Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
There are a few things about the original text of Genesis that may help us see a more rational statement there than many have thought.

1:1 is a title like 2:4, 5:1 and many other places in Genesis. It is not action in the story yet.

The grammar of v2 actually goes: when God was creating the earth, it was already empty and void. Just note for now that there was material there already, in dissarray and emptiness. We don't know how long.

'empty and void' (tohu wa-bohu) is an expression having to do with God's judgement. It is in Jer 4:11. The land of Israel was empty and void after the first captivity of Israel as a judgement.

So at the end of Gen 1:2, We now therefore have:
an indefinitely old earth that is unformed and unfilled (we must assume he is referring to the visible surface, not the subterra).
2, it is in this condition because something was wrong and was judged. We are now reminded of an event that is coming shortly--the flood. We just don't know what kind of thing offended God. There are some clues in Job and the Psalms. Some of them have to do with a massive creature who was some sort of lizard in the sea.
3, the two terms 'empty and void' now set up an "answer" in the creative acts of God. Because there is a problem. First, he will provide some structures (again on the surface), and then he will fill those structures. So at the end of the 6 days of work, the place is un-void and un-empty, or, formed and filled.

We don't know how long this took, but as you say, he can speak things into existence as he wishes.

There are now some things that are more sensible to the OE scientist and yet the passage is still intact. In fact, paleontology refers to the Cambrian explosion, which is mysterious. That is referring to the sudden appearance of all kinds of species in the fossil record.

Resources:
Stroebel. THE CASE FOR A CREATOR.
Wakefield. GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE SEA MONSTER.
Walkte. CREATION AND CHAOS.
Ross. CREATION AND TIME.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
6days said:
Your version distorts the text and destroys the gospel putting millions of years of death and suffering before sin by first Adam. Your version destroys the necessity of Christ's physical death and resurrection
Click to expand...
Not only that; it makes God look like an idiot.

Why create again when you know the possibility of more failure by said creation? Why destroy in the first place?

And then there's the fact the Leviathan theory isn't fleshed out, nor can it be; as it is not supported by any text.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
6days said:
Your version distorts the text and destroys the gospel putting millions of years of death and suffering before sin by first Adam. Your version destroys the necessity of Christ's physical death and resurrection
Click to expand...



then you have to explain why 'tohu wa-bohu' is already there. Go ahead.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member

I have no idea what this is about. I need to see the sentences on either side of this, thanks.

Anyway, the first task is to establish what it means. If you haven't done work on 'tohu wa-bohu' you haven't established what it means.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Lighthouse said:
Not only that; it makes God look like an idiot.

Why create again when you know the possibility of more failure by said creation? Why destroy in the first place?

And then there's the fact the Leviathan theory isn't fleshed out, nor can it be; as it is not supported by any text.
Click to expand...



The Bible is true but not exhaustive. It is not going to tell us everything that happened. (So we can agree about Leviathan on that). But we can conclude from how Gen 1 is actually put together that some things happened before and God stopped them. It does not call the pre-existing things creation, does it? After the initial moment of the big bang, there are vast numbers of places that are just there not supporting life nor ever intended to.

But 'tohu wa-bohu' is there and calls for an explanation. What is yours?

I see nothing idiotic whatsoever about taking the material as it was and creating a place for human life, most of which is a miraculous act.

We also know that our built-in psyche is to do around us exactly what God did here: to make order out of chaos.
 
Desert Reign

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

It doesn't need making more sensible than it already is and it doesn't need making more scientific than it already is.
If you want to exegete the text, your job is to say what it means, not to make it palatable.


Not that it is scientific in any modern sense because that would be an anachronism of the first magnitude. Your job as an exegete is to educate modern readers as the relevant aspects of culture and assumptions that the original readers of the text would have had, not to make the text fit the culture and assumptions of the modern reader.

Please don't take this as aggressive. I just want to point you in a better direction since you obviously have valid concerns.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
But if it proves to be more palatable because there more reasons to believe then it is more powerful.

reasonstobelieve.com--H. Ross's site
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
And the earth was covered by water, not ice so the sun was already extant at the recreation of the earth.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In case you try to confuse it in Genesis ..... God outright says it here:

Exodus 20 KJV
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
re the days, see Dr. Ross. There are numerous examples of a yom being a period of time. But the week of creation still does not give a clue about the amount of time leading up to the state of 'tohu wa-bohu' of v2.
 
6days

6days

New member
Interpanner said:
re the days, see Dr. Ross. There are numerous examples of a yom being a period of time. But the week of creation still does not give a clue about the amount of time leading up to the state of 'tohu wa-bohu' of v2.
Click to expand...
In the Hebrew there is no gap between verse one and two like evolutionists wish for.*
Hugh Ross compromises on scripture*

*A Hebrew scholar says...
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that*the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

Lets see*what a Theologian thinks*of your ideas...
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3;*Romans 5:12–21;*8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

Lets check*what a scientist says...Dr Georgia Purdom (PhD micro biology) says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

And...What does Jesus say?*"Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"
 
Nick M

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
jamie said:
Not true. Scripture does not say that.
Click to expand...

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

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top