Part 2
The Creation Account (Genesis 1:1 – Genesis 2:4): Days 1 and 2
Learning from a Closer Examination of the Bible Text
Background
The following is a closer examination of the Bible text of the Creation account of Genesis Chapter 1:1 through to Genesis 2:4 for reasons that will become apparent in part 4. The author was brought up to believe that the creative days were 7,000 years each in length and that between the end of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there was an undeterminable gap of time. That belief was later changed to having indeterminate periods of time for each creation day to accommodate the current scientific opinion on the age of the earth. The age of the earth according to the widespread scientific thought, being of course based on the time required for evolution to take place and the current dating methods relied upon by the scientists which are fundamentally flawed in their very basis[i].
What follows is the exegetical understanding the author has now arrived at, by careful study of the Bible account. Looking at the Bible account without preconceptions has resulted in a change of understanding for some events recorded in the Creation account. Some, indeed, may find it difficult to accept these findings as presented. However, while the author is not being dogmatic, he nonetheless finds it difficult to argue against what is presented, especially taking in to account the information obtained from many discussions over the years with people holding all sorts of different views. In many instances, there is further evidence and information that backs up a particular understanding given here, but for the sake of brevity is omitted from this series. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon us all to be careful not to put into the scriptures any preconceived ideas, because many times they are later found to be inaccurate.
Readers are encouraged to check all the references for themselves so that they may see the weight of evidence, and the context and basis of conclusions in this series of articles, for themselves. Readers should also feel free to contact the author on particular points if they wish a more in-depth explanation and backup for the points made here.
Genesis 1:1 – The First Day of Creation
“In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth”.
These are words with which most readers of the Holy Bible are familiar. The phrase “In the beginning” is the Hebrew word “bereshith”[ii], and this is the Hebrew name for this first book of the Bible and also of the writings of Moses. Moses’ writings are commonly known today as the Pentateuch, a Greek word referring to the five books that this section is composed of: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, or the Torah (the Law) if one is of the Jewish faith.
What did God create?
The earth on which we live, and also the heavens which Moses and his audience could see above them when they look up, both during daylight and night. In the term heavens, he was thereby referring to both the visible universe and the universe invisible to the naked eye. The Hebrew word translated “created” is “bara”[iii] which means to shape, create, form. It is interesting to note that the word “bara” when used in its absolute form is exclusively used in connection with an action of God. There are only a handful of instances where the word is qualified and not used in connection with an action of God.
The “heavens” is “shamayim”[iv] and is plural, encompassing all. The context can qualify it, but in this context, it does not just refer to just the sky, or the earth’s atmosphere. That becomes clear as we continue to read on the following verses.
Psalm 102:25 agrees, saying “Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the work of your hands” and was quoted by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 1:10.
It is interesting that the current geological thinking of the structure of the earth is that it has a molten core of multiple layers, with tectonic plates[v] forming a skin or crust, which form the land as we know it. There is thought to be a granitic continental crust up to 35km thick, with a thinner oceanic crust, on top of the earth’s mantle which envelops the outer and inner cores.[vi] This forms a foundation on which various sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rocks erode and form soil along with decomposing vegetation.
[vii]
The context of Genesis 1:1 also qualifies heaven, in that while it is more than the earth’s atmosphere, it is reasonable to conclude that it cannot include the abode of God, as God created these heavens, and God and his Son already existed and hence had an abode.
Do we have to tie this statement in Genesis to any of the prevailing theories in the world of science? No, because simply put, science only has theories, which change like the weather. It would be like the game of pinning the tail onto a picture of the donkey while blindfolded, the chance of it being exactly correct are slim to none, but we can all accept that the donkey should have a tail and where it is!
What was this the beginning of?
The universe as we know it.
Why do we say the universe?
Because according to John 1:1-3 “In the beginning the Word was and the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with the God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence”. What we can take from this is that when Genesis 1:1 talks about God creating the heavens and the earth, the Word was also included, as it clearly states, “all things came into existence through him”.
The next natural question is, how did the Word come into existence?
The answer according to Proverbs 8:22-23 is “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains”. This passage of scripture is relevant to Genesis chapter 1:2. Here it states that the earth was formless and dark, covered in water. This would therefore again indicate that Jesus, the Word was in existence even before the earth.
The very first creation?
Yes. The statements of John 1 and Proverbs 8 are confirmed in Colossians 1:15-16 when regarding Jesus, the Apostle Paul wrote that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible. … All [other] things have been created through him and for him”.
In addition, In Revelation 3:14 Jesus in giving the vision to the Apostle John wrote “These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God”.
These four scriptures clearly show that Jesus as the Word of God, was created first and then through him, with his assistance, everything else was created and came into existence.
What do Geologists, Physicists, and Astronomists have to say about the beginning of the universe?
In truth, it depends on which scientist you speak too. The prevalent theory changes with the weather. A popular theory for many years was the Big-Bang theory as evidenced in the book “Rare Earth”[viii] (by P Ward and D Brownlee 2004), which on page 38 stated, “The Big Bang is what nearly all physicists and astronomers believe is the actual origin of the universe”. This theory was seized on by many Christians as proof of the Bible’s account of creation, but this theory as the start of the universe is starting to fall out of favor in some quarters now.
At this juncture, it is good to introduce Ephesians 4:14 as a word of caution which will be applied throughout this series by the wording used, with regard to the current thinking in the scientific communities. It was where the Apostle Paul encouraged Christians “in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men”.
Yes, if we were metaphorically to put all our eggs in one basket and support one current theory of scientists, many of whom have no faith in the existence of God, even if that theory happens to give some support to the Bible account, we could end up with egg on our faces. Worse still, it could lead us to doubt the veracity of the Bible account. Did not the psalmist warn us not to put our trust in nobles, whom people usually look up too, which in the present day have been replaced by scientists (See Psalm 146:3). Let us, therefore, qualify our statements to others, such as by saying “if the Big Bang took place, as many scientists currently believe, that does not conflict with the Bible statement that the earth and the heavens had a beginning.”
Genesis 1:2 – The First Day of Creation (continued)
“And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was moving to and from over the surface of the waters.”
The first phrase of this verse is “we-haares”, the conjunctive waw, which means “at the same time, in addition, furthermore”, and the like.[ix]
Therefore, there is no place linguistically to introduce a time gap between verse 1 and verse 2, and indeed the following verses 3-5. It was one continuous event.
Water – Geologists and Astrophysicists
When God first created the earth, it was completely covered in water.
Now it is interesting to note that it is a fact that water, especially in the quantity found on earth, is rare in stars, and planets throughout our solar system and in the wider universe as far as been currently detected. It can be found, but not in anything like the quantities it is found on earth.
