What did God create in Genesis 1:1?

[Scott J]

You have to intentionally want to read a conflict to find one between 1 and 2 Paul... of course, you want to do just that.

Genesis two is not stating an order. It is stating a fact. God formed the animals. After the creation of Adam, God allowed Adam to name them. The only problem here is your imagination.

 

[Paul33]

Scott J,

Just so we are on the same page. I don't believe in the day age theory either. I believe that what God created or fashioned in six days was six 24 hour days.

V. 16 is not a problem if one understands "asah" to mean "appointed." God appointed two great lights for the purpose of governing the day and night.

One of the meanings for the word "asah" is appoint. Context determines when it is understood that way. The context of verse 16 is that two great lights were "asahed" to govern the day and night. The context certainly seems to dictate that one understands asah in this verse to mean "appointed."

What God did on day four is pull the translucent window covering open! In other words, I think that God pulled the clouds back completely so that from earth one could now see the sun, moon, and stars in the stellar heavens. He brought them forth (nathan).

 

[Paul33]

The issue of time.

Time began for the universe when God created the universe because the universe itself exists in time and space.

Time on earth existed at the time of the earth's creation but could not be recorded as days until God said, "Let there be light" thus creating morning and evening, day one.

Even though the earth was revolving around the sun and spinning on its access, as long as it remained in pitch darkness from the vantage point of the earth's surface, there could be no observable 24 hour day.

Now I admit that I am drawing conclusions from the text. But so do those who claim that verse one is a summary statement and that the earth was just sitting there in a total vacuum of darkness without benefit of the universe.

 

[Glory2God]

Paul33,
The main problem with clouds being pulled back to reveal what was already there is the simple fact that God said:
Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And 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 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Now here's the problem, if God set them in the firmament, and the firmament was created when the waters were seperated from the waters, how could they pre-exist Gen 1:3?

What you propose is the exact same teaching as Clarence Larkin in his book Dispensational Truth.
He was hevily influinced by the "scientific findings" of his day. Most of his exegesis is acomidational at best(at least in this area).

I propose the heaven in Gen 1:1 is the abode of the angels(all being created instantaniously). Time,the sabbath, earth are for man.
The term "In the beginning" denotes time, something entirely made for man(Israel to be more specific).

 

[Paul33]

Glory2God,

You are correct in stating that "in the firmament of the heaven" creates a problem. At least in English. Because that literal interpretation places the sun, moon, and stars in the "firmament" which is bounded by water above and water below. Your explanation. Now we know that the sun, moon, and stars are in the stellar heavens, not sandwiched between the water below and the water above. What we would call sky. Your interpretation would have one believe that the sun, moon, and stars are literally in the sky, not the stellar heavens.

And yet, the sun, moon, and stars are visible in the sky.

The solution is cleared up in the Hebrew.

"And God set them" is easily solved in the Hebrew. Literally. "God gave them or brought them forth in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." BDB says "bestow upon". Verse 17 simply says that "God gave them." "In the expanse of the sky" tells us how they were seen. But the verse doesn't say when. God gave them, but when? In verse 14?

When God says, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night," that doesn't mean he created them on day four. The text doesn't say that. Verse 14 is like verse 3. God says, "Let." God wants the sun, moon, and stars to govern the day and night, and to mark seasons, days, and years. So on day four he brings them forth, or appoints them, or gives them in the expanse by revealing them to the surface of the earth, getting it ready for man!

If my window dressing analogy is correct, God pulled back the translucent curtain to reveal in the clear skies the sun, moon, and stars.

On day one, God thinned the clouds to reveal light. On day four, God cleared the skies to reveal the sun, moon, and stars. On day one, God's purpose was to bring about day and night. On day four, God's purpose was to mark seasons, days, and years, and give "visible" light to the earth.

A translation of Genesis 1:14-17 that is faithful to the Hebrew text:

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God apppointed two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also appointed the stars. 17 God brought them forth in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

As to your interpretation of what heaven means, very creative. But where do you get that from the text? Shamayim means heaven or sky. Throughout Scripture, the context determines whether stellar heavens is the meaning, or sky. Can you show me somewhere in Scripture where heavens means angels?

The sun, moon, and stars preexist verse three because they were formed when God created the universe in verse one. The universe (heavens) includes all of the stellar bodies. The rest of the OT bears this out.

God created the sun, moon, and stars in verse one when he created the universe. The same sun gives light to the earth on day one (verse 3) and becomes visible on day four (verses 14-18).

We are drawing conclusions, now. But whose conclusions make more sense? The one that proposes that heaven in verese one means angels? Or the one that propses that heaven means universe including the sun, moon and stars?

[ February 21, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
You have to intentionally want to read a conflict to find one between 1 and 2 Paul... of course, you want to do just that.

