One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway?
As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding.
One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others!
Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)
The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." )
According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...")
So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least.
Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines.
Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.)
Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds.
Finally, man appears in the account.
Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.)
To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding.
So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.
That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false."
Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise.
I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.
There are cave paintings that are radio-carbon dated to over 40,000 years ago. The fact that there are paintings at all - and of recognisable creatures and vegetation at that - points to much earlier human(like) creatures that had the skill to do the painting, knowledge of materials, etc etc. There are other cave paintings in other parts of the world that are also very, very old, in five figures. Any theory needs to take account of these - unless there's the allegation that these are all total fakes. Unlikely, methinks.
I know of one man, highly intelligent, who thinks that the earth was made in 6 days, exactly as the Bible states. It's 4,000-something years old. Gen 1 :1 was it initially - then the Earth became void, then in 4000 years it was completely re-established. He was deadly serious in this belief.
He urged me to go to a lecture by some visiting ?whatever? who knew about things like this. To expand my viewpoint (it wasn't long after TWI-escape), I did go along to the lecture. The person was so wacky that I think I walked out at half-time.
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
I think there are a lot of time lags in the Bible and even more time lags between events and when their history is written.
Given all these time lags and additional ones I can come up with personally like the time lag warp I entered into last Tuesday lol I would say that whatever the time lag was between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 it was real as well as perceived.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway?
As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding.
One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others!
Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." )
According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...")
So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least.
Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines.
Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.)
Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds.
Finally, man appears in the account.
Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.)
To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding.
So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise.
I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible.
I'll leave it at that...
TC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
There are cave paintings that are radio-carbon dated to over 40,000 years ago. The fact that there are paintings at all - and of recognisable creatures and vegetation at that - points to much earlier human(like) creatures that had the skill to do the painting, knowledge of materials, etc etc. There are other cave paintings in other parts of the world that are also very, very old, in five figures. Any theory needs to take account of these - unless there's the allegation that these are all total fakes. Unlikely, methinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I know of one man, highly intelligent, who thinks that the earth was made in 6 days, exactly as the Bible states. It's 4,000-something years old. Gen 1 :1 was it initially - then the Earth became void, then in 4000 years it was completely re-established. He was deadly serious in this belief.
He urged me to go to a lecture by some visiting ?whatever? who knew about things like this. To expand my viewpoint (it wasn't long after TWI-escape), I did go along to the lecture. The person was so wacky that I think I walked out at half-time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I encountered on Zoom a man whom I'd witnessed to decades before - passionately interested in God and became a staunch Wayfer.
He now has somewhat different beliefs. He is convinced that the Earth was created and populated as stated in Genesis 1, and that the exact day that God took rest can be calculated back. It was a Saturday. That is why we should honour the Sabbath - on Saturday, and that day has been calculated and can be ascertained Biblically. It has also been carefully preserved by Jews. Keeping the "sabbath" on any day at all that is not Saturday will, apparently, result in damnation, because it is a defiling and disobedience to Ex 20:8ff.
Exodus 20 - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. | ESV.org
Safe to say, I don't agree with this PoV and have (for other reasons) discontinued conversation with him.
We just don't know what time lag, and what events, happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Do we need to? Or do we simply need to disregard prophets and priests who claim to know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think there are a lot of time lags in the Bible and even more time lags between events and when their history is written.
Given all these time lags and additional ones I can come up with personally like the time lag warp I entered into last Tuesday lol I would say that whatever the time lag was between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 it was real as well as perceived.
Captain Obvious out lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
genesis, like every book gives the readers certain info to process, to each their own you know
like 2 things can be true at the same time even if it contradicts each other
so a story with a lot in it reveals more as we grow
there is no 1 interpretation of events
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.