In fact, Geologists and Astrophysicists have a problem as in their findings to date due to a technical but important detail as to how water is made at the molecular level they say “Thanks to Rosetta and Philae, scientists discovered that the ratio of heavy water (water made from deuterium) to “regular” water (made from regular old hydrogen) on comets was different than that on Earth, suggesting that, at most, 10% of Earth’s water could have originated on a comet”. [x]
This fact conflicts with their prevailing theories as to how planets form.[xi] This is all because of the scientist's perceived need to find a solution that does not require special creation for a special purpose.
Yet Isaiah 45:18 clearly states why the earth was created. The scripture tells us “For this is what Jehovah has said, the creator of the heavens, He the true God, the former of the earth and the maker of it, He the one who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited”.
This supports Genesis 1:2 which says that initially, the earth was formless and empty of life inhabiting it before God went on to shape the earth and create life to live upon it.
Scientists will not dispute the fact that almost all life-forms on earth require or contain water to live to a lesser or greater degree. Indeed, the average human body is around 53% water! The very fact there is so much water and that it is not like most of the water found on other planets or comets, would give strong circumstantial evidence for creation and hence in agreement with Genesis 1:1-2. Simply put, without water, life as we know it could not exist.
Genesis 1:3-5 – The First Day of Creation (continued)
“3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be”. Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day”.
Day
However, on this first day of creation, God had not yet finished. He took the next step in preparing the earth for life of all kinds, (the first being creating the earth with water upon it). He made light. He also split the day [of 24 hours] into two periods one of Day [light] and one of Night [no light].
The Hebrew word translated “day” is “yom”[xii].
The term “Yom Kippur” may be familiar to those older in years. It is the Hebrew name for the “Day of Atonement”. It became widely known due to the Yom Kippur War launched on Israel by Egypt and Syria in 1973 on this day. Yom Kippur is on the 10th day of the 7th month (Tishri) in the Jewish Calendar which is late September, early October in the Gregorian calendar in common use. [xiii] Even today, it is a legal holiday in Israel, with no radio or tv broadcasts allowed, airports are shut, no public transportation, and all shops and businesses are closed.
“Yom” as the English term “day” in context can mean:
- 'day' as opposed to 'night'. We clearly see this usage in the phrase “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night”.
- Day as a division of time, such as a working day [a number of hours or sunrise to sunset], a day’s journey [again a number of hours or sunrise to sunset]
- In the plural of (1) or (2)
- Day as in night and day [which implies 24 hours]
- Other similar uses, but always qualified such as the snowy day, the rainy day, day of my distress.
We, therefore, need to ask what of these usages does the day in this phrase refer to “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day”?
The answer has to be that a creative day was (4) a Day as in night and day totaling 24 hours.
Can it be argued as some do that it was not a 24-hour day?
The immediate context would indicate not. Why? Because there is no qualification of the “day”, unlike Genesis 2:4 where the verse clearly indicates that the days of creation are being termed a day as a period of time when it says “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Notice the phrases “a history” and “in the day” rather than “on the day” which is specific. Genesis 1:3-5 is also a specific day because it is not qualified, and therefore it is interpretation uncalled for in the context to understand it differently.
Does the rest of the Bible as context help us?
The Hebrew words for “evening”, which is “ereb”[xiv], and for “morning”, which is “boqer”[xv], each occur over 100 times in the Hebrew scriptures. In every instance (outside of Genesis 1) they always refer to the normal concept of evening [starting the darkness of approximately 12 hours long], and morning [starting the daylight of approximately 12 hours long]. Therefore, without any qualifier, there is no basis to understand the usage of these words in Genesis 1 in a different way or timespan.
The reason for the sabbath day
Exodus 20:11 states “Remembering the sabbath day to hold it sacred, 9 you are to render service and you must do all your work six days. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter, your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your alien resident who is inside your gates. 11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day. That is why Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and proceeded to make it sacred”.
The command given to Israel to keep the seventh day sacred was to remember that God rested on the seventh day from his creation and work. This is strong circumstantial evidence in the way that this passage was written that the days of creation were each 24 hours long. The command gave the reason for the sabbath day as the fact that God rested from working on the seventh day. It was comparing like for like, otherwise the comparison would have been qualified. (See also Exodus 31:12-17).
Isaiah 45:6-7 confirms the events of these verses of Genesis 1:3-5 when it says “in order that people may know from the rising of the sun and from its setting that there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. Forming light and creating darkness”. Psalm 104:20, 22 in the same vein of thought declares about Jehovah, “You cause darkness, that it may become night … The sun begins to shine – they [wild animals of the forest] withdraw and they lie down in their hiding places”.
Leviticus 23:32 confirms that the sabbath would last from evening [sundown] to evening. It says, “From evening to evening you should observe the sabbath”.
We also have confirmation that the sabbath continued to start at sundown in the first Century even as it does today. The account of John 19 is about the death of Jesus. John 19:31 says “Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain upon the torture stakes on the Sabbath, … requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the bodies taken away”. Luke 23:44-47 indicates this was after the ninth hour (which was 3 pm) with the sabbath starting around 6 pm, the twelfth hour of daylight.
The sabbath day still starts at sundown even today. (An example of this is well portrayed in the cinema film A Fiddler on the Roof).
The sabbath day starting in the evening is also good evidence for accepting that God’s creation on the first day started with darkness and ended with light, continuing on in this cycle through each day of creation.
Geological Evidence from the earth for a young earth-age
- The Earth’s granite core, and the half-life of Polonium: Polonium is a radioactive element with a half-life of 3 minutes. A study of 100,000 plus halos of the colored spheres produced by the radioactive decay of Polonium 218 found that the radioactive was in the original granite, also because of the short half-life the granite had to be cool and crystallized originally. Molten granite cooling would have meant all the Polonium would have been gone before it cooled and hence there would be no trace of it. It would take a very long time for a molten earth to cool. This argues for instant creation, rather than forming over hundreds of millions of years.[xvi]
- The decay in the earth’s magnetic field has been measured at about 5% per hundred years. At this rate, the earth will have no magnetic field in AD3391, just 1,370 years from now. Extrapolating back limits the age limit of the earth’s magnetic field in the thousands of years, not hundreds of millions.[xvii]
One final point to note is that while there was light, there was no definable or identifiable light source. That was to come later.
Day 1 of Creation, the Sun and Moon and Stars created, giving light in the day, in preparation for living things.
Genesis 1:6-8 – The Second Day of Creation
“And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day”.
Heavens
The Hebrew word “shamayim”, is translated heaven,[xviii] likewise has to be understood in context.
- It can refer to the sky, the earth’s atmosphere in which birds fly. (Jeremiah 4:25)
- It can refer to Outer space, where the stars of heaven and constellations are. (Isaiah 13:10)
- It can also refer to God’s presence. (Ezekiel 1:22-26).