Genesis two is not stating an order. It is stating a fact. God formed the animals. After the creation of Adam, God allowed Adam to name them. The only problem here is your imagination.

Well, lets just see what it says.

Gen 2:18-19
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Man was alone; God decided to remedy man being alone; the work of remedying man's aloneness was done in two stages. First, the animals were created and brought to him. Afterwards, Eve was created.

These verses aren't secret and what they say has been known for a very long time.

But the chronology of Genesis two is literally fixed by these events:

a) God declared He would make a helper for the man
b) God made the animals
c) God declares they are not suitable as helpers.

You cannot deny that is the order in which they are presented in Genesis Two.

Putting these events in any other order is to declare that Genesis two is not to be interpreted literally.

 

[Paul33]

Paul of Eugene,

The purpose of this thread is to have someone disprove my literal interpretation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, specifically Genesis 1:1 and the following six days of creation.

If you would like to debate the "alleged" discrepancies of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, I would like to suggest that you start a thread on that topic. In fact, if you do, I will join you in "your" discussion of it.

You are raising an interesting problem that I would like to discuss with you on a thread devoted to just that topic. I'm being kind here. So I hope you will take me up on my suggestion.

On this thread, I'm still waiting for someone to show me why my understanding of the Hebrew text is incorrect. I believe that I have a correct and literal understanding of the Hebrew text. If I don't, show me why I don't from the Hebrew text.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

On this thread, I'm still waiting for someone to show me why my understanding of the Hebrew text is incorrect. I believe that I have a correct and literal understanding of the Hebrew text. If I don't, show me why I don't from the Hebrew text.

This sounds a lot like Sailhamer's position.

Your interpretation cannot be "disproven" by the text. That is that, no room for discussion.

As far as your assertions that there may be long periods of time in between - that obviously can neither be disproven nor proven. That is not so much in the area of grammar and syntax but rather theology.

My argument remains that you are retrojecting your views onto the text and letting this guide your interpretation. If science did not suggest an old earth would you espouse this interpretation?

I think context suggests that the narrative should be viewed as describing creation in six days, and not implying anything else.

Obviously your bara/asah arguments are valid. But they cannot be proved or disproved.

 

[El_Guero]

Charles You are correct

If my window dressing analogy is correct, God pulled back the translucent curtain to reveal in the clear skies the sun, moon, and stars.
...
We are drawing conclusions, now. But whose conclusions make more sense? The one that proposes that heaven in verese one means angels? Or the one that propses that heaven means universe including the sun, moon and stars?

Paul is reading into the text and not allowing the text to read out from itself.

Paul I am NOT saying that the process is EASY. I do the same myself, and I have fellow brothers to pull me back when I do it as well.

 

[El_Guero]

Would you do me the favor of giving me some bibliographic data, I will send you some of mine ...

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
You have to intentionally want to read a conflict to find one between 1 and 2 Paul... of course, you want to do just that.

Genesis two is not stating an order. It is stating a fact. God formed the animals. After the creation of Adam, God allowed Adam to name them. The only problem here is your imagination.

Well, lets just see what it says.

Gen 2:18-19
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
NASU

Man was alone; God decided to remedy man being alone; the work of remedying man's aloneness was done in two stages. First, the animals were created and brought to him. Afterwards, Eve was created.

These verses aren't secret and what they say has been known for a very long time.

But the chronology of Genesis two is literally fixed by these events:

a) God declared He would make a helper for the man
b) God made the animals
c) God declares they are not suitable as helpers.

You cannot deny that is the order in which they are presented in Genesis Two.

Putting these events in any other order is to declare that Genesis two is not to be interpreted literally. </font>[/QUOTE]You are intentionally trying to deny the validity of scripture.

There is no violation of the literal interpretation in reading reading the first phrase of vs 19 "...sky" as parenthetical. The account was given in detail showing that man was the last created lifeform.

You have swallowed evolution's camel while straining out this gnat. That represents a low view of scripture... you require that scripture submit to naturalistic interpretations of science when the two disagree.

Sorry. God's Word is true. Interpretations of general revelation are to be subjected to the Bible... not vice versa.

 

[Paul33]

Is it possible, Charles and El Guero, that you are letting YEC influence your reading of the text?

A straight forward reading of the text does not require, nor has it ever required, that the universe be understood to have been created in six days.

Does verse two say that the Holy Spirit hovered over the face of the waters? Yes or no?

If yes, how long?

Does Ex. 20:11 say that the universe was created in six days? Yes or No. The answer to what "shamayim, eres, and yam" mean should come from the text being referenced. Well? What does Genesis 1:6-10 refer to? The universe? No!!! It refers to the sky, land, and sea which was filled with birds, animals and man, and living creatures.

Charles and El Geuro, I think you are reading your presuppositions into the text - presuppositions that you are unwilling to let the Hebrew text challenge.

