What did God create in Genesis 1:1?

[Paul33]

I don't believe in the gap theory.

I don't believe in any form of death before Adam sinned.

I don't believe in pre-Adamic races.

All I'm saying is that a literal understanding of the text does not reveal the age of the universe.

I believe that we have failed to take seriously the distinction between the "foundation of the earth" that God created in the beginning with God's work of "doing, making, fashioning" the earth's biosphere to fill it and make it habitable for life.

I believe true science and an accurate, literal interpretation of Scripture are compatible.

 

[Phillip]

Good, I certainly don't hold Old Earth as a problem. I do evolution. I may have another theory that I might PM you if you don't mind. I don't want to throw it out unless I get some idea of what other people think about it. I think it may fit your theory and still allow for the Hebrew text to be literal just like yours, but with a major difference in one point.

If you don't mind, I will PM it to you over the next day or so.

Anyway, I do have to get to church. If you are on later, we can talk more. (I have to run the sound board, so I have to go early for practices.)

See ya,
Phillip

 

[Paul33]

The default definitions for shamayim and eres seem to be stellar heavens and planet earth (Gen. 1:1, Psalm 102:25, Isa. 45:18) unles the context narrows the meaning to sky and land (Gen. 1:6-10), which Ex. 20:11 references.

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't believe in any form of death before Adam sinned.

Any scriptual basis for that?

 

[PastorGreg]

ROMANS 5:12

 

[aefting]

My view is that Gen. 1:1 is a summary statement and that day one begins with verse 2.

Andy

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

I'd have to agree with El Guero that you're bordering on eisegesis.

You draw a distinction between "bara" and "asah".

You mention letting the first chapter of scripture dictate the meanings of these words.

You also hold (I think) to the interpretation of Ex 20:11 as being "FOR six days".

None of these can be disproven scripturally. But none can be proven either. Bara and asah have considerable overlap. And Exodues 20:11 is best read as "in six days" given context, although your reading is excluded.

You are claiming a little more certainty than the text will give you. And I say you border on eisegesis because you seem to be letting your presupposition of the meaning of the passages color your interpretation of the text.

 

[Glory2God]

1 ¶ <<A Psalm of David.>> The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Compare with:
Ge 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The foundations were laid AFTER Gen1:3, Seas were not created until AFTER Gen1:3. Thus the foundations of the earth wre laid AFTER Gen1:9. Sorry, it's just that simple.

Ge 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made.

Word five of Gen1:1 is "created", Gen2:3 would include Gen1:1

Hebrew sheds no light on this subject that you can't get from the English, sorry.

 

[Paul33]

Charles,

It doesn't matter to me if Ex. 20:11 means "For six days" or "For in six days." It's only relevant because people who say it means "For in six days" immediately jump to the conclusion that God created the universe in six days. Something the Hebrew text does not say.

There is a distinction between bara and asah.

But even if there isn't, it doesn't change the fact that God created the universe in verse one, described the condition of the earth in verse two, and records God's fashioning of the earth in verses three and following.

Just exactly what did God make in six days, Charles, according to Ex. 20:11 and Genesis 1:6-10?

I said we should let the first chapter of Scripture dictate the meaning of shamayim, eres, and yam, not bara and asah.

 

[Paul33]

Glory2God,

I don't know if I should even respond to what you wrote. It is so far off base. You claim that seas were not made until after Gen. 1:3 to prove your point as to when the foundations of the earth were laid.

Genesis 1:2 tells us that the earth's core is surrounded in water and darkness. Job 38:9 teaches that the earth's core was also surrounded by thick clouds.

The foundation of the earth is what is described in Genesis 1:2. A land mass covered in water. It is only after the water is gathered into one place that "land" appears, and the water is called "seas." But that doesn't diminish the fact the the foundation of the earth was covered in water. This interpretation agrees with the verses you sited.

 

[Glory2God]

Psalm24:1 says he FOUNDED it upon the seas, seas were NOT created until AFTER Gen1:3. Now put on your thinking cap and add it up.

 

[Paul33]

aefting,

So day one begins with a description of a formless and empty earth without telling us how God created it. I've already answered this objection.

In any event, the purpose of this thread is for someone to show me how my interpretation is not a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text.