This latter heaven, God’s presence, is likely what the Apostle Paul meant when he talked of being “caught away as such to the third heaven” as part of the “supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).
As the creation account is referring to the earth becoming inhabitable and inhabited, the natural reading and context, at first sight, would indicate that the expanse between the waters and the waters is referring to the atmosphere or sky, rather than outer space or God’s presence when it uses the term “Heaven”.
On this basis, it could therefore be understood that the waters above the expanse either refer to the clouds and hence the water cycle in preparation for the third day, or a vapor layer that no longer exists. The latter is a more likely candidate as the implication of day 1 is that the light was diffusing through to the surface of the waters, perhaps through a vapor layer. This layer could then have been moved higher to create a clearer atmosphere in readiness for the creation of the 3rd day.
However, this expanse between the waters and the waters is also mentioned in the 4th creative day, when Genesis 1:15 talking about the luminaries says “And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth”. This would indicate that the sun and moon and stars are within the expanse of the heavens, not outside it.
This would put the second set of waters to the edge of the known universe.
Psalm 148:4 could also be alluding to this when after mentioning the sun and moon and stars of light it says, “Praise him, you heavens of the heavens, and you waters that are above the heavens”.
This concluded the 2nd creative day, an evening [darkness] and morning [daylight] both occurring before the day ended as darkness started again.
Day 2 of Creation, some waters were removed from the earth’s surface in preparation for Day 3.
The next part of this series will examine the 3rd and 4th days of Creation.
[i] Showing the flaws in the scientific dating methods is a whole article in itself and outside the scope of this series. Suffice to say that beyond approximately 4,000 years before the present the potential for error begins to grow exponentially. An article on this subject is intended in the future to complement this series.
[ii] Beresit, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7225.htm
[iii] Bara, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1254.htm
[iv] Shamayim, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8064.htm
[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates
[vi] https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap2-What-is-a-Plate/Chemical-composition-crust-and-mantle
[vii] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_cutaway_schematic-en.svg
[viii] https://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare%20Earth%20Book.pdf
[ix] A Conjunctive is a word (in Hebrew a letter) to indicate a conjunction or a link between two events, two statements, two facts, etc. In English they are “also, and”, and similar words
[x] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-water-get-on-earth/
[xi] See the paragraph The Early Earth in the same article of Scientific American entitled “How did Water get on Earth?” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-did-water-get-on-earth/
[xii] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm
[xiii] 1973 Arab-Israeli war of 5th-23rd October 1973.
[xiv] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6153.htm
[xv] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1242.htm
[xvi] Gentry, Robert V., "Annual Review of Nuclear Science," Vol. 23, 1973 p. 247
[xvii] McDonald, Keith L. and Robert H. Gunst, An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965, July 1967, Essa Technical Rept. IER 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Table 3, p. 15, and Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, Technical Monograph, Institute for Creation Research, 1973
[xviii] https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8064.htm
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Fani on 2020-09-17 20:15:14
Ce n'est qu'au 4eme jour que le soleil, la lune servent de marqueurs pour le temps qui passe SUR LA TERRE.
Genèse 1:14
[14]Dieu dit: Quil y ait des luminaires dans létendue du ciel, pour séparer le jour davec la nuit; QUE CE SOIENT DES SIGNES POUR MARQUER LES ÉPOQUES, LES JOURS ET LES ANNÉES.Éternel Dieu fit une terre et des cieux, aucun arbuste des champs n
Il n'y a donc aucune raison de dire que les 3 premiers jours faisaient 24 heures puisque Dieu n'avait pas encore etabli le soleil comme marqueur du temps pour la terre et donc le cycle des 24 h n'était pas encore établi avant le 4ème jour.
Je voudrais rajouter que il ne semble pas que Dieu ait fait pousser les arbres et la vegetation en 24 heures.
Genèse 2:5-6 dit :
[5]Lorsque létait encore sur la terre, et aucune herbe des champs ne germait encore: car lÉternel Dieu navait pas fait pleuvoir sur la terre, et il ny avait point dhomme pour cultiver le sol.éleva de la terre, et arrosa toute la surface du sol.
[6]Mais une vapeur s
La végétation ne poussait pas parce qu'il NE PLEUVAIT PAS.
C'est la vapeur qui s'élevait de la terre qui a permis la croissance.
Donc Dieu s'est servi d'un élément naturel, la vapeur, pour la pousse de la vegetation.
Ça allait donc prendre plus de 24 heures.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-10-07 19:00:37
I strongly disagree with the idea that the universe was created just a few thousand years ago.
Tying verses 1 and 2 of Genesis into a single creative day and then making that day 24 hours long violates science. Science means knowledge, fact. We're not talking theories, which the author rightly acknowledges can and often do change as revealed science come to light, but facts that can be established beyond all doubt. If the universe were created only 7000 years ago, then there would only a handful of stars visible in the sky, those within 7000 light years of distance from us.
Man would have been created, named all the animals, then gone to sleep to awaken to find Eve, all within a 24-hour day. Jehovah's day of rest would have lasted only 24 hours as well.
As for the "geological evidence": First, I'm sure the author meant crust not core when he said it was granite. As for the "evidence" of polonium decay, that is not fact but theory. A theory advanced by Robert Gentry which has been credibly challenged. See: http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/polonium_halos.html
As for the second piece of evidence, I think this link effectively debunks that theory:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
However, even without that, we know that the theory must be flawed, because God put the magnetic field to protect us from radiation. It is in fact a magnetic shield protecting us from harmful solar radiation. Are we to think that the shield would fail in a little over a 1000 years?
The insistence Creationists put on a 24-hour creative day does nothing to give Christianity the credibility it deserves. What we have in Genesis is an account of a terraforming operation that was done in phases, explained in such a way that primitive peoples could understand.
Comment by Jack on 2020-09-15 16:31:49
Jehovah's Day of Rest, His Sabbath, has been thousands of years.
Therefore it is common sense that the Creative Days previous to God's Sabbath Day would be the same length.
God is a God of order.Reply by Tadua on 2020-09-15 19:23:37
Dear Jack
What you state is what I believed until I researched in preparation for this article. I notice you provide no scriptures to back up your statement. As you are probably aware Hebrews 3 & 4 in the NWT refer to God‘s rest. However, it is not clearly stated that God’s rest is any number of thousands of years, nor that is ongoing. Furthermore the Greek word Translated ‘rest’ Can also mean dwelling place which actually fits the context better as part refers to the unfaithful Israelites who did not enter into the Promised Land to rest from their wandering.Reply by Jack on 2020-09-15 22:16:59
(Genesis 2:1-3) 2 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.
Do you believe the seventh day was also a 24 hour day?
