Skeptic Complaint: The first of two contradictory creation accounts. Compare with Genesis 2:4-25 in which the order of events is entirely different.
The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.
In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.
In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3) and the sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. (Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Genesis 1 http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...)
There are two creation accounts, as it was common for texts of that time period to repeat themselves. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.
The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn"t say.
Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)
Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)
Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)
Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You are basically saying that genesis is somewhat compatible with what we currently know if you can fudge a few details.
If god was anything close to perfection he would not have used 1 day to describe millions of years.
If he has a brain of a monkey he would have at least used Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 etc...
Stop proving to us how incompetent, unreliable and wrong was the author of the genesis story, please.
edit:
Can't you see that if you need to fix god's mistakes in delivering a message, it means that he cannot even deliver a message that petty human beings can easily understand.
The fact that he needs humans to deliver a message is in itself a sign of incredible incompetence.
Having another human like you to fix the errors in the message he supposedly delivered is intelligence insulting.
Jeff: "You are basically saying that genesis is somewhat compatible with what we currently know if you can fudge a few details."
Pathway: No, because I don't think that we know that much.
Jeff: "If god was anything close to perfection he would not have used 1 day to describe millions of years.
If he has a brain of a monkey he would have at least used Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 etc..."
Pathway: If you look up day in the dictionary it gives the following definition. "1. a period of twenty-four hours as a unit of time, reckoned from one midnight to the next, corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis." and "2. a particular period of the past; an era."
The term day is used in the Bible like that. For example, it is used in three different ways in just the brief creation account. A day being 24 hours, a day being the daylight hours only, and all six of the creation days being 1. Just like we use them today.
Jeff: "Stop proving to us how incompetent, unreliable and wrong was the author of the genesis story, please."
Pathway: Could I suggest that we drop the immature superiority complex of the atheist and approach the subject as adults?
How does your reply even answer the problem I presented to you?
1)A perfect god would never put a meaning which can be misunderstood so easily.
2)I still do not get how from a day he meant millions of years, your excuse simple does not answer this other problem.
I am immature because I concluded that the author is "incompetent, unreliable and wrong"?
Or because I am tired of hearing theists think that what they are saying makes perfect sens when it is proven that it does not.
You failed to even address one of the two problems I mentioned.(1,2)
I would consider that immaturity.
Jeff,
My reply answers the problem you presented to me by informing you that the term day doesn't exclusively mean 24 hours. You're not stupid, you're just allowing emotion to cloud your observation, and you are trying to obscure the topic by making statements insulting a being that you don't believe exists.
Why? Just deal with the topic.
Address the topic as if you were in a courtroom and God was on trial. If you were asked a question or shown something for you to explain, defend or refute, how would you respond? By addressing the topic or bringing up all sorts of unreasonable protests that have nothing to do with the question or exhibit before you? Which do you think would serve your purpose against God as a credible witness against Him?
None of us have any idea what a "perfect god" would and wouldn't do.
The meaning is not misunderstood easily.
The term doesn't mean millions of years or a day specifically it could be any period of time, just as we use it today.
My grandfather's day didn't consist of a literal 24 hour period. The term today could mean within a 24 hour period or the 12 hour daylight period, or the 8 hour work day.
Like I said. You're not stupid!
I have read your post over and over again.
It does not matter if a day could mean loosely a 100 years instead of 1 single day, it definitely does not mean millions of years.
How you could push the meaning of a day so much is beyond me.
Worse then that, claim that an omniscient being would allow such a confusion to happen in his message.
If someone wanted to make sure a message arrives he will give it as clear as day, not with a word that could mean 3 different things.
Though, it does not matter that much since there is evidence that suggests that the creation story and the ark story come from a Jewish version of Babylonian myths.
The Jews after the Babylonian exile started inserting claims/prophecies in their own historical prophets to control the Jewish people, which were influenced/inspired by the Babylonian culture.
"making statements insulting a being that you don't believe exists."
I am not insulting a being I am exposing the theistic claim for what it is.
You cannot insult a claim.
The claim is presenting an evil god as a loving one.
It is not consistent with logic and thus you cannot make it.
You cannot make a claim that is contradictory in itself
Like claiming that a cat is a dog.
You are claiming that an evil god is a good god.
Simply illogical, it has nothing to do with my emotions at all.
This is the problem, you so much find it shocking that I see your claimed god to be evil, that you cannot analyze the god objectively at all, and thus think it MUST be my bias.
I honestly think there cannot be a more evil character imaginable.
If theists claim that he is omniscient, omnipotent and loving, then they cannot ignore the implications that comes with such attributes like they always do.
I am putting god on trial and he comes guilty of the things I listed in my previous posts.
He willfully created death even if he could have easily avoided it.
Why is death even needed if god can achieve the same beneficial effects(if any) without the need of the suffering that comes with death?
