• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

"In the beginning...."

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Genesis 1: 1-5:


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​


2The earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was on the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good;
and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
And there was evening and there was morning--day one.




The first verse is an especially profound statement, since it begins by asserting:
A. There was a beginning (of time, of all matter and of the physical universe);
B. But even at that beginning point God [Hebrew elohim] already existed;
C. God created out of nothing [Hebrew bara]
D. "the heavens and the earth" (English translation). It should be noted that although this is a correct translation, it is equally correct to translate the phrase as "the universe", since "heavens and the earth" is the Hebrew equivalent of the English word "universe."

The second verse tells us that the earth was formless, void and empty--but you are likely to get different interpretations as to what that means. It could mean that the earth was created but was without any form or substance, and was devoid of the necessary building blocks to support life. But it could just as easily mean that the earth was not created in the beginning, but that it was formed some time after the initial act that created the universe.

The second verse also says that darkness was over the surface of the deep; We are later told in verses 3 and 4 that the major development occurring on yom one (other than the initial creative act) was that light separated from the darkness. And the verse tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.

The fifth verse concludes with the statement that "there was evening and there was morning--day one." A similar statement concludes each of the six days of creation: (with the Hebrew words reversed to correspond to the English order) wayhi-'erev wayhi-voqer yom 'echadh....yom sheni....yom shelishi...., which is generally translated "and it was evening and it was morning day one....day second....day third," etc.

Three Hebrew words are especially important to our understanding of what the Bible may mean by this phrase:

1. The Hebrew noun erev or ereb, which refers to the time of dusk beginning with the setting of the sun. It is generally translated as "evening" and is the time when the shadows of evening have grown long but it is not quite dark yet. The word can be used either to mean that time of day just before everything gets totally dark, or it can be used to refer to coming darkness, a time of chaos or confusion, or a time when one cannot see quite clearly. The root of erev means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation of being in the dark;

2. The Hebrew noun voqer or boker, which refers to morning or the breaking of day or that time when the rising of the sun allows one to see his way. Its root means “discernible, able to be distinguished, orderly”—which tends to be our visual sensation at the coming of day; and

3. The Hebrew noun yom, which is generally translated as day or as a period of time, although it can also mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.
 

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Sinai said:
[

The second verse also says that darkness was over the surface of the deep; ... And the verse tells of the weruach elohim (Spirit of God or Wind of God) hovering over the surface of hammayim, which is most commonly translated as the waters, but can also mean the chaotic mixture or blend. It might be noted that approximately 800 years ago--well before modern scientific discoveries--noted Jewish Hebrew scholar Maimonides said this phrase may mean the building blocks of the universe--that chaotic mixture from which all the stars were formed.


Another interesting thing about this verse is the verb translated here as "hovering". It is a peculiar verb which speaks very specifically of the sort of fluttering motion a bird makes as it hovers over her nest.

This suggests the initial conditions of the unformed universe were watched over by the Holy Spirit as a mother bird watches over her hatching eggs. (I have even seen a translation that speaks of the Spirit "brooding" over the waters and any chicken farmer can tell you what it means when a bird is "broody".)

I love this image, for it is the first image of God in scripture and it is the first of many female images of God in the bible.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.

And that is also a TE view.
 
Upvote 0

United

Active Member
Jul 18, 2004
153
10
49
Perth, WA
✟22,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
gluadys said:
Another interesting thing about this verse is the verb translated here as "hovering". It is a peculiar verb which speaks very specifically of the sort of fluttering motion a bird makes as it hovers over her nest.

This suggests the initial conditions of the unformed universe were watched over by the Holy Spirit as a mother bird watches over her hatching eggs.
Hi Gluadys,

Your comment suggests that you interpret this verse as literal as well as poetic. I throught from our previous discussions that you only saw all of the opening section of Genesis as poetic or fables? Or are the words "symbolic" and "poetic" a better description of your interpretation?

Do any TE's take a more literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis? For example:

-Days in Gen 1 interpreted as "long" days (billions of years).
-"Creation" referred to Gen 1 interpreted as God's hand in modifying animals genes to bring about his desired evolutionary path
-Gen 2 Vs 5 interpreted as God breathing a spirit/soul into an evolved man.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Your comment suggests that you interpret this verse as literal as well as poetic.

I don't see how. Are you suggesting that she really thinks of the Holy Spirit as a kind of bird? What she is doing, surely, is bringing out the full implications of the metaphor of "hovering"; which if anything, makes it even more poetic.