If so, where is the "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning" of the seventh day? There is none.
We are still in the seventh day.Reply by Psalmbee on 2020-09-16 01:10:18
God took six days to create the heavens and the earth Jack, and like you said he has been resting ever since and no one can enter his rest but those that believe.(Heb 4:3)
Now you talk about a seventh day, now you are talking about the LORD God or as most of the people here call him Jehovah God who has been working ever since God went into his rest. It has all been written down in the Bible. (Gen 2:4)
PsalmbeeReply by Jack on 2020-09-16 12:40:25
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.
God rested from His work on the seventh day.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
Genesis 2:4 begins what some call a second creation account (I do not believe it is a second account of the physical creation) where Jehovah God creates Adam from the dust, Eve from his side, the Garden planted by Jehovah God Himself, the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree Life and the first Command with life and death in the balance.
All those features are religious elements.Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 12:49:00
Jehovah is the God of the Jews, the Father of Christ and the Originator of our Salvation as Genesis 3:15 prophetically stated.
Reply by swaffi on 2020-09-16 04:54:35
Good point Jack, never thought of that. I myself have been swinging from argument to the other for years now
Reply by Christian on 2020-09-16 05:56:59
Jesus stated clearly that Jehovah still keeps working in Jon.5:17 and so it is. The observable Universe is 93 billion light years across, so creation goes on non-stop. I think as humans we are preoccupied with ourselves and forget that Jehovah and Jesus are both creators par-excellence. One day we will much better understand their workings, one 'yom' at a time.
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 09:28:58
Gen 2:1 And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
God's work was finished in that the creation of the heavens and the earth was finished and in that regard He then Rested.
But in all other respects He continues to work, continues to help man become what he from the beginning was intended to be, a son of God.
Comment by Chet on 2020-09-15 18:55:21
It surprises me to say this, but after significant research, I’ve come to favor a Young Earth point of view. There are bible-believing scientists that have concluded that the 6 days of creation are literal. These are not ignorant people whom have made their conclusions, not based upon emotion, but upon their knowledge of their scientific fields. The dating used by mainstream science is far from an absolute science, and sometimes, on method will contradict another.
The discovery of elastic tissue in fossils is what impresses me the most. While some in the scientific community scurry to find a way to explain how tissue could be preserved for so long, the simple answer is obvious; these fossils are much younger than 65 million years old. A relatively recent global flood, on a young earth explains it perfectly.
I was raised by Witnesses at a time when they taught 7,000 year, creative days. I remember when they quietly backed away from that teaching, circa 1981, or so. For a time, I embraced the Deep Time theories and was willing to believe that the planets and stars formed from accretion disks, comprised of interstellar dust and gases. Eventually, I felt that these theories were incomplete and that I didn’t need to know just how things were made. so long as I knew that they had been made, by a Loving Creator. There’s no reason He couldn’t create things as quickly as He wanted.
Accepting the Bible at face value has made a difference in my life,,and in my faith. I feel more comfortable about my beliefs, relying on God, and not upon Men.
Comment by Christian on 2020-09-16 04:33:36
I'm getting the uneasy feeling that we are getting out of our depth here. At the same time I'm seeing wrong information being give. Briefly the Earth's core being in 2 parts is correctly stated but it's not made of Granite but of an alloy of Iron and Nickle and that's the way it must be to generate the magnetic field that protects us from many harmful rays. Granite being an igneous composite occurs up by the Earth's mantle. The distance from the core to the center of our Galaxy is about 25,000 light years and to the edge of Milky Way it's also about 25,000 light years. So we exist about halfway along, and it is estimated to be made up of possibly 100,000,000 stars! Now the other problem we encounter is with core samples taken from Antarctica and Greenland. Core samples of ice have been taken as deep as 3769 meters at Vostok Station giving an overview of up to 800,000 years. These are all big numbers but like it or not it's the way it is. As for the Hebrew word yom as used in Genesis and because the Hebrew language has only a fraction of the words we have in English, yom can have a dozen different applications, but was translated at first as being a 24 hour day by translators of the ancient text. Basically yom's reference is to time but not as a specific length necessarily. Further, the two accounts of Creation are no more than a brief summary of what took place and in what order. But it was written for the peoples living on this planet, it is not an attempt to delve into other solar systems or their planets of which there are more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches here on Earth. If we but focus on our spiritual depth and maturity and view the subjects raised as interesting we can enrich our faith, just as Paul said in Rom.1:20.
Reply by Tadua on 2020-09-16 10:34:29
Hi Christian
I think maybe you misread my description. Just to clarify I wrote "There is thought to be a granitic continental crust up to 35km thick, with a thinner oceanic crust, on top of the earth’s mantle which envelops the outer and inner cores."
I agree with you the core is believed to be an alloy of Iron and Nickle.
I stand by my statement that in the scriptures when "yom" refers to a longer period of time then it is qualified. We do not have to guess. There is no such qualification regarding the creation days. We all, including myself, have to be careful not to interpret based on a previous bias. Its easy to do. However, as I said elsewhere before I started this examination, I viewed the creative days as a long period of time, but my findings from an examination of the Hebrew text and in context ruled that out and I have to go with that understanding until compelling evidence shows I misunderstand the Hebrew text and its context.
Re: the Core samples of Ice from Vostok Station and other places, the means used to ascertain a year's depost is highly suspect. But that is another big discussion for another "yom"!Reply by Chet on 2020-09-16 12:18:03
One thing about samples, such as those take from Vostok, is that the interpretation is everything. Most deep time interpretations are self-referential. They use context, such as this rock contains a fossil that is 65 million years old, so the rock must be 65 million years old, or older. But then one finds out that the dating of a fossil is not all that absolute and is probably based on another context. In the end, the interpretation comes down to world view. If one holds to a Deep Time paradigm, the evidence will be interpreted thusly.
For most of my adult life, I did hold to a Deep Time viewpoint. However, a couple of developments have changed that. A while back, they realized that galaxies would, long ago, have spun themselves into amorphous blobs, had they been as old as they are posited to be. So they came up with Dark Matter, which is to say that there is matter they can’t see, can’t detect and can’t interact with in any way, except that we can see the effects of its gravity. Or ... the galaxies are not as old as they think they are.
Then they realized that the expansion of the Universe was faster than their models would predict, so they posited Dark Energy. They don’t know where it comes from or what it is, but it must be there, or else the Universe would not expand as fast as it is observed to be expanding. Or ... the scriptures which tell us God is stretching out the heavens mean exactly what they say.
By proposing Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Science has essentially said that they cannot observe 96% of the Universe, but infer its existence because observations do not support their theories without such matter and energy. Even within the scientific community, this has been compared to invoking the Tooth Fairy. In fact, it is from found within the scientific community that I began to question the validity of the claims regarding the age of the Universe.