"None of us have any idea what a "perfect god" would and wouldn't do."
Why do you try to exonerate god from what the theist believe he actually created and engineered?
I have an idea what a decent person would do and god does not even qualify to be a decent person.
"Address the topic as if you were in a courtroom and God was on trial."
I think I am the only one here doing that.
The crime of creating death, a dead line before judgement instead of giving people a choice when they are ready, is an immoral crime.
A decent person would wait for others to be ready, not put a deadline, and when they are ready to join god willingly, they would choose to do so or not, and no punishment would be given if they don't.
That is what a decent person would do but the theist god is not even decent.
Guilty of being an immoral tyrant.
Perfect for the bad guy in a story but somehow theists view him as the good guy.
I just cannot call this anything but insanity.
It is not my anger or bias which arrives at this conclusion but pure logic and honesty.
Indoctrination makes people insane.
The problem is that you haven't yet asked those questions yourself with proper understanding of god's claimed attributes.
If you do, you cannot fail to see that the theistic god has no love what so ever, and humans are like his lab rats that he can punish at his will if they do things he does not like.
Mention one good action the theistic god did, that shows perfect love?
Jeff.
I apologize for the lateness of the response here, I thought I had responded to it but apparently I haven't.
Jeff: It does not matter if a day could mean loosely a 100 years instead of 1 single day, it definitely does not mean millions of years.
How you could push the meaning of a day so much is beyond me.
Worse then that, claim that an omniscient being would allow such a confusion to happen in his message.
If someone wanted to make sure a message arrives he will give it as clear as day, not with a word that could mean 3 different things.
Pathway: Tell you what, I'm working on a new thread called 7 Days in which I can explain this in more detail.
Jeff: Though, it does not matter that much since there is evidence that suggests that the creation story and the ark story come from a Jewish version of Babylonian myths.
The Jews after the Babylonian exile started inserting claims/prophecies in their own historical prophets to control the Jewish people, which were influenced/inspired by the Babylonian culture.
Pathway: I think you are mixing your alleged facts. The notoriously poor academia of higher criticism has tried to encourage the teaching that much of the Bible was written much later than it actually was. They support this by making the assumption that prophecies couldn't be true so they must have been written after the fact. So then they simply ascribe it to Post Exilic and create various authors based upon what words they used to describe God. Its nonsense, and not really on topic. I would like to address it in another thread though, perhaps some time in the future?
Jeff: I am not insulting a being I am exposing the theistic claim for what it is.
You cannot insult a claim.
The claim is presenting an evil god as a loving one.
It is not consistent with logic and thus you cannot make it.
You cannot make a claim that is contradictory in itself
Like claiming that a cat is a dog.
You are claiming that an evil god is a good god.
Simply illogical, it has nothing to do with my emotions at all.
This is the problem, you so much find it shocking that I see your claimed god to be evil, that you cannot analyze the god objectively at all, and thus think it MUST be my bias.
I honestly think there cannot be a more evil character imaginable.
Pathway: Perhaps many theist make the claim that God is good, but I usually don't do that because to me the term is subjective, Its in the eye of the beholder. To me, yes, of course, God is good, but He might not be Good to everyone.I think we discussed this in another thread, maybe that's why I didn't respond to this one.
Jeff: He willfully created death even if he could have easily avoided it.
Why is death even needed if god can achieve the same beneficial effects (if any) without the need of the suffering that comes with death?
Pathway: I don't see how he possibly could have. I want to cover this in a future thread as well, about the Tree Of The Knowledge If Good And Bad, but suffice it to say, God didn't want there to be death and suffering, he tried to avoid it and certainly didn't plan it that way.
Jeff: Why do you try to exonerate god from what the theist believe he actually created and engineered?
I have an idea what a decent person would do and god does not even qualify to be a decent person.
Pathway: Well in the next couple days lets discuss that in the threads I will be introducing, okay? I'd be glad to do that but I kind of want them to be listed in their own threads rather than all strung out in a thread not really devoted specifically to that subject.
Jeff: The problem is that you haven't yet asked those questions yourself with proper understanding of god's claimed attributes.
Pathway: Yes I have. I spend a great deal of time trying to explain the Bible to atheists.
Jeff: If you do, you cannot fail to see that the theistic god has no love what so ever, and humans are like his lab rats that he can punish at his will if they do things he does not like.
Pathway: Perhaps you will see things differently when we explore the Bible some more as I would like to. Maybe not, but at least we will have had some interesting discussions.
Jeff: Mention one good action the theistic god did, that shows perfect love?
Pathway: He created us. Gave us life on a planet that was specifically designed to appeal a great deal to our senses. Remember, we rejected him, he didn't reject us.
"Jeff: He willfully created death even if he could have easily avoided it.
Why is death even needed if god can achieve the same beneficial effects (if any) without the need of the suffering that comes with death?
