• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Genesis 1 - Bible Project

Hilltrot

Active member

I provide this as a stepping point to a more informed discussion of the first chapter of Genesis.

In particular, note that the seventh day never ends. The kills the 24-hour day narrative which commonly gets taught in many churches.

In addition, note how how translations have influenced the interpretation of the first chapter by over-translating many verses. This poor translation, done during the age of discovery, unfortunately has caused a misinterpretation of Genesis which has continued to this day.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I provide this as a stepping point to a more informed discussion of the first chapter of Genesis.
For an informed discussion of Genesis, you are required to not present your beliefs embedded in posts as if they were indisputable.

For example:
The seventh day never ends.

Because the Bible doesn't say "evening and morning"? You're going to have to do much better than an argument from silence. Day 2 does not conclude with the phrase: "God said it was good." Does that mean that the firmament is not good?

Th[is] kills the 24-hour day narrative.
You're simply going to have to do much better.

In addition, note how ... translations have influenced the interpretation of the first chapter by over-translating many verses. This poor translation, done during the age of discovery, unfortunately has caused a misinterpretation of Genesis which has continued to this day.

It's not "over-translation." Video makes the mistake* of asserting that shamayim and erets must mean "skies" and "land." This is simply not the case. They can mean those things, but they can also mean "heavens" and "Earth." And there are plenty of Biblical examples showing that they must be able to mean those things.

So, again, stop simply presenting your ideas as if they must not be disputed and open yourself up to a rational discussion. 👍

* I'm being generous.
 

Hilltrot

Active member
So, again, stop simply presenting your ideas as if they must not be disputed and open yourself up to a rational discussion. 👍
Straw man.

I said I was open to discussion in the OP.

Instead, I have two derisive laughs and someone who strawman’s me.

If you have an honest question, go ahead and ask. I’ll try my best to answer it when I get the chance.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you have an honest question, go ahead and ask.
There isn't anything that you can deliberately teach me on this subject.

What I have are challenges to what you believe. For example:


Your video makes the mistake of asserting that shamayim and erets must mean "skies" and "land." This is simply not the case. They can mean those things, but they can also mean "heavens" and "Earth." And there are plenty of Biblical examples showing that they must be able to.



Examples of erets necessarily being able to mean something other than simply "land" can be found in the very chapter your video reviewed:

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

That's two uses that make no sense together if they refer to the same thing.

Your video is pretty, but it's hopelessly lost in its own beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Hilltrot

Active member
There isn't anything that you can deliberately teach me on this subject.

What I have are challenges to what you believe. For example:


Your video makes the mistake of asserting that shamayim and erets must mean "skies" and "land." This is simply not the case. They can mean those things, but they can also mean "heavens" and "Earth." And there are plenty of Biblical examples showing that they must be able to.



Examples of erets necessarily being able to mean something other than simply "land" can be found in the very chapter your video reviewed:

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

That's two uses that make no sense together if they refer to the same thing.

Your video is pretty, but it's hopelessly lost in its own beliefs.
Cool. You don't care to understand or learn what anyone else's interpretation is.

I am curious about y'all's.

Can y'all tell me what theological beliefs you interpret from the First Chapter of Genesis plus the seventh day?

Or do y'all consider it to be a purely historical and scientific work?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Cool. You don't care to understand or learn what anyone else's interpretation is.

Sounds like @Stripe understands it very well already, otherwise he wouldn't be challenging it.

I am curious about y'all's.

Way to dodge Stripe's challenge.

Can y'all tell me what theological beliefs you interpret from the First Chapter of Genesis plus the seventh day?

Let's put it this way. If you reject Genesis 1 as actual history (which uses both literal AND figurative language to describe actual events), you end up losing:

1. The flood as described in Genesis
2. The story of Abraham
3. His descendants
4. The exodus as described in Exodus
5. The stories of Israel as a nation throughout their history in the Old Testament
6. The lineage of Christ (due to a few of the above)
7. Christ's credibility
8. The Cross
9. And ultimately, the rest of the Bible.

