YEC, is the universe expanding?

[Papias]

I'vebeen wrote:

Mr. Dave, everything does not happen in one day in the second creation account. At the beginning of Genesis 2:

Um, IB, you are aware, I hope, that the chapter and verse numbers were added in the middle ages, by monks, right? The fact that the end of the chapter 1 account is in chapter 2 is not relevant, as that's just a much more recent alteration. Read them again - they are two contradictory accounts, if read literally.

That is a little funny {the cambian explosion and elephants}, but it is not quite the same scenario. If God created a big bang where all matter of the universe expanded from one single point, the stars in the sky would have been formed before the Garden of Eden. God created the bodies of light in the heavens after the Garden of Eden.

IB, could you, just to humor us, describe what the cambrian explosion might have looked like to someone there, and how an elephant might have been affected if it were not underground? Thanks-

Papias

 

[ivebeenshown]

apart from being singular?

A singular period of time with an indefinite length in Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 4:3, and Isaiah 30:8, etc...

A singular period of time defined as being an evening and morning, throughout Genesis 1, of which there are six counts...

IB, could you, just to humor us, describe what the cambrian explosion might have looked like to someone there, and how an elephant might have been affected if it were not underground? Thanks - Papias

This is not a discussion about some 'Cambrian explosion' and I will not get into that deviation from this thread.

 

[98cwitr]

No, it is not that I have more trust than you. I am saying I trust him OVER you.



The first account says it was 6 yom, comprised of a morning and evening each. The second just says a yom, with no definitive quality.

oh ok...your wording was suggesting otherwise...but I see what you mean now.

 

[ivebeenshown]

oh ok...your wording was suggesting otherwise...but I see what you mean now.

I am sorry for that 98cwitr, I could have avoided that for the both of us, had I been more careful with my wording. But you have been helpful, and I now know how to express my trust in Jesus over others without causing that confusion.

 

[98cwitr]

very well, sir. My wording was confusing as well, I never meant any name calling towards you.

 

[rcorlew]

I'vebeen wrote:

Um, IB, you are aware, I hope, that the chapter and verse numbers were added in the middle ages, by monks, right? The fact that the end of the chapter 1 account is in chapter 2 is not relevant, as that's just a much more recent alteration. Read them again - they are two contradictory accounts, if read literally.

Papias

I hate to jump into another person's discussion, but when you take an absolute literal reading into the Genesis accounts, there is no contradiction between themselves and with science. Now add into them our own current understandings of what we observe today and what has been added to them you then have the appearance of contradiction. I assure you, if you use a non-vulgate source translation of Genesis, you will remove the contradictory points.

 

[Assyrian]

A singular period of time with an indefinite length in Genesis 2:4, and Genesis 4:3, and Isaiah 30:8, etc...

Isn't day in Gen 4:3 plural? Isaiah 30:8 seems to be saying it is 'for a day to come'. But really the problem is not saying day can be used for an indefinite period, but the inconsistency of creationists insisting Gen 1 has to refer to six literal days while interpreting day in Gen 2:4 non literally.

A singular period of time defined as being an evening and morning, throughout Genesis 1, of which there are six counts...

What make you think the evening and morning are there to define the days? Evening and morning in Psalm 90 don't define human lifespan as being 12 hours long. The parable of the labourers in Matt 20 is full of references to the time during the day, the number of hours that have gone by, the third hour, the sixth hour, the ninth hour, the eleventh hour, their work day had an evening and morning, a daily rate of pay, yet the real meaning of the parable isn't about a literal day, it isn't even about an indefinite period of time.

 

[ivebeenshown]

What make you think the evening and morning are there to define the days? Evening and morning in Psalm 90 don't define human lifespan as being 12 hours long. The parable of the labourers in Matt 20 is full of references to the time during the day, the number of hours that have gone by, the third hour, the sixth hour, the ninth hour, the eleventh hour, their work day had an evening and morning, a daily rate of pay, yet the real meaning of the parable isn't about a literal day, it isn't even about an indefinite period of time.

Because Psalm 90 uses a simile:

5Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
6In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

Genesis 1 does not use a simile:

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And Matthew 20 uses just what you said: a parable.

1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

very well, sir. My wording was confusing as well, I never meant any name calling towards you.

No worries 98cwitr, God Bless

 

[Assyrian]

Because Psalm 90 uses a simile:

5Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
6In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

Genesis 1 does not use a simile:

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And Matthew 20 uses just what you said: a parable.

1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Whether they are similes or parables, it is all still biblical imagery. The bible sometimes use similes to introduce its imagery or tells us the passage is a parable, at other times it doesn't. It is biblical imagery we need to understand, whether it is used in a simile or not.
Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil."
Zeph 3:3 Her officials within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves that leave nothing till the morning.
Luke 13:32 And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course.