While science documentaries attempted to make Pop Stars of cosmologists, these same persons were forced to admit that they relied upon the existence of inferred matter and energy to support their views. It struck me; this is made up! They can’t see it, can’t interact with it and can’t detect it, but it must be there, or else the theories are wrong. What if the theories are wrong?
This isn’t the only place where the theories are wrong. The Cosmological Inflation theory holds that in the tiniest fraction of time after the Big Bang, the expansion of space, away from the singularity, sped up dramatically and this makes possible the Universe as it appears today. They have no cause, no force that they can refer to, but it must have happened, or else the Universe would not be as it is today.
In simple terms, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation are imaginary. They have no explanation and serve no purpose, other than to bolster the dominant theories of how the Universe came into being, out of nothing. Or ... Genesis 1 explains it.
We cannot measure God. We have no way of knowing what He can do, but we know that He created the entire material realm and the entire spirit realm. Having created the material realm, He is greater than the entire material realm.
Many years ago, I went out for coffee with a friend, and we met some very old Witness men. There was one fellow next to me that couldn’t speak, but he started drawing pictures on napkins. He showed the distance to nearby stars and to distant galaxies, then wrote the question: “Who can travel such distances?” The answer could only be our Creator. The fastest spacecraft mankind has ever made, using gravity assist from the gas giants, would require 76,000 years to reach our nearest star, Proxima Centauri. Under any existing technology, interstellar travel is impossible, yet God can stretch out the heavens.
With such capabilities, I don’t have any problem with God creating the material Universe in 6 days. If we believe in a Creator, why should we limit Him to our understanding of how things work? For a human, even creating one living cell is impossible, so we couldn’t even begin to do what God has done. We cannot limit Him to our understanding of the Universe.
Comment by swaffi on 2020-09-16 05:16:24
Thanks for the well presented article Tadua. I did like Jack's comment however. The jury's still out for me concerning Genesis 1 and 2.
I'm a bit puzzled though as to why you had to add the Jesus part. Especially when John 1:1 is probably the most debated text in the bible and is definitely not a sure thing going any way. Proverbs 8 talks about lady wisdom not Jesus, and Jesus is the firstborn of all creation in the way that he was the firstborn to be resurrected to heaven, the new creation. The "all creation" is talking about the creation when Paul was on earth. The population at the time which was under Roman rule. It's very important to note that Paul was talking about the risen Christ in Colossians 1. He was talking about the new creation under Christ and in Christ.
For me, it's a pity that you had to add your presumptions into this articleReply by Nightingale on 2020-09-16 14:10:51
Hi swaffi, I agree with you on this. I think believing Jesus had something to do with Genesis creation is a big misunderstanding. There are dozens of verses that show God was the Creator alone. Even Jesus himself said: He who created them from the beginning... (Matthew 19:4). Why didn't he include himself? And passages like Colossians 1 and Revelation 3:14 are clearly about the new creation when you consider the context. All creation of Colossians 1:15 is defined in the next verse and when you look at it, it certainly doesn't sound like the Genesis creation.
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 14:58:19
(Matthew 1:21-23) . . .She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·manʹu·el,” which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.”
(John 10:30) 30 I and the Father are one.. . .Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 15:24:56
(John 1:1-3) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.. . .
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 15:30:27
(Genesis 1:26) . . .And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. . .
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 15:53:31
The "us" must be God and His Son. There is no record in the Bible of God's angels creating. That is the sole purview of God and His Son.Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 16:32:15
The Word was with God, his Father.
Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-16 17:30:30
First of all you have to assume that Word of John 1 is a person. Do you think that the word in Psalm 33:6 for example is a person? There is no other place in the Bible where the word 'word' would be a person or somebody's name. So why would that be the case here? Because some translator put a capital letter W in the verse? Not all the translators do that by the way, some translations treat the word as an it and not a he.
And Genesis 1:27 says that it was God alone who created man, there were not angels involved in that work. If there was pre-human-Jesus creating, why isn't he mentioned in this verse? Jesus himself quotes the same verse but does not include himself in it.Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 18:47:28
It is hard to accept.
(Isaiah 9:6) . . .For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ..
The Jews understood the gravity of Christ's words:
(John 5:18) . . .On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
Though Christ never claimed true equality with God the Jews understood the meaning of claiming to be the Son of God.
Christ was no ordinary man walking about the earth, he was God's Son in the Flesh.Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-17 09:46:11
Nobody is saying he was just any "ordinary" man but that doesn't mean he had to exist in some other form before. The fact he didn't have a human father makes him very unique yet he was the Son of Man = Human.
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-17 11:04:58
John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-17 16:42:26
This verse has been explained many times, just see Alithia's response on the Trinity video discussion if you are interested.
Reply by Jack on 2020-09-17 19:08:07
Alithia wrote: And he says in John 17 verse 5; ‘so now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was’. On this expression we can have something with God before one is born, and after one has died. Because it is God’s plan, God’s intention to do so.
The plain reading of the verses below is that Jesus literally came forth from God. Not a plan, nor an intention, but a literal coming forth from God.
John 16:27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father.
John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
Just as the word "trinity" is not found in the NT; the teaching must be extrapolated from nuanced thoughts here and there. So too there is no mention of Jesus being a "plan" sent from God. An "intention" in the heavens made real on earth.
It is simply not there.Reply by Chet on 2020-09-17 22:38:40
That is my understanding. The spirit creature whom came to earth as the Christ literally came forth from Almighty God. He is the only creature of which this is true.
Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-22 10:31:48
How is it then that in Jesus says that the same glory that is given to Jesus is also given to Christians who were not even born at that time? (John 17:20-22) Did they also exist in heaven before their life as humans? Obviously not but Jesus is referring to something that has been planned for them since before the founding of the world like Ephesians 1:4 says.
Regarding coming from the Father and what it means consider John 8:47:
NWT: He that is from God listens to the sayings of God
Good news translation: He who comes from God listens to God's words.
NIV: Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.
is from God = comes from God = belongs to God. It doesn't have to mean literally coming from where God is.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-09-20 09:26:39
I respect your point of view which you have expressed repeatedly. However, I disagree. If we are going to publicly express our opinions, then we have to have a thick enough skin to endure the disapproval of others. To follow your logic, anyone who likes a comment should also express why they like it. If you are in an audience and you clap, you show your approval. No one expects you to explain why you are clapping. Likewise, if you boo, no one expects you to cry out why.
Liking or disliking a comment is a good but respectful way of expressing one's opinion and should not be restricted. It gives you a way to gauge you comment. However, realize that not everyone like to nor is capable of engaging in a dialogue. For those, we offer the like/dislike feature and we will not inhibit their free speech by removing it. If you really don't like this or if it makes you uncomfortable, then why do you comment? Surely there are other places that do not enable this feature where you could comment freely without being annoyed as you are.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-09-20 10:21:43
"Once sentence or just a few words are enough. Who said anything about engaging in a dialog?"