Or do y'all consider it to be a purely historical and scientific work?

Genesis 1 is a historic record of the events of the origin of the universe.

It is not meant to be read as if in a science text book, but we CAN learn things about the origin of the earth by applying science to it.

When you reject reality, there are major (even if unintended) consequences.
 

Hilltrot

Active member
Sounds like @Stripe understands it very well already, otherwise he wouldn't be challenging it.
From your recent video post and his response to the video, I don't believe either of you knows anything about what Tim Mackie or I believe.
Way to dodge Stripe's challenge.
Stripe has not clearly stated a challenge. In order to do so, he might need to try to understand my position.
Let's put it this way. If you reject Genesis 1 as actual history (which uses both literal AND figurative language to describe actual events), you end up losing:
Genesis 1 is a historic record of the events of the origin of the universe.

It is not meant to be read as if in a science text book, but we CAN learn things about the origin of the earth by applying science to it.
Do you believe God inspired the writing of Genesis 1 to provide a historic record of the origin of the universe?

Do you believe that God inspired the first chapter of Genesis so that people could apply science to it?

You seem to be saying that if just one fact or part of your literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong, then the entire Bible is irrelevant. Is that right?

If I extrapolate this, you believe if any fact or scientific concept is wrong in the Bible, then the entire Bible is irrelevant. Is that right? Does this include typos?

Finally, you never mentioned any theology one can learn directly from the first chapter plus the seventh day of Genesis. Is this because you didn't want or were unable to share it or is it because you believe there is no theology in that portion of the Bible?

P.S. I was going to respond to your questions on the thread last week. However, technical issues interfered with that. You provided an excellent and thorough explanation of your interpretation of the physical creation of the Earth. I do want to take more time on a good response. I hope to have some time this weekend.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
From your recent video post and his response to the video, I don't believe either of you knows anything about what Tim Mackie or I believe.

Stripe has not clearly stated a challenge. In order to do so, he might need to try to understand my position.

He did, but you dismissed it out of hand.

Here it is again:

What I have are challenges to what you believe. For example:


Your video makes the mistake of asserting that shamayim and erets must mean "skies" and "land." This is simply not the case. They can mean those things, but they can also mean "heavens" and "Earth." And there are plenty of Biblical examples showing that they must be able to.



Examples of erets necessarily being able to mean something other than simply "land" can be found in the very chapter your video reviewed:

Gen 1:26 - Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

That's two uses that make no sense together if they refer to the same thing.

Do you believe God inspired the writing of Genesis 1 to provide a historic record of the origin of the universe?

I believe that was at least most of the intent.

Do you believe that God inspired the first chapter of Genesis so that people could apply science to it?

To answer this, I will simply quote scripture:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. - Proverbs 25:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs25:2&version=NKJV

You seem to be saying that if just one fact or part of your literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong, then the entire Bible is irrelevant. Is that right?

What I'm saying is that when you reject Genesis 1 as a literal account of the origin of the universe (note: this does not mean that figurative language should be taken literally), you lose the foundation for most of the rest of the Bible to be true.

If one asserts that God did not create the world exactly as He described in Genesis 1, or if one asserts that it's all or mostly figurative language, then the result is that one loses the foundation (pardon the biblical pun), the means, for the flood to have occurred, and either have to resort to miracles (which is ok ONLY where the text allows miracles and aside from the ones clearly stated, it does not allow much wiggle room in that respect), or one has to reject that the flood occurred at all, or assert it wasn't global, because the evidence for it has been repurposed to attempt to explain the origin of the earth, rather than the extinction of all life except that which was on the Ark.

And more importantly, in addition to the above, you also lose the bloodline from Adam to Jesus, and that has so many negative implications it would take me hours to go into in any depth, but suffice it to say that Jesus would be discredited simply because his genealogy cannot be traced clearly as it is in the gospels.

If I extrapolate this, you believe if any fact or scientific concept is wrong in the Bible, then the entire Bible is irrelevant. Is that right?