Not sure of the significance you see in the verb to be

Genesis 1 does not use a simile:
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
​

Matt 21:33 "Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country.
Matt 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.
Luke 7:41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
One is called a parable, one is a simile - 'the kingdom of heaven will be like', and one has no label at all, yet they all use the verb to be as part of a figurative story.

 

[de_skudd]

Because it's all expanding away from a centerpoint.

Where is this centerpoint?

 

[Mr Dave]

No centrepoint as such;

How astronomers know that our galaxy is not centre of universe?
Where is the centre of the universe?

This in no way negates the truth of the OP, and the expansion of the universe. The universe just isn't a defined sphere that we can visualise like the Earth and then pin-point a co-ordinate as point 0.0.0.

 

[ivebeenshown]

One is called a parable[/COLOR], one is a simile - 'the kingdom of heaven will be like', and one has no label at all, yet they all use the verb to be as part of a figurative story.

Jesus spoke in parables and people were metaphorically referred to as animals. Ok.

The account of Creation in Genesis would be flawed if the universe expanded from one center point as an explosion of matter which then formed everything. Even Jesus's parables had a specific chronological order to them. For instance: five of ten virgins didn't fill their lamps with oil, then they were refused when the time for them to fill their lamps had passed.

Genesis is the same (but in the sense of chronological order -- I myself believe Creation to be literal.) God created the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:11) and after that God created the bodies of light in the sky. (Genesis 1:14-18)

If this account was intended to fit with man's own extra-biblical theories, the bodies of light in the sky would have been created prior to the vegetation, and it would have been written that way.

 

[Assyrian]

Jesus spoke in parables and people were metaphorically referred to as animals. Ok.

True, though sometimes in a parable a pig is just a pig. Look at the prodigal son, the pigs are simply pigs in the story and show how far the son's life had slid.

The account of Creation in Genesis would be flawed if the universe expanded from one center point as an explosion of matter which then formed everything.

Why? Not that the universe has a centre point. But you might as well say God being the potter and us the clay is meaningless if we were made from an egg and something that looks like a tadpole.

Even Jesus's parables had a specific chronological order to them. For instance: five of ten virgins didn't fill their lamps with oil, then they were refused when the time for them to fill their lamps had passed.

Stories have a narrative sequence, the question is whether they are about the chronological order the time sequence of the narrative. What do the different times of day mean in the parable of the labourers, the third hour, the sixth hour, is there a special symbolic meaning to the times given? Or simply part of the narrative like the pigs and the husks, and the time of day is not the point of the story. Is there any significance in the order of events in the Good Samaritan? A Priest then a Levite passing by, the Samaritan pouring in oil and wine on the wounds, then putting him on his donkey, then going to the inn, then setting up a tab? The details and their sequence are part of the narrative, but it is the overall story that tells us what a good neighbour is, it is not about the chronology.

Genesis is the same (but in the sense of chronological order -- I myself believe Creation to be literal.) God created the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:11) and after that God created the bodies of light in the sky. (Genesis 1:14-18)

If this account was intended to fit with man's own extra-biblical theories, the bodies of light in the sky would have been created prior to the vegetation, and it would have been written that way.

There are Old Earth Creationists who, though they do not accept evolution, fit the sequence of Genesis 1 with the geological history of the earth. But I would say when the first two chapters of Genesis give completely different orders of creation, then the point of the creation accounts is probably not about the order God created in. Didn't God plant the garden in Eden after he created man in Genesis 2?

 

[ivebeenshown]

The details and their sequence are part of the narrative, but it is the overall story that tells us what a good neighbour is, it is not about the chronology.

The chronology is key to the story's plot and without it, the story would appear relatively senseless.

Didn't God plant the garden in Eden after he created man in Genesis 2?

In Genesis 1, there are six periods of actual creating. Each of these periods comes in a chronological order and is numbered 1-6.

In Genesis 2, verse 4-20, there is a seemingly contradictory story told. However, when we apply Genesis 1's chronology to Genesis 2, it fits. We should not assume purely from Genesis 2 that God created man, and then created the Garden of Eden. Rather, it says God had created the Garden of Eden then placed man in it. We should not assume from Genesis 2 that God created man and then the animals. Rather, God had created the animals, then when he had created man, brought them to him to find a suitable companion.

The NIV does a better job of making this apparent to modern English-speakers, but the same still applies to the KJV. Verses 8 and 19 of Genesis 2 in the KVJ use carefully placed semicolons, not to be ignored.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory. As Jesus said, the Scripture cannot be broken. We have to take it from the very beginning, not the second chapter.

 

[Assyrian]

The chronology is key to the story's plot and without it, the story would appear relatively senseless.