I don't see how a near-eastern poem, full of metaphor, symbolism and real depths of meaning, can tell us anything useful about genetics. I don't see why it should have to; it was never intended to be a genetics essays. It was meant as a liturgical meditation to remind the people of Isreal of where they came from.
 
Upvote 0

United

Active Member
Jul 18, 2004
153
10
49
Perth, WA
✟22,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
artybloke said:
I don't see how. Are you suggesting that she really thinks of the Holy Spirit as a kind of bird? What she is doing, surely, is bringing out the full implications of the metaphor of "hovering"; which if anything, makes it even more poetic.
Hi Artybloke,

It almost seems that you are offended at my question to Gluadys. I can assure you I am not trying to make any point whatsoever. I am very open to TE's view of Genesis - but I can't understand all TE's views without asking questions. Gluadys refers to "...the initial conditions of the unformed universe..." in relation to the opening verses of Genesis. I suspect she is then taking the opening verses as at least symbolic of creation (but probably not literal from my previous discussions with her). But I don't know - that's why I asked her.

artybloke said:
I don't see how a near-eastern poem, full of metaphor, symbolism and real depths of meaning, can tell us anything useful about genetics. I don't see why it should have to; it was never intended to be a genetics essays. It was meant as a liturgical meditation to remind the people of Isreal of where they came from.
Obviously you are one TE who is doesn't have any literal view on Genesis. However, I am curious to know if there are any other TE's which do.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
United said:
Hi Gluadys,

Your comment suggests that you interpret this verse as literal as well as poetic. I throught from our previous discussions that you only saw all of the opening section of Genesis as poetic or fables? Or are the words "symbolic" and "poetic" a better description of your interpretation?

Do any TE's take a more literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis? For example:

-Days in Gen 1 interpreted as "long" days (billions of years).
-"Creation" referred to Gen 1 interpreted as God's hand in modifying animals genes to bring about his desired evolutionary path
-Gen 2 Vs 5 interpreted as God breathing a spirit/soul into an evolved man.

Thanks.

All TEs take the position that God is a literal reality and Creation literally happened. They all take the position that the description given in Gen. 1 is poetic in part or in whole, but you will get many different varieties of interpretation beyond that point.

Personally, I think the only logical "literal" interpretation of the Gen. 1 days is a standard solar day, so I don't try to stretch them into ages. I just consider the whole description is poetic and none of it needs to be reconciled with the scientific description.

The theological points (which are the most important points) don't require a reconciliation of Gen. 1 with science.
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
United said:
Hi Gluadys,

Your comment suggests that you interpret this verse as literal as well as poetic. I throught from our previous discussions that you only saw all of the opening section of Genesis as poetic or fables? Or are the words "symbolic" and "poetic" a better description of your interpretation?

Do any TE's take a more literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis? For example:

-Days in Gen 1 interpreted as "long" days (billions of years).
-"Creation" referred to Gen 1 interpreted as God's hand in modifying animals genes to bring about his desired evolutionary path
-Gen 2 Vs 5 interpreted as God breathing a spirit/soul into an evolved man.

Thanks.
It's been my experience that TEs--like OECs in general--tend to cover a wide area on this issue. Some think the opening chapters of Genesis should be viewed as symbolic, poetic, figurative, or as a type of parable or morality tale. Others hold to a very literal interpretation. And some fit in somewhere in between those other positions. If you read enough of the views held by various TEs on these CF forums, you are likely to encounter a fairly good sampling or cross representation of the different views.....
 
Upvote 0

United

Active Member
Jul 18, 2004
153
10
49
Perth, WA
✟22,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks Gluadys & Sinai,

I shall keep reading & try to evaluate each of the different TE perspectives. I am nominally an OEC, but I still recognise that God may have created in a different way. And if I can’t rule out evolution as God’s creation method, then I need to fully understand and appreciate how this position is best reconciled with Genesis.

Also Gluadys – I am sure to ask more questions along the way. Some of them may query certain interpretations by TE’s – but it is not an attempt to disprove anyone or anything. I welcome a good understandable response – that is worth far more to me than being wrong and not knowing it.

Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: gluadys
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
United said:
Thanks Gluadys & Sinai,

I shall keep reading & try to evaluate each of the different TE perspectives. I am nominally an OEC, but I still recognise that God may have created in a different way. And if I can’t rule out evolution as God’s creation method, then I need to fully understand and appreciate how this position is best reconciled with Genesis.

Also Gluadys – I am sure to ask more questions along the way. Some of them may query certain interpretations by TE’s – but it is not an attempt to disprove anyone or anything. I welcome a good understandable response – that is worth far more to me than being wrong and not knowing it.

Thanks

Always happy to oblige. I much prefer explaining to debating.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.