The Bible is not a science text-book, but yet it still accurately describes reality, even when using figurative terms.

For example, the phrase, "God hung the earth on nothing" is a VERY accurate description of how the earth is not attached to anything in space, literally floating in a sea of nothingness. (See what I did there?)

Does this include typos?

I believe the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts, which have been lost to time.

The fact that errors in spelling and grammar, in addition to the fact that differences exist between translations and versions, does not change the overall story.

In other words, when God writes a book, He does so in a way that, despite the errors that might creep in, the story remains largely unaffected, being that God created the universe and everything in it, including man from the dust of the earth, man rebelled, and so through the Seed of a chosen people, God brought about a plan for reconciliation and redemption, so that those who turned to Him would be rewarded with life.

That story (and I'm not talking about the Bible here, but "His-story"), written over a period of about 7 thousand years, has survived in the pages of the Bible, despite the errors and differences in spelling and grammar that have crept into our copies we have today.

Finally, you never mentioned any theology one can learn directly from the first chapter plus the seventh day of Genesis. Is this because you didn't want or were unable to share it or is it because you believe there is no theology in that portion of the Bible?

Theology, as in... What, exactly? Some sort of hidden meaning in those? Please be more specific.

No, I don't think there's any hidden meaning in Genesis. Could there be secondary lessons to be learned from Genesis 1? Sure, it's possible. But the point of Genesis 1 is mainly a record of history of the events that took place prior to man's existence, from an observer's perspective of God during the creation week.

As for day seven, what of it? It's the day God ceased from creating, like the maker of a fine watch sitting back and watching (pardon the pun) it tick after winding it up for the first time). That's it. To get anything else out of it, you have to read a belief into the text that cannot be found in scripture.

Unlike such beliefs, however, throughout the Bible, "7" is often representative of completion, with "8" representing a new beginning. Day seven did end, just as what the number's representation indicates. But the text doesn't have to explicitly state that, and had it done so, we would probably be sitting here talking about how day eight never ended, rather than seven, or nine, rather than eight, or ten, rather than nine. In other words, your argument from silence (that the Bible never said day seven ended), a logical fallacy, has resulted in you believing that day seven never ended. But look at what Genesis 2 says, not the details, but the structure of what is said:

Screenshot_20201202-215412.png

Do you see it?

The new paragraph...

The end of verse 3 and the beginning of verse 4 are the end of one thought and the beginning of another, respectively.

Maybe it's just me, and perhaps there's a reason I'm not aware of, but I personally have thought it odd that the people who put the chapters and verse numbers in the Bible decided on putting the beginning of chapter 2 at the end of Day six at the end of Genesis 1:31, rather than at the end of Genesis 2:3, simply due to the fact that the first week isn't over with. It would have preempted those who who say that day seven never ended, simply because the formatting itself would have indicated the shift.

But that's probably just my Western way of thinking butting in.

The point is that day seven was one full day, just like the first six, and that God codified its sanctification in the Mosaic Law (which is in and of itself evidence against the position that day seven never ended, because God said that every seventh day is holy, and yet the seventh day still goes into an eighth day, but that's a can of worms that we can open some other time).

Final comments, there is no reason in scripture to interpret Genesis 1 so that the days are longer than 24 hours, and there are multiple verses that indicate that they were, in fact, 24 hour days, and despite the fact (please take note of the following) that "day" (Hebrew yom) has different meanings, WHICH meaning is used is ALWAYS determined by the context. And there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 that would indicate that the meaning used is anything other than the normal, "24-hour period." And there is no indication (without an a priori commitment to a belief) that the days in Genesis 1 refer to an aeon or undefined period of time. And in fact, the chapter even goes so far as to define day as being the cycle of darkness then light, with light called day, and darkness called night. In other words, one night/day (evening and morning) cycle is one day.

P.S. I was going to respond to your questions on the thread last week. However, technical issues interfered with that. You provided an excellent and thorough explanation of your interpretation of the physical creation of the Earth. I do want to take more time on a good response. I hope to have some time this weekend.