Of course, but while the chronology is key to the story, it wouldn't work without it, it is not what the story is about. The meaning of the Good Samaritan was not about the sequence of events.

In Genesis 1, there are six periods of actual creating. Each of these periods comes in a chronological order and is numbered 1-6.

In Genesis 2, verse 4-20, there is a seemingly contradictory story told. However, when we apply Genesis 1's chronology to Genesis 2, it fits.

So the plain reading of of Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, but you can make it fit? Raises two questions here, why do it at all, why not leave the narrative in Gen 2 as it is? Figure out what God is saying through the text rather than fit the text into a preconceived view of what it should say? The other question is why do it that way around, why not fit make Genesis 1 fit Genesis 2. Creationist put a lot of emphasis on the numbering in Genesis 1, but don't forget Genesis 2 is a narrative, with all the grammatical constructions you find in Hebrew narrative indicating a sequence of events, and as you point out yourself: "The chronology is key to the story's plot and without it, the story would appear relatively senseless".

We should not assume purely from Genesis 2 that God created man, and then created the Garden of Eden. Rather, it says God had created the Garden of Eden then placed man in it.

That is what the narrative says. Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
This is written in the Hebrew narrative style with the grammar of the verbs indicating a consecutive sequence of events. The tense is changed for the verb 'had formed' to step out of the consecutive sequence, referring back to forming the man in the previous verse..

We should not assume from Genesis 2 that God created man and then the animals. Rather, God had created the animals, then when he had created man, brought them to him to find a suitable companion.

Again the verb sequence shows God saw man was lonely and then created the animals.

The NIV does a better job of making this apparent to modern English-speakers, but the same still applies to the KJV. Verses 8 and 19 of Genesis 2 in the KVJ use carefully placed semicolons, not to be ignored.

Unfortunately the NIV fudges the tenses here to try to make sense of a narrative which gives a different order of creation to Genesis 1. However the verb the NIV translates as pluperfect, the Lord had formed, is the very same tense and construction as the other verbs in the sequence. Notice how back in verse 8, the Hebrew is well able to step out of the narrative sequence to refer back to previous events and there he put the man whom he had formed, that could easily have been done in Gen 19 to show the beasts had been formed previously too, but it doesn’t, instead it places the formation of the beast in the consecutive sequence after God seeing that the man was alone.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not contradictory. As Jesus said, the Scripture cannot be broken. We have to take it from the very beginning, not the second chapter.

I couldn’t agree more. But we need to approach scripture with a deep respect for the actual text, we need to let the text speak for itself and see what it is actually saying rather than try to force what we think it should mean onto it. It is only we we know what the text says that we can really being to ask what it means, what God was saying though it, how he was speaking through it. Genesis 1& 2 do not contradict each other, but it may be because they work together as the word of God in a very different way from the one people impose on the texts to reconcile them. It can be scary though, but that is why seeking after God and searching his word takes faith.

 

[98cwitr]

Where is this centerpoint?

Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?

everything is expanding away from everything

 

[ivebeenshown]

That is what the narrative says. Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
I couldn’t agree more. But we need to approach scripture with a deep respect for the actual text,

The reason I said it is seemingly contradictory is because if you just dismiss the NIV translation, and stick to the KJV, it's easy for modern-day English speakers and readers to overlook the importance of the semi-colon.

What translation are you referencing? In the KJV, it says:

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​

It has the same meaning as the NIV. A semicolon is used to separate two independent clauses. It's just a little less conventional. Regarding the 'pluperfect' ordeal, here's what I believe:

If Genesis 1 spells out six phases for us, and tells us which events are within each phase, and each phase is ordered numerically, they must be in that order. If Genesis 2 would mean to say God created plants after man, it would be a glaring contradiction and cause the bible to be fallible and not trustworthy from the very first book of it. And since Genesis 1 is the very first chapter, it sets a reference for the following chapters. Each consecutive chapter must agree with the previous chapters.

I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I am sure you are not either, and we can each find multiple sources from various scholars that disagree as to whether or not there is a pluperfect.

My faith in God tells me that there are pluperfects in both Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 because if there were not, the two chapters would be in obvious contradiction. What a horrible way to start off the Truth that would be!

Anyways, we should get into this on another thread or something because we are well outside the boundaries of an "expanding universe" discussion.

I think everyone can agree the heavens are expanding.

 

[Mallon]

My faith in God tells me that there are pluperfects in both Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 because if there were not, the two chapters would be in obvious contradiction. What a horrible way to start off the Truth that would be!

Only if you insist that the truth spoken of in Genesis 1 and 2 is of historical importance rather than religious importance.

 

[jacks]

I wonder if there would be an observable difference, if in fact everything wasn't expanding. We were shrinking.

