The Creation Account

[anna274]

...what are your thoughts on creation out of nothing... somewhere I read that that has become a "plausible hypothesis" ???

The universe is mostly empty space, the galaxy is mostly empty space, the solar system is mostly empty space, and the atoms are mostly empty space.  God made space and matter, but the amount of matter, as we dig deeper into the "matter," is disappearingly small.  Therefore, creation out of nothing doesn't really take us so very far.  Spoken into existence, our present world/age is not entirely real (it is an image), but the New Earth and the New Heavens will be.

RE: not entirely real... it is an image
Lazarus, I'm not certain I understand what you are sharing... it sounds to me like the physical is not real??? in which case, I offer a Scripture that causes me to reflect a bit ...

Luke 24:36-39
Now while they were talking about this, Jesus Himself took His stand among them and said to them, Peace (freedom from all the distresses that are experienced as the result of sin) be to you!

But they were so startled and terrified that they thought they saw a spirit.

And He said to them, Why are you disturbed and troubled, and why do such doubts and questionings arise in your hearts?

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself!  Feel and handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.

[Seth]

Luke 24:36-39
Now while they were talking about this, Jesus Himself took His stand among them and said to them, Peace (freedom from all the distresses that are experienced as the result of sin) be to you!

But they were so startled and terrified that they thought they saw a spirit.

And He said to them, Why are you disturbed and troubled, and why do such doubts and questionings arise in your hearts?

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself!  Feel and handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.

This is what I am really getting at. I am totally on board with the spiritual implications of the light being called by God into the darkness being Jesus Christ born into the flesh to divide light from dark by giving truth....

But what I want to know is where do you guys fall in the LITERAL account of Genesis? Do you believe it was 6 24 hour days? Do you believe it was 6 long day (AGES)? Is it a literal account at all? Is it a parable ONLY told using the literal ways God formed the universe, but told out of order?

[anna274]

Hi Seth:  again thanks for starting this thread. 
re:  young earth/old earth

I've quieted my mind and heart regarding what I find to be unexplainable/unanswerable (humanly speaking )  :) about the "creation account"

by asking yet another question If God "could" create a mature man (Adam) can He not also create a mature earth???   just some thoughts which are neither random nor carved in stone...

Rom 5:14 tells us that Adam is a figure of the One Who (Jesus) is to come...
Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was about thirty years old when He BEGAN His public ministry
Numbers 4:3 tells us that men become eligible to serve in the Tabernacle when they turn 30 years old...

so I'm thinking that Adam was created a mature man (30 years old)  so how old is a mature earth????

An interesting aside: 

Gen 5
v 3   And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a on in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth
v 4   And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters.
v 5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

oops...  just read your latest post...   at this point I believe that the numbers used in discussing days, years, etc., are important... so if the earth is literally 7000 years old (please note, I said "if")  physical reality=7000 years old; it's the 7 that gives us the spiritual truth... it doesn't so much matter how many hours there are in a day, etc.,  I need to think and pray about this some more...

[Seth]

I've quieted my mind and heart regarding what I find to be unexplainable/unanswerable (humanly speaking )  :) about the "creation account"

This is the interesting thing, and is why I brought up the subject. Usually the debate is that the creation account doesn't square with science. Actually, it doesn't technically even seem to square with itself! In other words, it seems to sidestep any real attempt to explain the actual origin of the physical universe just by its own telling.

This would remove all necessity for Athiests and Creationists to use Genesis 1 as a way to compete philosophies. The way Genesis 1 reads, you'd almost need to take it out of the science realm altogether, that God isn't even attempting to explain the origins of the physical universe sequentially or realistically.

[gregoryfl]

Interesting information!

So the text would read "Day one, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day." as you said.

What do you draw from this concerning the literal account?

Exactly.  There are different elements to the entirety of this account, done in Eastern semitic thoughtform. The fact that days' 2-5 do not contain the definite article 'the' (in spite of the mistranslations of most English versions), tells us that these days are not in chronological order, but are being grouped in a poetic parallelism (three days of בדל (separation)) (three days of ברא (hewing creatively)).
Most mistakenly think that there was no sun, moon, and stars until day 4, but that is not what the Hebrew says. All of the materials for creation were present back in verse 1, ready to go...similar to someone having all the parts and materials for a model plane laid out on the table. The sun, moon and stars were there from before day 1, but were not עשה (designated by fashioning) as such until day 4, simply because they were not needed as such until the first life appeared in the form of plantlife. Father then designated the agricultural clock to rule over each day and night, which has continued season after season until this day. Such a designation was not needed until plantlife came to be. This is similar to bringing together a group of men to play football. As they play together, one of them ends up being designated to be captain of the team. This does not mean he was not functioning as such before then, or worse yet, not on the team, but was simply not designated officially as a captain until later on. He was on the team from day 1 and showed the character of a captain, even before he was עשה by the coach.
The completion of his מלאכה (work done by sending his word as a messenger) is emphasized by the first use of the definite article in day 6. This is then followed by the continual completed state of שבת (ceasing) pictured as 'the' seventh day...continual because, even though there was technically an eighth day, the seventh day does not contain the phrase 'and there was evening, and there was morning'.
I will leave it at this for now, as I know the dangers of too much info in a post. Hopefully this at least gives some food for thought from one who is of an Eastern Semitic mindset.

