intended scope of the genre.

Yes, and that is most of the time, most usually "good enough for me" but not everybody though... and I do believe that the Faith can be logical and doesn't have to "blind" all the time either...

Many won't even try out the faith if it doesn't fit into their own logic and/or reason, or if they try to pick up a Bible, and start in Genesis, and immediately think they find things that are completely illogical or that contradict basic logic and reason, ect... Or what they were taught and/or told, ect... They'll reject it, ect... Even think they have reason to go against it, ect...

Also leaves the faith open to some pretty devastating attacks, by those who would wish to do so, if they don't think it fits into and/or with logic and/or reason, or what they were taught or told or think they know, ect...

We are supposed to be able to defend the faith, and give (logical, good) reason or reasons for our faith, ect...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

The only thing we ought to pull from these passages is that God created the Universe in a way that was ordered, methodical, and deliberate.

I just like trying to figure things out, just the way I am, I'm like a kid with a new toy... With whatever God shows me, ect...

God Bless!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, and that is most of the time, most usually "good enough for me" but not everybody though... and I do believe that the Faith can be logical and doesn't have to "blind" all the time either...

Many won't even try out the faith if it doesn't fit into their own logic and/or reason, or if they try to pick up a Bible, and start in Genesis, and immediately think they find things that are completely illogical or that contradict basic logic and reason, ect... Or what they were taught and/or told, ect...

Also leaves the faith open to some pretty devastating attacks, by those who would wish to do so, if they don't think it fits into and/or with logic and/or reason, or what they were taught or told or think they know, ect...

We are supposed to be able to defend the faith, and give (logical, good) reason or reasons for our faith, ect...

God Bless!

I agree that we are supposed to be able to defend the faith. But a big part of doing that is having a good hermeneutical foundation. This, of course, requires the understanding of genre.

 

[Neogaia777]

I just like trying to figure things out, just the way I am, I'm like a kid with a new toy... With whatever God shows me, ect...

God Bless!

And as far as figuring things out goes, there is no greater challenge than trying to figure out the things of God, and I like a good challenge too or also...

And, I'm also finding out now, no greater rewards either... Personally, ect...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I agree that we are supposed to be able to defend the faith. But a big part of doing that is having a good hermeneutical foundation. This, of course, requires the understanding of genre.

And accurate hermeneutical foundation... (correct interpretations)...(and not incorrect ones)... (methodology of interpretation, ect)... (that considers the context or genre, ect)... (correctly, ect)...

God Bless!

 

[Jamsie]

I just like trying to figure things out, just the way I am, I'm like a kid with a new toy... With whatever God shows me, ect...
God Bless!

My suggestion would be to research and investigate the many interpretations and writings of various Theologians, Scholars, and Scientists. Fact is that in spite of those who claim absolute certainty...we need to approach Creation with some openness and humility.

Consider this in your search... Each day is a Command or fiat day, 6 days (24 hour) of commands with though the fulfillment would not be required to be either consecutive of a restrictive time. There are many other thoughts and views...look them all over.

 

[Neogaia777]

My suggestion would be to research and investigate the many interpretations and writings of various Theologians, Scholars, and Scientists. Fact is that in spite of those who claim absolute certainty...we need to approach Creation with some openness and humility.

Consider this in your search... Each day is a Command or fiat day, 6 days (24 hour) of commands with though the fulfillment would not be required to be either consecutive of a restrictive time. There are many other thoughts and views...look them all over.

First of all I've got to say that I don't think you know the levels I go to and have gone to to teach myself humility, for one... Then, for another, are you "open" to this interpretation...?

And I've heard many other thoughts and views (and interpretations) on this, most trying to justify either a literal six day creation, or a only 6,000 year old heaven and earth creation, and I reject all of those... Most of the people behind those are very confused if you ask me, and are not even close to being right even in the slightest... And what I see them to do to try to justify those...? Anyway...

I'm just going to stand on and by what I said for now, K...?

Until someone can tell me different, OK...?

God Bless!

 

[Jamsie]

First of all I've got to say that I don't think you know the levels I go to and have gone to to teach myself humility, for one... Then, for another, are you "open" to this interpretation...?

And I've heard many other thoughts and views (and interpretations) on this, most trying to justify either a literal six day creation, or a only 6,000 year old heaven and earth creation, and I reject all of those... Most of the people behind those are very confused if you ask me, and are not even close to being right even in the slightest... And what I see them to do to try to justify those...? Anyway...

I'm just going to stand on and by what I said for now, K...?