Pathway: I don't see how he possibly could have. I want to cover this in a future thread as well, about the Tree Of The Knowledge If Good And Bad, but suffice it to say, God didn't want there to be death and suffering, he tried to avoid it and certainly didn't plan it that way."
I hope your replies get better then this.
"God didn't want there to be death and suffering,"
Then why did he create it, knowing beforehand how many people will suffer and in what way since he is omniscient?
"he tried to avoid it and certainly didn't plan it that way."
No he did not, he created everything including "death and suffering,".
Are you seriously claiming god created death and suffering" by mistake?
Are you seriously saying that an omniscient god can do mistakes even if he knows he is going to make them?
That level of incompetence is even worse then i imagined lol
This is what I mean when theists NEVER EVER look at the implications when they claim that a theist god exists.
"I want to cover this in a future thread as well"
Sure start the treads.
"Jeff: Mention one good action the theistic god did, that shows perfect love?"
"Pathway: He created us. Gave us life on a planet that was specifically designed to appeal a great deal to our senses. Remember, we rejected him, he didn't reject us."
Very poor reply.
We created dolly the cow, Genetically engineered it.
Do we love her?
No, we do not.
We did it so we can see if we can do it.
Created 116 monsters before getting one that could reproduce. Dolly
Just because someone creates something, it does not mean love at all.
"Gave us life on a planet that was specifically designed to appeal a great deal to our senses."
Are you serious?
Did you watch the news like ever?
Death, destruction, disease, pain, corruption, injustice, etc....
This planet does not appeal a great deal to us physically, nor morally, but we make do with what we have and enjoy it regardless the way we can if we can at all.
"Remember, we rejected him, he didn't reject us."
That is not true.
Why do you think we rejected him?
For us to reject him he needs to contact us first.
He defiantly did reject me since he never contacted me.
This is what I mean when i say that indoctrination makes insane people.
or worse he did not reject us what?
The bible makes it very clear that god punished us on many instances.
If he did not reject everyone, all Christians would be with him right now, but guess what, they are still here deluding themselves or following the punishment of god called "life of suffering" he himself engineered for them.
Do you think it is moral to punish/reject the son for the sins of the father?
I cannot even begin to prove how immoral the christian god is.
I'm just scratching the surface here.
I am still waiting for an action of a theist god that displays his love.
If god is love why does it seem so hard for you to find me a single action of love we can all agree on?
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
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.
So, plants that depend on photosynthesis were growing before the sun was created ? And you call yourself a skeptic.
I haven't yet started to point out the contradictions yet.
I think the bigger problem is how much he lacks to see how contradictory the theistic concept is.
We just need to quote the bible to point out the contradictions. Our theist friend seems to avoid doing so himself. He prefers to give us his own interpretation.
Chimp: "We just need to quote the bible to point out the contradictions. Our theist friend seems to avoid doing so himself. He prefers to give us his own interpretation."
Pathway: Now we're talking! That's the spirit, Chimp, just point out the alleged contradictions.
Chimp,
In verse 1 it says in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. When I say to you the heavens doesn't that include the sun?
That's the short answer. The sun was created in verse 1, before the days of creation began. Here's the long answer explaining in more detail.
The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
In verse 3 the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.
The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:
A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."
Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."
The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.
The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible.
The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8).
This is having your cake and eating it too. The bible has already been compiled and translated into English, by people who know much more about ancient Hebrew than you or I ever will. If you think they did a shitty job, then you shouldn't reference their work (the English bible). But instead you want to reference their work when it suits your purposes, then alter their work when it does not.
Nyarlathotep,
Actually I have a great deal more data in this modern age, including an understanding of Hebrew, ancient manuscripts, etc, then was available in 1611.
However, even the KJV includes the distinction between created and made as I presented.
I'm not talking about the king James version (nice strawman). I'm talking about modern translations. You don't know near as much as those translators, so stop telling us they did it wrong. If you really believe they did it wrong, you should be talking to them.
Nyarlathotep,
Where did I say they did it wrong? Not that I can't point out where there are disagreements, but I didn't come here to talk to them.
So , are you saying that plants that depend on photosynthesis were growing before the light of the sun was intense enough to be visible?
Chimp,
The light was visible in verse 3.
"The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible."
Please clarify : The "kind" of light that plants use for photosynthesis {sunlight}. Was that available to the plants on the third day?
"The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band."
Please clarify : Why on the third day is "visible" a valid concern when nothing on earth as yet has eyes? Also , the "swaddling band" : I know from personal experience that extended periods of heavy cloud cover inhibit plant growth. Was this "swaddling band" different from heavy cloud cover making photons available to plants for photosynthesis but not available to as of yet uncreated eyeballs ? If so , what is the physical nature of the "swaddling band' and how is it different than heavy cloud cover?