So far, no one has even come close to attempting this.

 

[Paul33]

The point of this thread is still, What did God create in Genesis 1:1?

And, Is my interpretation a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text?

As of yet, no one has shown me where my interpreation is not a literal interpretation of the Hebrew text.

My interpretation is this: God created the universe including the earth's foundation in verse one.

God described the earth's foundation in verse two.

God fashioned the earth's biosphere in verse three and following.

Show me why this is not a literal understanding of the text? You say it is eisegesis. Then show me the exegesis.

I have not said that verses one and two cannot be a part of day one, only that the text does not state positively that it is part of day one. The length of time the Holy Spirit hovers is unspecified. Therefore the text cannot be used to prove that verses one and two are part of day one, or not part of day one.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Verse one is a summary statement of all that follows.

Verse two does not describe the creation of the earth's foundation; instead, it describes the earth as yet being formless.

Ever think about where the water is and where the earth is - literally?

Consider this verse and what Peter evidently concluded from reading Genesis:

2 Peter 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water

In verse six the firmament is raised up over the earth. And yet, above the firmament, there is still water and below the earth there is water.

The earth, literally, exists in a bubble of air withing the universal water that is held away from the earth by the firmament.

It is evident that this is not a spherical earth we are talking of here, rather a plate shaped, flat earth.

Of course, none of us believe that is the shape and manner of the heavens and the earth today, but that is because we have allowed science to influence our opinions, not because we are following the scriptures literally.

 

[Scott J]

Paul of Eugene- If all you want to do is mock then perhaps you should consider sitting this one out. Your opinion that any form of literal interpretation for Genesis is ignorant, stupid, or deceptive is already known.

If you have no real positive contribution to make, why not simply butt out?

Paul33- Isn't your argument (basically from silence) pretty much rhetorical? What did time matter before God created it?

The naturalistic argument that light, distance, et al. in the universe disproves creationism is dependent on its own premise- that everything that exists has a naturalistic cause and explanation.

God exists outside of time. What prevented Him from creating the universe outside of what we would recognize as time?

 

[Paul33]

Scott J,

Thanks for answering Paul of Eugene. Since I didn't know where he was coming from, you have saved me from wasting time.

As soon as God creates a universe, he is creating something we know that exists in time and space. But when does God start recording time on earth? When is it possible to begin recording time on earth from the perspective of the earth?

In Genesis 1:1 God creates the heavens and the earth. Verse two describes the condition of earth that God created in verse one. (Later, the biblical writers would call this the foundation of the earth.) The earth was covered in water, complete darkness, and thick clouds (Job 38:9).

What did God mean by "heavens and the earth" if he did not mean the universe? (The later biblical writers certainly understood the heavens to be the stellar heavens or universe.)

But after informing us that God created the universe, Moses, through inspiration, directs our attention to the earth, a submerged planet in pitch darkness.

There can be no recording of time on earth if it is in pitch darkness, can there? It isn't until verse three when God says, "Let there be light" that light reaches the earth's surface. God calls the light "day" and the darkness "night" and then Moses records that there was evening and morning, the first day.

Is not the text saying that the first day on earth came into existence when God said, "Let there be light"? The text doesn't say God created light or made light in verse three. If you claim that, wouldn't that be eisegesis? The text says that God said, "Let there be light." Nothing more, nothing less.

If my house were in pitch darkness in the middle of the day because of two layers of blinds on my living room window, the out layer thick unpentrable fabric, and the second layer, translucent, we would have a similar condition. I could say to my wife, "Sweetie, Let there be light" and she could open the first layer of window treatments, and light would filter into the room. I wouldn't be able to see outside because of the second layer of translucent fabric.

Now don't accuse me of reading into the text. This is a word picture.

What we know for sure from the text is that the earth was in pitch darkness. God said, "Let there be light." And having said that he called the light day and the darkness night, and the resulting morning and evening he called day one.

These are the facts. Claiming that God created light in verse three is reading into the text. Claiming that day one extends back to the original creation of the universe is reading into the text.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Paul of Eugene- If all you want to do is mock then perhaps you should consider sitting this one out. Your opinion that any form of literal interpretation for Genesis is ignorant, stupid, or deceptive is already known.