Tell me why you can't accept what I believe to be the literal and original meaning of the Hebrew text - a meaning that I think every Hebrew reader understood from the hand of Moses.

These are the facts. Dispute them if you can.

God created the universe, including the earth (v. 1). This is not a summary statement. This is a factual statement that God created out of nothing the universe (the heavens and the earth). The rest of Scripture backs this up, describing a universe that has been stretched out and an earth that had a foundation.

God described the condition of the earth and the Holy Spirit hovered indefinately (v. 2). Job described this same earth in almost identical terms!

God fashioned the earth's biosphere in six days (v. 3ff.).

How can anyone say that this is not a straight forward reading? Help me out, guys. The context and the text is so clear that I am baffled that anyone disagrees with this, especially literalists.

You say I'm reading into this my presuppositions, but you never say how. What exactly is my presupposition supposed to be?

I do have a presupposition. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, and that a study of the Hebrew text will reveal truth about the creation of the universe.

I've already summarized that truth. How am I wrong? You say that the text can't prove or disprove my interpretation, but then imply that I'm reading into the text. Tell me how?!

Better yet, tell me why you're not?

 

[Paul33]

Charles and El Guero,

Why don't you spell out for me what you believe a literal reading of the text is.

Tell me:

What did God create in verse one?

What did God do in verse two?

What did God fashion in verse three and following?

How many days did it take God to create the universe? Show me from the text.

Here I am pouring my heart out to you guys, and I realized that you haven't said anything about what you believe the text literally says. So what do you say it says that I'm in conflict with your understanding?

 

[El_Guero]

Paul,

I have never told you what I believe. I have not even told you what I have exegeted.

And you ask me to prove you wrong ...

 

[Paul33]

That's my point! You say I'm reading into the text. That implies you have a different understanding. What is it?

 

[El_Guero]

I have read the ENTIRE Bible (Contents to Maps).

I have re-read Genesis Chapters 1 - 3.

I have already read over 1,000 pages as I prepare to study [exegete] Genesis chapters 1 - 3.

Me? I am still gathering background information before I attempt to exegete.

Your need to believe the gap theory IS NOT any of my concern.

But, conservative scholarship does not hold that a modified Gap theory is necessary for God's Word to be True.

 

[El_Guero]

Paul,

NNE understood Genesis in that manner before Gorman Gray. Not Moses, Not Paul, Not Calvin, and Not Jesus.

 

[Paul33]

El Guero,

I am disappointed in your response. I have sited just some of the many Scriptures that speak of the "foundation of the earth" and the heavens being the universe.

I have discussed Hebrew terms in their context again and again. You give me absolutely nothing!

You accuse me of believing in the gap theory, which I don't; of eisegesis, without supporting evidence.

I believe God's Word is true. That is why I study the Hebrew text!

Your comments about Gorman Gray reveal to me that you have not read his book.

Instead of attacking Gorman Gray, why don't you share with me what you believe Genesis 1:1-3 says. Is that so hard?

El Guero, just tell me what the text means, ok?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Paul33,

God created the universe, including the earth (v. 1).

Agreed.

This is not a summary statement.

You don't know that - and the text doesn't sayone way or another.

This is a factual statement that God created out of nothing the universe (the heavens and the earth). The rest of Scripture backs this up, describing a universe that has been stretched out and an earth that had a foundation.

OK.

God described the condition of the earth and the Holy Spirit hovered indefinately (v. 2). Job described this same earth in almost identical terms!

The Spirit hovered. We don't know for how long.

God fashioned the earth's biosphere in six days (v. 3ff.).

How can anyone say that this is not a straight forward reading? Help me out, guys. The context and the text is so clear that I am baffled that anyone disagrees with this, especially literalists.

Your statements that 1:1 is not a summary statement and that the Spirit hovered "indefinitely" are not clear from the text alone.

You say I'm reading into this my presuppositions, but you never say how. What exactly is my presupposition supposed to be?

I understand the reading of the text. And I do think it is to be taken literally. That is to say I do think that it tells a story of total creation in 6 days.

My reading of your "presuppositions" is that you want Genesis to be able to accomodate an old earth. That's fine. But the text does not IMPLY anything of the like. It neither agrees nor disagrees on a purely grammatical/syntactical level.

My OWN presupposition is that the text implies that the earth was created ex nihilo in 6 days. But this is NOT DISCERNED FROM THE GRAMMAR of the text but rather from literary style and other historical and cultural factors.

I'm not saying that you are wrong - but I think you're reading just a little bit into the text!

 

[Paul33]

We agree that the Spirit hovered and that we don't know for how long. Right?

If we are agreed on that. Then neither one of us can say from the text that the univese was or wasn't created in six days. Right?

From what you've written, I think we are in agreement. My point from the beginning is that the text does not say the universe was or wasn't created in six days. The text doesn't give us that information.