Think about this. Look at all you've written and how confrontational it is. You are the one provoking a dialogue. This long comment is full of challenges, complains, and inaccurate reasoning that cries out for a response, but I won't respond, because experience has shown me that it is a downward spiral that only destroys the peace and tranquility that should exist here.
You write: "I have seen BP turning into a hostile environment for some time". If so, who is the one creating that environment. Classic projection.
Yes, I do want freedom. I want the freedom you speak of when you say that BP should be "a safe haven where Christians can calmly express their faith and explore the truth of the Bible". The irony is that you are often the one robbing us of that "safe haven" by the provocative tone and challenging manner of your comments.
Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-22 07:08:41
Hi Eric, I am not sure if you meant that comment for me? I don't remember saying something about the like/dislike feature but maybe I have forgotten... Anyway, I just wanted to say I am not annoyed. :)
Reply by Fani on 2020-09-17 04:05:42
Jean 1:14-15
[14]Et la parole a été faite chair, et elle a habité parmi nous, pleine de grâce et de vérité; et nous avons contemplé sa gloire, une gloire comme la gloire du Fils unique venu du Père.
[15]Jean lui a rendu témoignage, et sest écrié: Cest celui dont jai dit: Celui qui vient après moi ma précédé, car il était avant moi.
La parole est bien Christ.
Reply by dani on 2020-09-17 06:21:54
In Revelation, John describes Jesus and states that he is called by the name “the word of God”
Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-17 09:30:43
Sure. But it doesn't say just "word" but "word of God" and it specifically says that it's a name there. The same is not true with John 1:1, John does not say that "word" is someone's name.
Reply by dani on 2020-09-18 01:35:14
Actually John1:1 uses the term “the word” ...in the beginning was “the word”...imagine if John used the full title in John.1:1: it would read “In the beginning was the word of God and the Word of God was with God and the Word of God was God.” It seems logical to me that he abbreviates it to “the word” so that it flows and is not confusing.
Verse 14 then says this same word became flesh and resided among us and we had a view of his glory. Glory such as belongs to an only begotten son from a father.“Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-22 10:39:36
It might be logical if we had plenty of other scriptures where this word person is mentioned - but there is zero.
God's word can become whatever God wants it to become. Whatever he says, happens, Isaiah 55:11. It can become light like in Genesis 1:2 or it can become a human being, flesh like in John 1:14.Reply by Nightingale on 2020-09-22 11:02:54
I meant Genesis 1:3 of course
Comment by Tadua on 2020-09-16 10:58:31
I realised when preparing this examination of Genesis, especially the Creation section, that parts of it would be controversial for many.
All I would say is that I approached it as open-mindedly as possible and compiled the results of my findings, after careful research to double check my statements. It has changed my understanding of a number of things. I am sure it will be taken in that spirit.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with all or parts of my findings I would encourage all to carefully examine the facts presented as they can build up our faith, which is the intention of the articles. As to interpretation of those facts, some will view them one way and others another way. Provided we accept that others can hold a different opinion (which I certainly do), the comments will also be upbuilding.
Thank you all for your interest and your comments. Keep them coming!Reply by Jack on 2020-09-16 11:12:48
Tadua, it is not an easy thing to stand up and post detailed research putting ourselves out there for the sake of our God, our beliefs and our brothers.
You do this frequently and it is appreciated, truly.
Jack
Comment by dani on 2020-09-17 06:17:55
A few questions come to mind when considering whether the creative days were only 24 literal hours long:
The luminaries (sun and moon) which define our 24 hour day, our years and seasons were not created until day 4. God had created the concept of light on day one, but not the sun and moon, so technically there was not an evening or morning as we know it, however this doesn’t mean that God did not use the light he had created to sustain life.
On the sixth day Jehovah God created the animals, then he created Adam and he settled Adam in the garden of Eden, he brought the animals to Adam so that he could name them and he created Eve.
It seems unlikely to me when you allow for hours of night time darkness along with the time it would have taken to create the animals and Adam, that there would have been very much time left in the 24 hrs for God to explain to Adam how he came to be, what his purpose was, who God was etc etc... And then for Adam to begin naming a vast quantity of creatures he had never before seen. A quick google search will reveal that there are millions of species of animals.
Then allow the time for God to place Adam into a deep sleep and take his rib to create Eve. Why would God say “it is not good for the man to continue alone” when it had only been a few hours during which time Adam was naming animals at an alarming rate? Had he become lonely already?
Then when Adam sees Eve he says “at last...bone of my bone”...strange expression when he’d only come into existence a few hours prior.Reply by Fani on 2020-09-17 13:01:49
Je suis d'accord avec toi Dani
En 24 h Adam n'aurait pas eu le temps de donner un nom à tous les animaux, noms qui devaient avoir une signification suite à son observation.
Il fallait beaucoup de temps pour ressentir le besoin d'une compagne. Adam avait tant à découvrir !
De plus,
Genèse 1:11-12 dit :
[11]Puis Dieu dit: Que la terre produise de la verdure, de lherbe portant de la semence, des arbres fruitiers donnant du fruit selon leur espèce et ayant en eux leur semence sur la terre. Et cela fut ainsi.herbe portant de la semence selon son espèce, et des arbres donnant du fruit et ayant en eux leur semence selon leur espèce. Dieu vit que cela était bon.
[12]La terre produisit de la verdure, de l
Au 3eme jour, il met en place la loi de la reproduction selon son espèce qui nous sera naturelle. Les arbres donnent du fruit.
Pour qu'un arbre donne son fruit, il faut plus de 24 h.
Le verset 12 dit : la terre PRODUISIT de la verdure.
Il faut donc le temps de la production.
Merci Tadua ; le sujet est très intéressant.Reply by Chet on 2020-09-17 22:31:44
The sixth day ends at the end of Genesis 1. The account of naming the animals doesn’t happen until Genesis 2. The first paragraph of Genesis 2 talks about God’s day of rest, the. It goes on to talk about the Garden, the naming of the animals and the creation of Eve. If we are talking about literal days, having Adam wait from Friday night to Saturday at sundown before being brought to the Garden is not unreasonable.
I have heard clergymen claim that the land-animals and Adam were created and that Adam names the animals, Eve was created and that Adam married her, all in the period of 24 hours. Nonsense! The Bible doesn’t say that, and you can only infer that if you conflate chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis. If you string them end to end, as they are written, it can be taken as a logical sequence of events.Reply by Fani on 2020-09-18 03:39:41
Selon Genèse 1 : 27, 31 Dieu crea l'homme ET la femme le 6eme jour.