If you have no real positive contribution to make, why not simply butt out?

I'm sorry that the literal interpretation of Genesis, when presented, is considered to be a non-postitive contribution to a thread dedicated to seeing the literal interpreation of Genesis. It brings a whole new meaning to the word "literal".

Mocking and ignoring the literal interpretation as you have done will not make it go away. The fact that it does not agree with what you know to be the truth about the universe won't change what the words say.

 

[Scott J]

There is nothing literal about what you have done. There is nothing in the text about the world being flat... You are making a mockery of scripture and should be ashamed.

This can be a productive thread between those of us who actually believe a literal Genesis sets the boundaries for what can be considered true about origins. Hopefully the moderators will see what you are doing and prevent you from turning it into a farce or counter-productive argument.

Again, if you can't make a positive contribution then it would be better just to butt out.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Scott J,

Thanks for answering Paul of Eugene. Since I didn't know where he was coming from, you have saved me from wasting time.

You're welcome.

But when does God start recording time on earth?

Again, this is rhetorical. Time isn't really all that relevant to the capabilities of an infinite being who created even time itself.

I don't entirely reject your interpretation. I don't necessarily think it is the most direct and literal approach. I default to the most literal interpretation of the relevant scriptures considering no other theory has been proven to any greater degree than YEC.

A lot of speculation. A lot of technical sounding jargon. But when you boil it all down, you are mostly left with assumptions about how evidence should be interpretted.

When is it possible to begin recording time on earth from the perspective of the earth?

Not sure what the answer to that question would resolve with regard to the text itself. If an old universe/young biological creation is supportable from the text, I think the division has to occur between vss 2 and 3. With verse 3 marking the beginning of day 1.

Now don't accuse me of reading into the text. This is a word picture.

I won't. I like word pictures.

What we know for sure from the text is that the earth was in pitch darkness. God said, "Let there be light." And having said that he called the light day and the darkness night, and the resulting morning and evening he called day one.

The problem to this view is vs 16 unless you read it as parenthetical.

These are the facts. Claiming that God created light in verse three is reading into the text. Claiming that day one extends back to the original creation of the universe is reading into the text.

I disagree with this being eisogesis. It might not be the correct interpretation. However, I don't see what you have presented or this alternative being an abuse or less than literal interpretation of the text.

I believe like you that the primary purpose of the Genesis account is to record creative activities on earth and particularly those dealing with life.

I default to a young universe as it seems to be the most plain, direct understanding of the text. The thing that hangs me up on your view is that God did define what a day was later and used that terminology when He inspired Moses to write the account.

I don't have a particular problem with your view in light of the fact that God is timeless- making our attempts to date when "In the beginning" actually occurred pretty pointless. However, the age of and timeframe for biological creation is very much an issue of God's veracity in scripture. To say that long ages are meant or allegory is in mind when God clearly defines each day as a morning and an evening goes beyond what the text can bear.

The challenge has been given several times but I have yet to see a proof from scripture, using scripture, that demonstrates that Genesis 1-11 should be taken as anything other than a narrative.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

As a literal narrative, Genesis one presents literal days. The fact that the sun is not present until the fourth day is no problem for the narrative, it presents the light as being present, and the light itself is enough to establish day from night. There is some ambiguity about the darkness. We all know that darkness is the absense of light. When God said "let there be light", it is the second part of the day that comes into being, because the Hebrew day begins with Sunset - the dark time - then continues with sunrise and the light time of the day, and ends with the next sunset.

The original first day, then, had its dark period, but the darkness wasn't something that had to be "created", but the light was something that had to be "created".

What happened in the dark? What about the waters? The waters are just there, they are not described as being created; our text doesn't say how they got there.

But it does say that in the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The conclusion that God created the waters is therefore supported.

As for basing any challenges on the literal nature of the passage from only scripture, perhaps the simplest would be to compare the order of creation in Genesis One with the order of creation in Genesis Two. Which comes first, man or the animals? How can the animals be created literally before Adam in Genesis One and literally after Adam in Genesis Two?

It is mocking the scriptures to twist them into accomodation of this discrepancy. Far better to simply let it be there. But it is evidence that the literal interpretation needs to be reconsidered.