Ok.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Cool. You don't care to understand or learn what anyone else's interpretation is.

Because I watched your video and described its interpretations accurately?

Can y'all tell me what theological beliefs you interpret from the First Chapter of Genesis plus the seventh day?

I primarily read it in English. There isn't a lot of interpretation work necessary.

Or do y'all consider it to be a purely historical and scientific work?

That's a false dichotomy and you're shifting the focus to avoid the challenge to what you believe.

Genesis describes the creation of the universe. You are required to either accept it as accurate or reject it as inaccurate. The Bible does not leave "interpretations" open as a rational response.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If the opening

I provide this as a stepping point to a more informed discussion of the first chapter of Genesis.

In particular, note that the seventh day never ends. The kills the 24-hour day narrative which commonly gets taught in many churches.

In addition, note how how translations have influenced the interpretation of the first chapter by over-translating many verses. This poor translation, done during the age of discovery, unfortunately has caused a misinterpretation of Genesis which has continued to this day.
If this opening post was actually intended to provide a starter for an actual substantive discussion, then post #2, which provided very direct refutations of the bald assertions made in this opening post, would have been responded to with substantive rejoinders informed perhaps from information provided in the video.

The opposite of that has happened. Instead, the only actual arguments of any substance have been provided by those here who stand in agreement with the plain reading of scripture while the author of the opening post has met each of those arguments with more questions (i.e. with deflections away from those arguments so as to reset the debate) rather than with the two way "informed discussion" his thread was presented as an opportunity for.

Of course, that is no surprise. Anyone who thinks for even one half of a second that because the phrase "evening and morning" isn't used in reference to the seventh day that therefore that day never ended and that the lack of that phrase "kills the 24-hour day narrative" is frankly stupid. That is the exact same sort of mindlessness that you get out of flat-earthers and ancient aliens theorists. That's the exact same sort of "logic" that Yahweh Ben Yahweh used to form his murderous cult back in the late 20th century. If that sort of thinking, that kind of "logic", is acceptable then there isn't any wacko nutjob doctrine that cannot be derived out of the bible. You might as well go make up your own religion and drop the pretense of believing in the bible at all.

What's the point of "killing the 24-hour day narrative" anyway?

Clete
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How does that work?

If you're into evolution, what do you need Genesis for at all? What's the point in trying to salvage it away from what it plainly states? Why not just drop it altogether and be done with it?
Genesis is God's word. If they can twist His message to incorporate their ideas, it gives them a sense of safety.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
I have a question.
I know I will be attacked by everybody for my question, but here it is:

What is the point in all this? Really.

Jesus taught us how to be Christians.
The New Testament teaches us about being a Christian.
Love God with all your heart and love they neighbor are the two biggest commandments. There is nothing in Genesis that is "needed" - needed - to be a good Christian and to be saved. It's all about Jesus, as some like to say.

So, why argue about stuff that seems to only cause argument, but does not do one thing to enhance your knowledge about Jesus? Old earth, Young earth, evolution, no evolution . . . . where is Jesus in all that? Where is clothing the naked and feeding the hungry in all that? Where is justification and grace?

I'm just asking. It seems to me that if the topic cause argument and cause people to get upset then fruit is it bearing? It is not revealing a single thing about Jesus.

That's my two cents.

Go on now, let the attacks begin.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I have a question.
I know I will be attacked by everybody for my question, but here it is:

What is the point in all this? Really.

Jesus taught us how to be Christians.
Jesus quoted from Genesis MANY times. It must be important.
The New Testament teaches us about being a Christian.
So we can throw out Genesis-Malachi?
Love God with all your heart and love they neighbor are the two biggest commandments.
These are not "new testament" concepts.
Deu 6:5 KJV And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Lev 19:18 KJV Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