Until someone can tell me different, OK...?

God Bless!

I don't think that you read my post correctly as there was no adversarial intent which you seem to muster from it. We ALL need to approach with humility - in other words we come to our best reasoned conclusions understanding that certainty is elusive...how you come to this as an attack is beyond me.

Are you assuming that I am a YEC? I'm trying to understand your response in light of what I wrote...but will just let it go for now. Blessings...

 

[-57]

About the vegetation or plants, it does seem to, but that is the only thing that seems to, or is the one and only thing that may differ, as it does not say anything at all about days (of creation or whatever) after Genesis 2:5...?

The vegetation (and creation of man) is the one and only thing that does or does seem to differ IOW's...

In Genesis 1 it says the vegetation was made on day three, and man on day six, but in Genesis 2:5 or after Genesis 2:5 it says that God hadn't made any vegetation to sprout up yet, when He created man, but makes no mention of days...

That is not what the verse says. It doesn't say "God hadn't made any vegetation to sprout up yet, when He created man"

The verse is some what transitional.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground

There was a time when the heavens and earth were made when there was no plants, rain or man. It is refering to day one and day two.

If you take each "day" to mean an "age" then the Creation account in Genesis 1 lines up with science or what science has to say about Creation, or the way life, this planet, (and even the universe, or this universe) came about, ect...?

This is a more recent thought that was pretty much added to support the Theory of Evolution and an old earth.
Day means just what it says...day. 24 hours. As pointed out in a previous post to you the days are numbered. 1-7. With the exception of day 7 they are also bracketed with evening and morning which also points to events in a normal 24 hour long day.

Exo 20:11 also confirms the days were 24 hour long when God set up the sabbath.
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The problem with the Day/age/evolution concept is that the fall of Adam and original sin is easily lost.

 

[eleos1954]

Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2 verse 4, concludes with "This is a history of a/the, or an "heavens and a earth", in the day of or when one was made, ect... Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 is a "summary" of an "entire creation", beginning to end, which is why the fall, is not even mentioned there, being an insignificant "blip on the radar" of the amount of time it was covering...

Then we get into the details of a creation in and from Genesis 2:5 and on....
The details it gets into from Genesis 2:5 on, are not even mentioned in Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4, because they are insignificant and not even worth mentioning, in or to an account that covers the time-frame and time-span of an entire creation from beginning to end...

The chapter and verse break should have been or occurred between Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 2:5...

And it can read (Genesis 2:4) "This is and account and brief summary of an entire history of a Heavens and a Earth from beginning to end, in the day or age or time that one was made, or they are made, when they are made", ect, ect...

But someone says: The order of creation differs in the two stories...

About the vegetation or plants, it does seem to, but that is the only thing that seems to, or is the one and only thing that may differ, as it does not say anything at all about days (of creation or whatever) after Genesis 2:5...?

The vegetation (and creation of man) is the one and only thing that does or does seem to differ IOW's...

In Genesis 1 it says the vegetation was made on day three, and man on day six, but in Genesis 2:5 or after Genesis 2:5 it says that God hadn't made any vegetation to sprout up yet, when He created man, but makes no mention of days...

Maybe He just meant in that "region" where He had put man, or where He had made man (from the dust there, ect) or that He did not make the Garden of Eden there yet, in that region, ect...? And made man and the Garden of Eden at or around the same time, ect...? While in other places in or of the Earth there was already vegetation, ect...? Maybe that region might have even been a dessert maybe, before God made the Garden of Eden and man there, ect...? Made him (Man, Adam) to keep it, or do upkeep on it and take care of it, ect...? And both happened on day six maybe, ect...?

Or it could be something else maybe also...?

I believe the "days" are "ages", and that in Genesis 2:5 on, it is all day six, and that we are still in day six now, and that day six will not end until day seven starts, ect, and I don't believe day seven has started yet, but that day seven begins with Christ's returning to rule and reign and set up the Kingdom, God's Kingdom on Earth, ect, after armaggeddon, ect, and and is the "thousand year reign" (not literal) (or not literally a literal thousand years) but is the "age" of Christ ruling and reigning, and is the day of God's rest, ect... It hasn't happened yet, but will happen soon, ect... Or day seven will be starting sometime "relatively soon", ect...

Anyway,

If you take each "day" to mean an "age" then the Creation account in Genesis 1 lines up with science or what science has to say about Creation, or the way life, this planet, (and even the universe, or this universe) came about, ect...?