Selon Genèse 2 : 7 "Yahweh Dieu forma l'homme de la poussière du sol, et il souffla dans ses narines un souffle de vie, et l'homme devint un être vivant.
".
Le chapitre 2 parle AUSSI du 6eme jour.
Apres avoir parlé du debut du 7eme jour, le chapitre 2 donne des détails du 6eme jour qui n'étaient pas dans le chapitre 1.
L'histoire du 6eme jour ne se termine pas à genese 1 : 31Reply by Chet on 2020-09-20 12:39:56
But strangely, Genesis 1 ends with the end of the 6th day.
I interpret the Bible by what I read from it and not by any conventions of theologians. Mankind could have been considered to have been created male and female at the time of Adam’s creation. The information that allowed male and female humans to exist came into being at the time of Adam’s creation. It was obvious that Adam was a male and the precedent of animal life was that if there was a male, there were females.
Note carefully that Genesis 2:22 does not say Eve was created, but that she was fashioned by God. The chromosomal information to produce a female human was already in existence, in Adam’s genetic makeup.
Perhaps I a mistaken in this, but a literal reading of scripture certainly leaves room for this interpretation, at the very least.
As to the creation of the Sun, Moon and Stars on the fourth day, but light on the first day; I would have to opine that this is significant. At the very least, it reduces the significance of these celestial bodies and reminds us that the true source of light is God.
it is commonly assumed that all of material creation issued forth from one singular location, which makes logical sense, although it is not proven by scripture, either way. If there were a singularity from which all matter came forth, there would, in fact, be a point where light became possible, and before that, light itself could not have existed. Whatever the case, keep in mind that Genesis 1:1 includes the description of the origins of the material realm.
From the perspective of our material realm, there was no matter, no time and no space, before God created the Universe. As difficult as that is for us to comprehend, it is also essential to our understanding. God, the Causative Force behind all we can see and comprehend, existed outside of and apart from the material realm. Notice that I did not say that He existed before this, because time as we experience it, did not exist before the material realm existed.
We cannot comprehend that realm. It would be as if a mouse came up and tried to understand computer code, except that the gap in comprehension would be much greater between us and God, than between the mouse and a human computer programmer.
The entire point of this article is that a literal six-day creation week is possible. The gap theory and the day-age theory came into being to attempt to reconcile the Bible with manmade theories. Humans say that God could not have created the Universe and all life within in 144 literal hours, but to say such a thing makes no more sense than a mouse taking exception to the way a computer program is written.
The fact is, we as humans cannot comprehend creation. We cannot create so much as one living cell. Humans cannot create even an amoeba. We live on a planet of life. Microscopic creatures make up much of this planet and are essential to the survival of more complex forms of life. Before God could create a world full of living things, He had to have known how all of this would operate. He had to have had comprehension beyond anything I could imagine, in order to create even on atom, not to mention one living cell.
Who are we to impose a timeline on this process based upon our reasoning. When the inspired word of God described the creation as happening in six days, I am willing to accept that is the meaning intended. In Matthew 24:32-35, Jesus said 32 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, [u]recognize that [v]He is near, right at the [w]door.34 Truly I say to you, this [x]generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”
A group of men has told us that this involves overlapping generations, but was that the meaning Jesus wished to convey”
i have long been interested in science, including cosmology and geology. In this very room are numerous documentaries and educational videos explaining the cosmos from the viewpoint of mainstream science. I was well versed in these matters and could explain the Big Bang in detail, including details such as the progression of matter from when it had to have been plasma, up to the point where matter in the form that we know it became possible. I understood accretion as a way of forming planets and necessity of an expanding Universe in order for the cosmos to be stable. I believed all of this to be compatible with the Bible, until one thing came along and made me consider the alternatives.
Dark Matter seemed acceptable enough, but when they came up with Dark Energy, that was one trip too many into the realm of the speculative. When they admitted that their model of reality placed 96% of the Universe into the realm of the unobserved and, quite possible, the unobservable, I had to question their conclusions. Obviously, their model of reality could only be supported with imaginary concepts,such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It was, to my understanding of cosmology, the equivalent of the Watchtower trying to support their crumbling eschatology with the Overlapping Generations teaching. They had stretched their credibility to the breaking point.
Having long been interested in the Flood, and its effects on the world we see today, I pursued learning more about the Flood from the writings and from documentaries made by Bible-believing scientists, many of whom were either researchers or college professors. I was surprised to learn that many of these man held to a literal six day timeline for creation. As I heard their thoughts on the matter, it seemed to me that much of what was considered settled science was, in fact, not as solidly rooted in fact as I had thought it to be.
In no way do I claim to have all of the answers, but within the last year, I have come to favor the young earth approach and when I read the scriptures for myself, without relying on anyone for interpretation, it seems that the Bible is giving us that message. With that in mind, I find myself far less troubled with inconsistencies than I was when I had a more secular understanding.Reply by Fani on 2020-09-22 04:17:31
Je ne vais pas continuer une longue discussion sur les theories des scientifiques. J'en suis incapable et n'en vois pas l'intérêt.
C'est juste la lecture simple de la Bible qui me fait dire que Eve a été créée le 6eme jour.
Quel est le sens de Genèse 1:28 (6ème jour)
[28]Dieu les bénit, et Dieu leur dit: Soyez féconds, multipliez, remplissez la terre, et l`assujettissez; et dominez sur les poissons de la mer, sur les oiseaux du ciel, et sur tout animal qui se meut sur la terre."
Dieu LES bénit : il ne dit pas LE benit.
Comment peut il lui dire : SOYEZ FECONDS, MULTIPLIEZ s'il n'y a que Adam qui est créé le 6ème jour ?
Comment Adam comprend ces paroles ?
Il faut quand même avant tout être logique dans la lecture de la bible avant de donner du crédit à des scientifiques.
J'accepte que Dieu PEUT TOUT. S'il l'avait décidé il aurait pu tout créer en 6 jours de 24h. Il se trouve que la lecture de la bible me montre qu'il ne l'a pas fait ainsi.
Reply by dani on 2020-09-18 01:44:32
Genesis.2:19-20 says that Jehovah had been forming every wild animal and began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one… So the man named all the domestic animals and flying creatures but for man there was no helper. SO Jehovah caused him to fall into a deep sleep and then created Eve. This indicates to me that God allowed Adam to realise his lack of partner through observing creation and seeing that animals were made male and female. The scripture Then says “so”....or for this reason God then made Eve.
Again it seems illogical to me that this could happen in 24 hrs. The Scriptures often give us an outline of events and then follow up with the details in the same order. Chapter 1 is a summary of the events and chapter 2 is the detail of what occurred on the 6th day, however the detail must still agree to the order of what happened in the summary.