There is nothing in Genesis that is "needed" - needed - to be a good Christian and to be saved. It's all about Jesus, as some like to say.
Do you believe that God puts "unneeded" stuff in His Word?
So, why argue about stuff that seems to only cause argument, but does not do one thing to enhance your knowledge about Jesus?
Why do you think that it causes arguments?
I'd say that it's because it IS important and some are trying to say that it's NOT important.
Old earth, Young earth, evolution, no evolution . . . . where is Jesus in all that?
Jesus did not teach evolution. That's where Jesus is in all that.
Where is clothing the naked and feeding the hungry in all that? Where is justification and grace?
Progressively revealed. Without the foundation (Genesis) the whole thing falls down.
I'm just asking. It seems to me that if the topic cause argument and cause people to get upset then fruit is it bearing? It is not revealing a single thing about Jesus.
Jesus is God. ALL of His Word is important, starting an Genesis 1:1
That's my two cents.

Go on now, let the attacks begin.
Seems like you want it.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
So we can throw out Genesis-Malachi?

I know your response is meant to be snotty, but in fact, yes, you can. A person could lead a perfect Christian life without ever having read read those books.

Go on now, let the attacks begin.
Seems like you want it.

Not really, but with you I expect it. Have you noticed that you are the only person who has attacked me?

Does anyone ELSE in this tread have a comment on my last post. If not then I am done with my comment.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I know your response is meant to be snotty, but in fact, yes, you can. A person could lead a perfect Christian life without ever having read read those books.
What kind of "Christian" throws out more than half of the Bible?
Not really, but with you I expect it. Have you noticed that you are the only person who has attacked me?
You have persecution complex. There was no attack.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have a question.
I know I will be attacked by everybody for my question, but here it is:

What is the point in all this? Really.

Jesus taught us how to be Christians.
The New Testament teaches us about being a Christian.
Love God with all your heart and love they neighbor are the two biggest commandments. There is nothing in Genesis that is "needed" - needed - to be a good Christian and to be saved. It's all about Jesus, as some like to say.

So, why argue about stuff that seems to only cause argument, but does not do one thing to enhance your knowledge about Jesus? Old earth, Young earth, evolution, no evolution . . . . where is Jesus in all that? Where is clothing the naked and feeding the hungry in all that? Where is justification and grace?

I'm just asking. It seems to me that if the topic cause argument and cause people to get upset then fruit is it bearing? It is not revealing a single thing about Jesus.

That's my two cents.

Go on now, let the attacks begin.
Everything about Jesus is predicated on Genesis! The only reason you believe that Jesus is God's Son is because of Genesis!

Everything that Jesus was doing here on Earth had to do with stuff that happened in Genesis. Even the two greatest commandments that you mentioned are from Genesis and are only accepted as valid commandments because of Genesis.

And it isn't just Jesus, its the entire bible and the whole of the Christian faith that has as its foundation, the book of Genesis. These discussions, which don't seem to me to be nearly as hostile in nature as you seem to be interpreting them to be, are critically important to the integrity of anything having to do with the whole Judeo/Christian worldview.

Lastly, and I'm sorry if this pulls things a bit off topic but, I can't help but point out that Jesus did not teach anyone how to be a Christian. He taught people how to be good Jews. There was never a syllable from Jesus about most of what is universally understood to be the most basic Christian doctrines. He never taught a soul, for example, that it was necessary to trust in Him, His death and resurrection for their salvation. In fact, whenever He did mention His death and resurrection He told everyone not to tell anyone about it, which wasn't a big problem because none of them believed it anyway!
Additionally, you never read a word from Jesus about salvation being available apart from the law. Jesus was a Jew. He was sent to the Jews and ministered to the Jews. He followed the law and taught others to do the same. When He was asked how one might be saved, He started listing off the Ten Commandments and then when pressed further, He told the man who asked the question to sell everything he had and become of His followers. Nowhere in the four gospels do we see the word "grace" printed in red!
So, on the contrary, Jesus did not teach us how to be Christians, at least not in the sense you meant it. What you understand as Christianity didn't come on the scene until about a year or so after Pentecost when God, in response to the Jews having officially rejected Jesus as their Messiah and their subsequent murder of Stephen, cut of Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles and gave the Gospel of Grace to the Apostle Paul.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:
Top