Oh and about "making the great luminaries" or the sun and moon (and stars), I think He was talking about clearing away all the dark clouds, dust and ash, from volcanic activity, ect, from the air or sky in the Earth, ect... Anyway, taking those away to "reveal" the sun and moon and stars to shine on the Earth clearly for the first time, ect...

The first two days are talking about the universe, ect... For the most part anyway, as they are also talking about the initial formation of stars and/or planets, ect...

And someone says, that it's the creation of the animals that differs also...?

Man and animals were both on the sixth day, same "age" and were kind of made together, in that they are closely related (land beasts, animals) and came about on the same day (sixth day) or age...?

God also may have "placed" animals in the Garden for Adam also... Or caused animals to come to him (Adam) in the Garden, ect... (maybe)...?

I think it's just a technicality at best (that part)...? Considering how closely land animals, especially mammals, and man are related, and happened on the same day, or in the same age or period of time or time period...

Thoughts...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

Genesis

5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning— the first day.

was evening (sunset)

light “day,” (until the next sunset)

Falls in line with His Sabbath 7th day keeping that He established from creation.

Evolution theory of random selection is not at all in line with Gods word.

Where science and the bible meet on things, is being found in astrophysics and biology (DNA). And science findings in these areas change all the time as more knowledge/information is discovered/revealed.

The answers are in the cosmos .... whether man will ever reconcile within himself the two through science ??? that is a creator acceptable to all. I'd say likely not according to the Lords word.

However, I read an article the other day that stated that about 30% of scientists believe or are leaning toward a creator as they discover more and more massive intricacies and complexities in the cosmos and biology areas and just how fine tuned everything is.

So am hopeful ;o)

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't think that you read my post correctly as there was no adversarial intent which you seem to muster from it. We ALL need to approach with humility - in other words we come to our best reasoned conclusions understanding that certainty is elusive...how you come to this as an attack is beyond me.

Are you assuming that I am a YEC? I'm trying to understand your response in light of what I wrote...but will just let it go for now. Blessings...

I'm sorry, I really am, guess it just struck me wrong, I apologize...

Sorry again,

Yes, humility is very important...

I guess it's just a sensitive subject for me, as I struggle with it a lot, feel like it is a constant battle for me, ect... In my position, ect...

Anyway, I apologize..

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Genesis

5God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning— the first day.

was evening (sunset)

light “day,” (until the next sunset)

Falls in line with His Sabbath 7th day keeping that He established from creation.

Evolution theory of random selection is not at all in line with Gods word.

Where science and the bible meet on things, is being found in astrophysics and biology (DNA). And science findings in these areas change all the time as more knowledge/information is discovered/revealed.

The answers are in the cosmos .... whether man will ever reconcile within himself the two through science ??? that is a creator acceptable to all. I'd say likely not according to the Lords word.

However, I read an article the other day that stated that about 30% of scientists believe or are leaning toward a creator as they discover more and more massive intricacies and complexities in the cosmos and biology areas and just how fine tuned everything is.

So am hopeful ;o)

God Bless.

Yes, the DNA evidence is also getting pretty staggering...

In support of a master designer/creator...

God Bless!

 

[Yahkov]

What is a evening or morning of an age or era? I feel like we are really starting to butcher Genesis 1 at this point.

Why are we trying to line up Scripture and science? There are several cases where Scripture and science conflict. There are numerous examples in the miracles of Jesus. Even if we can confidently say a day means an age, science and Scripture still conflict with each other. The animals and plants are produced according to their kinds. Evolution disagrees. Furthermore, the Bible teaches the Earth was water and then God brought about the land. According to science, the earth was a volcanic “hell” for billions of years before it even saw any water.

I also don’t know what you mean by being “open” to an interpretation. If that involves me giving up the clarity of Scripture to squeeze in a new idea, I am definitely not open to it.

My biggest issue with day age creationism is it’s attempt to reconcile Scripture with science. Can you imagine how much Bible would be left if we do this with all of Scripture? Science and Scripture may compliment each other in some ways. But they do not belong on the same shelf. There are things in the Bible we just cannot explain or prove scientifically.

I’d also have to disagree with a previous post that states the purpose of Genesis 1 isn’t about how the universe was created. Genesis is a part of the Torah which is literally the history of Israel, going all the way back to the creation of the world. Genesis 1 does describe how the universe was created. It was created by God in 6 literal days.

I do agree with the post someone made about the sabbath. If God hadn’t rested yet on the seventh day, how do we even observe the sabbath day?