Chimp: Please clarify : Why on the third day is "visible" a valid concern when nothing on earth as yet has eyes? Also , the "swaddling band" : I know from personal experience that extended periods of heavy cloud cover inhibit plant growth. Was this "swaddling band" different from heavy cloud cover making photons available to plants for photosynthesis but not available to as of yet uncreated eyeballs ? If so , what is the physical nature of the "swaddling band' and how is it different than heavy cloud cover?
EXCELLENT! Taking a scientific approach to a critical examination of the Bible.Very rare and interesting indeed!
What we have, linguistically, in Genesis, is the light being diffused, and gradually getting more intense. What we have in Job is the mentioning of a swaddling band around the earth. Most scholars assume this is a debris /vapor cloud in the atmosphere, surrounding the earth early in the planet's construction so that it obfuscated the light. (Job 38:4, 9)
Not a scientific approach PM. I am not a scientist. This is critical argument . Science demands much higher standards. In philosophy an argument can be valid but not true. An argument only has to withstand logical scrutiny to be valid. Job is my favorite book in the Bible{also my fathers - a Pentacostal preacher]. It is my favorite book as it shows the lengths to which humans would go to create mythical events and beings. God makes a gentleman's bet with Satan that Job will not budge in his faith. God allows Satan to kill Jobs sons and daughters , and ruin him financially. Job is little more than a gullible idiot and does not budge. Satan is frustrated. God rewards Job with new sons and daughter , cows , horses and many other chattle. God terrorizes Job with the longest divine speech in the bible. I always like to point out that upon the death of Jobs children the sons are listed by name . The daughters not given a second thought. Many scholars agree that Job is a Greek book - not Jewish- because of the its dramatic form. It is certainly not a scientific text.
Meanwhile you have failed to answer my question . If the swaddling band "Obfuscated the light" did the plants receive necessary photons for photosynthesis?
Chimp,
Yes, ohr is sunlight, maohr is the sun, in this case.In the ancient Hebrew maohr is the source, ohr is the light given by the source.
See above post for reply.
I am still seeking an answer to how plants are growing before visible light appears. Plants use light from the visible blue and red light spectrum. They reflect green light. According to your definition of "day" the third day was a long day. Perhaps an epoch. Plants perish without visible light.
Chimp,
Maybe this will help. Here are the complete version of my own notes on Genesis chapter 1, by verse. To answer your question, the light was visible but the source of the light was not. There was light but at first you couldn't see the sun.
1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
[1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.
At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.
2. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
[2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.
The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1)
3. And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
[3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.
The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action:
A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence."
Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]."
The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.
4. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided between the light and the darkness.
[4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day.
[5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15)
The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)
6. And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters.
[6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.
7. And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.
[7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)
8. And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a second day.
9. And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry [land] appear. And it was so.
10. And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11. And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit-trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so.
[11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses.
In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.
12. And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a third day.
14. And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
[14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [3]
The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term “sign” is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect. See What The Bible Says About Astrology and Does The Bible Condemn Astrology?
15. and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth. And it was so.
16. And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, -- and the stars.
[16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [1]
17. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light on the earth,
18. and to rule during the day and during the night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fourth day.
20. And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.
[20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul.
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth.
23. And there was evening, and there was morning -- a fifth day.
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so.
[24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah).
25. And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another.
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth.
[26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.
27. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God’s image, and thus deserving respect.
28. And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.
29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you;
30. and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so.
31. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the sixth day.
[31] God’s creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn’t God’s purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven.
The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.
Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)
Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)
Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)
Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)
Pathway Machine - "the light was visible but the source of the light was not. There was light but at first you couldn't see the sun.
LOL, you should just say 'magic', because that is what you are describing, and 'magic' is a hell of a lot less convoluted.
Lengthy but unconvincing. The human beings who wrote Genesis and Job did not know anything about the origins of or the substance of the sun , moon , earth , sky , stars , or space. That is evident from the verses of Genesis themselves. All attempts in recent times to force the square peg of bronzed aged illiteracy into the round hole of modern scientific knowledge is flimsy and fallacious. Face it , the Bible is not a science book. It is mythology . The mythology of a lineage of death cults. I write this on Easter Sunday , the celebration of a bloody death rite which magically brings eternal life to us all. No different than any other death cult through out history.
For the record, this is an atheist's site where it is not the place to consider, or even reconsider the ramblings of anything borne of the metaphysically indoctrinated demographic. I think this particular Pathway Machine cat needs some ousting, or at least similar treatment to the K man. He has his own world to haunt, which is probably quite weary of him for their own reasons. I mean, he's sound very much like the Yeishua ha-Notzri the Jews themselves stoned and hung from a tree to rot, which I believe is where the crucifixion myth evolved from.
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
Pitar: Blah, blah, blah . . .
PM: All I hear is the ocean. Like putting my ear up against an empty shell.
Pages