 

[Assyrian]

The reason I said it is seemingly contradictory is because if you just dismiss the NIV translation, and stick to the KJV, it's easy for modern-day English speakers and readers to overlook the importance of the semi-colon.

Not sure what significance you see in the semicolon, it is simply used to separate phrases that can stand as complete sentences in English, other translations use a comma or even a full stop. There is no consistent pattern because the punctuation isn't there in the Hebrew. But the fact that a narrative is made up of a multiple sentences and phrases doesn't stop it being a narrative with a chronological sequence running through the story.

What translation are you referencing?

The ESV but I was using bold to highlight the consecutive verbs in Hebrew, you could do that with any translation.

In the KJV, it says:

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​

It has the same meaning as the NIV. A semicolon is used to separate two independent clauses. It's just a little less conventional.

Independent clause simply means there is a verb and a subject so the clause can stand as a separate simple sentence. It does not mean the clause is independent of the rest of the narrative.

Here is the King James with the verbs indicating a consecutive actions. In Hebrew these verbs had the Hebrew 'and' (waw) attached to them which is why the grammatical construction is called a 'waw consecutive'. Usually English translations will include this waw, translating it as 'and', 'so' or 'then', but it tends to get separated from the verb. I have highlighted the waw consecutives, putting the 'and' and verb in bold and linking them by underlining.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. the man whom he had formed.

Notice what isn't in waw consecutive, God's statement about man beiong alone, though God actually saying it is waw consecutive, also, what Adam was going to do, what Adam would call the beasts. Back in verse 8 God putting the man is a consecutive verb, the 'had formed' isn't, because that is referring to an action out of sequence that had already been done.

Regarding the 'pluperfect' ordeal, here's what I believe:

If Genesis 1 spells out six phases for us, and tells us which events are within each phase, and each phase is ordered numerically, they must be in that order.

Though not necessarily literal. Parables can speak of the first man... and the second man... but the sequence is only in the chronology of the story, not the meaning of the parable. It might be worth pointing out the numbering in Genesis 1 is very different from the way days are counted off in the rest of the OT. Everywhere else days are listed as the first day...the second day... the third day... Which of course is how most translations say it in Genesis. However it is not what the Hebrew actually says, which is: one day... a second day... a third day... You find it in translations like the NASB and JPS (Jewish Publication Society). But it isn't a question of what is the best translation of the verses, so much as the Hebrew in Gen 1 numbering the days quite differently from the standard way to count off a series of days.

If you had to chose which creation account to take for your chronology and which to make fit the other, I would think the second account has a much stronger claim, because its chronology is an intrinsic part of the whole narrative structure.

If Genesis 2 would mean to say God created plants after man, it would be a glaring contradiction and cause the bible to be fallible and not trustworthy from the very first book of it.

Or Genesis 1 and 2 are the inspired and authoritative word of God and your problem reconciling them comes from misunderstanding them and how God is speaking to us through his word. They are only contradictory is you try to take them literally. Maybe that is the problem.

And since Genesis 1 is the very first chapter, it sets a reference for the following chapters. Each consecutive chapter must agree with the previous chapters.

Who says? Do we have to reconcile every parable Jesus spoke and set them in order with the previous parable?

I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I am sure you are not either, and we can each find multiple sources from various scholars that disagree as to whether or not there is a pluperfect.

Doesn't the bible warn us against gathering teachers to suit our own itching ears? No I am not a Hebrew scholar, that I am familiar enough with different grammars to try to follow the Hebrew grammar when I looked it up. I have read arguments supporting the pluperfect, and they were never convincing, they seemed to be looking for excuses to avoid the plain meaning of the text rather than trying to see what the plain meaning of the text is.

My faith in God tells me that there are pluperfects in both Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 because if there were not,

I am not sure faith should tell us how to translate the bible, that seems to turn things upside down. Hebrew grammar and linguistics should tell us how to translate Genesis, what our faith tells us is that this is the inspired word of God, to trust God even we cannot make sense of what it seems to say, and to look for wisdom to understand what the text says really means.

the two chapters would be in obvious contradiction. What a horrible way to start off the Truth that would be!

Contradiction is one alternative, though not one that fits easily with faith. Not meant as literal history is another alternative. It is not hard to see which one fits better with Genesis being the word of God. Metaphor is not such a terrible way to start off the truth, after all it is how God finishes off the bible in the book of Revelation, and of course we we read of God's greatest revelation of Truth, the incarnate Word of God, he spoke in metaphors and parables all the time.

Anyways, we should get into this on another thread or something because we are well outside the boundaries of an "expanding universe" discussion.

I think everyone can agree the heavens are expanding.

Must be to make room for all of us