I personally believe that when Adam exclaimed “at last bone of my bones” it was because he had been waiting a substantial amount of time for Eve. I believe that when God said it is not good for the man to continue alone it was not because Adam had only been alone for several hours but because Adam had been alone for a substantial amount of time and had come to realise his own loneliness and lack of partner.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own view on this account, but this is what I feel is logical and in accord with scripture.Reply by Chet on 2020-09-18 21:21:56
I agree completely. It is illogical that all of this happened in one day, or even a short period of time. Genesis 1 ends at the end of day 6. Genesis 2 starts with the seventh day. What I am proposing is that Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1 sequentially.
OK, God made everything, all the animals and Adam. Mankind was made as a sexual creature; the genetic information for male and female was made at the time of Adam’s creation. In Genesis 2, it talks about Adam being created, God planting a garden in Eden, and then placing the man in that garden, with the one command not to eat of the tree. However, Genesis 2 doesn’t express this in terms of creative days. We know that Adam was created in day 6, but that is not to say that Eve was created on day 6. At the beginning of Genesis 2, the 7th rest-day began and ended. After that point, the days of creation are no longer part of the account.
At this point, I’m simply saying that there is no scripture which states that Eve came to be on the 6th day. In fact, it doesn’t say that Eve was created. Mankind, was created in day 6, but Eve was fashioned from Adam, so it is possible that she was not considered a new creation. My only point is that Eve did not have to have come into being during day 6. I have heard religious figures that felt that all of the events up to and including Eve being brought to Adam, occurred during day 6, but the scriptures could be understood differently and, in my opinion, much more plausibly.
There are aspects of creation which I don’t claim to understand. Light, Night and Day were created in day 1, but the Sun, Moon and stars are shown as having been created on day 4. This doesn’t make much sense, but I am satisfied that Genesis is accurate and that my understanding of this is incomplete.
As I’ve said in other posts, I find myself leaning towards a young earth point of view. This is not to say that I am not open to other interpretations, but as I find myself taking the scriptures more literally than I did in my years as an active JW, I find that applying that same standard to Genesis chapters 1 - 11 is more than just a knee jerk reaction of some uneducated persons whom refuse to think past the most superficial. There are scientists that have looked into this matter and concluded that the literal 6 day interpretation is compatible with science and that many of the scientific theories which would argue against such an interpretation are not proven. The expansion of the Universe has proven to not fit the model that the Big Bang Theory would predict and requires bolstering from theoretical Dark Energy which has never been observed or even proven to exist. The question of science vs. religion is more a media creation than anything else. Many scientists believe in the Bible and there are those among them that believe in a young earth.
I agree completely. It is illogical that all of this happened in one day, or even a short period of time. Genesis 1 ends at the end of day 6. Genesis 2 starts with the seventh day. What I am proposing is that Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1 sequentially.
OK, God made everything, all the animals and Adam. Mankind was made as a sexual creature; the genetic information for male and female was made at the time of Adam’s creation. In Genesis 2, it talks about Adam being created, God planting a garden in Eden, and then placing the man in that garden, with the one command not to eat of the tree. However, Genesis 2 doesn’t express this in terms of creative days. We know that Adam was created in day 6, but that is not to say that Eve was created on day 6. At the beginning of Genesis 2, the 7th rest-day began and ended. After that point, the days of creation are no longer part of the account.
At this point, I’m simply saying that there is no scripture which states that Eve came to be on the 6th day. In fact, it doesn’t say that Eve was created. Mankind, was created in day 6, but Eve was fashioned from Adam, so it is possible that she was not considered a new creation. My only point is that Eve did not have to have come into being during day 6. I have heard religious figures that felt that all of the events up to and including Eve being brought to Adam, occurred during day 6, but the scriptures could be understood differently and, in my opinion, much more plausibly.
There are aspects of creation which I don’t claim to understand. Light, Night and Day were created in day 1, but the Sun, Moon and stars are shown as having been created on day 4. This doesn’t make much sense, but I am satisfied that Genesis is accurate and that my understanding of this is incomplete.
As I’ve said in other posts, I find myself leaning towards a young earth point of view. This is not to say that I am not open to other interpretations, but as I find myself taking the scriptures more literally than I did in my years as an active JW, I find that applying that same standard to Genesis chapters 1 - 11 is more than just a knee jerk reaction of some uneducated persons whom refuse to think past the most superficial. There are scientists that have looked into this matter and concluded that the literal 6 day interpretation is compatible with science and that many of the scientific theories which would argue against such an interpretation are not proven. The expansion of the Universe has proven to not fit the model that the Big Bang Theory would predict and requires bolstering from theoretical Dark Matter which has never been observed or even proven to exist. The question of science vs. religion is more a media creation than anything else. Many scientists believe in the Bible and there are those among them that believe in a young earth.Reply by Fani on 2020-09-19 03:07:55
Chet, tu dis : il n'y a pas d'ecriture qui dit que Eve a été créée le 6eme jour.
Genede 1 : 27, 28 dit :Et Dieu se mit à créer l’être humain à son image ; à l’image de Dieu il le créa. Il les créa homme et femme. 28 Après cela, Dieu les bénit et leur dit : « Soyez féconds et devenez nombreux"
Verset 31 : Après cela, Dieu regarda tout ce qu’il avait fait et vit que c’était très bon. Il y eut un soir et il y eut un matin : sixième jour."
IL N'Y A PAS D'ECRITURE ?
Je ne comprends pas.
Reply by Fani on 2020-09-19 04:14:45
Chet, tu dis qu'il y a une incompréhension entre le 1er et le 3eme jour.
Effectivement les cieux et la lumiere existaient deja au 1er jour.
Mais au 2ème jour, Dieu crée l'etendue du ciel.
Genèse 1:17
[17]Dieu les plaça dans l`étendue du ciel, pour éclairer la terre,"
On pourrait dire, je crois, l'atmosphère de la terre.
C'est DANS CETTE ETENDUE que Dieu place les luminaires deja existants dans les cieux.
Il a peut-être fait disparaître des "poussières cosmiques" qui empêchaient les luminaires d'apparaitre dans notre ciel.
Peut-etre a t'il déplacé ces astres pour qu'ils soient dans le ciel de la terre pour qu'ils nous servent de marqueurs du temps.
C'est le but du 3ème jour, que ces luminaires servent de signes du temps pour la terre.
Il n'y a pas de contradiction entre le 1er jour et le 3ème.
Comment by Was Creation Accomplished in 144 Hours? - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-10-23 11:52:56
[…] the earth for human life, but to the entirety of creation. As many Creationists do, he postulates in one article that what is described in Genesis 1:1-5—the creation of the universe as well as light falling on […]