The phrase 'evening and morning' gives us a definition of what יום is being referred to. As an aside, I read one of the posts referring to the 'evenings and mornings' in Daniel 8:26. This is a reference to the evening and morning sacrifices, which could be counted so as to know when they were made to cease, as the context shows.

Ronen

[Seth]

Interesting information!

So the text would read "Day one, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day." as you said.

What do you draw from this concerning the literal account?

Exactly.  There are different elements to the entirety of this account, done in Eastern semitic thoughtform. The fact that days' 2-5 do not contain the definite article 'the' (in spite of the mistranslations of most English versions), tells us that these days are not in chronological order, but are being grouped in a poetic parallelism (three days of בדל (separation)) (three days of ברא (hewing creatively)).
Most mistakenly think that there was no sun, moon, and stars until day 4, but that is not what the Hebrew says. All of the materials for creation were present back in verse 1, ready to go...similar to someone having all the parts and materials for a model plane laid out on the table. The sun, moon and stars were there from before day 1, but were not עשה (designated by fashioning) as such until day 4, simply because they were not needed as such until the first life appeared in the form of plantlife. Father then designated the agricultural clock to rule over each day and night, which has continued season after season until this day. Such a designation was not needed until plantlife came to be. This is similar to bringing together a group of men to play football. As they play together, one of them ends up being designated to be captain of the team. This does not mean he was not functioning as such before then, or worse yet, not on the team, but was simply not designated officially as a captain until later on. He was on the team from day 1 and showed the character of a captain, even before he was עשה by the coach.
The completion of his מלאכה (work done by sending his word as a messenger) is emphasized by the first use of the definite article in day 6. This is then followed by the continual completed state of שבת (ceasing) pictured as 'the' seventh day...continual because, even though there was technically an eighth day, the seventh day does not contain the phrase 'and there was evening, and there was morning'.
I will leave it at this for now, as I know the dangers of too much info in a post. Hopefully this at least gives some food for thought from one who is of an Eastern Semitic mindset.

The phrase 'evening and morning' gives us a definition of what יום is being referred to. As an aside, I read one of the posts referring to the 'evenings and mornings' in Daniel 8:26. This is a reference to the evening and morning sacrifices, which could be counted so as to know when they were made to cease, as the context shows.

Ronen

This is very interesting info and entirely new to me. Do you have any online articles or sites you can point me to for any further info?

[gregoryfl]

One more thing I wished to add. Just as the 2nd-7th days were being grouped, not chronologically, but thematically, so too, what is referred to as יום אחד (day one) is not speaking of a יום רשון (first day) but rather is being descriptive the type of day...concretely speaking of a honed day; of evening and morning (2 parts) honed into one unit called 'day'. The next use of this type of phrase is found in Bereshiyt 2:24, where man and woman (2 humans) become honed into one unit which we call 'marriage'.

Ronen

[Seth]

Your explanation certainly would resolve the fourth day problem. Also, are you saying that the Genesis 1 account does not explain God's creation of matter itself? In other words, does the explanation assume that physical matter itself is eternal and not been created by God?

Also, one of the Young Earth arguments to a sequential telling is based off this exodus verse:

Exodus 20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What would your response be to that argument?

[WhiteWings]

Don't think for a minute that Laz knows all the answers!  But then again, don't think for a minute that when God said, "Let there be light," that that light came from the sun, for the text does not say that. 

I agree. And it's something that I don't think many Christians consider who insist on a 6,000 year old earth.

Jews hold another view.
Mankind is 6000 years old.
The days before Adam are God's calendar.

[gregoryfl]

Your explanation certainly would resolve the fourth day problem. Also, are you saying that the Genesis 1 account does not explain God's creation of matter itself? In other words, does the explanation assume that physical matter itself is eternal and not been created by God?

What I understand is that it indeed explains God's creation of matter. That is found in verse 1. The rest of the narrative I see explaining how he advanced upon that creation to bring it to completion by the sixth day. I do not believe matter is eternal (as in having always existed). However, I do not hold to a creation out of nothing 'ex nihilo', but instead, of our Father ברא (preparedly hewing), which is what the concrete meaning we know of as 'create' is, all that exists out of Himself. As Paul said 'all is out of him...'
In short, rather than creation out of nothing, I hold to a creation out of God.

The sages say this took place by His sending his word, the specific combinations of letters, consisting of the vibrations of sounds making up all matter. The smallest particles of matter are essentially vibrations in space time fabric. Those combinations of sound, in the hands of our Creator, formed the basis of all that exists, and also is held together by them. This I see consistent with what Paul wrote concerning the 'Word' who became the Mashiach of God... (Col 1:16,17) that by him all things exist and are held together.

Also, one of the Young Earth arguments to a sequential telling is based off this exodus verse:

Exodus 20
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What would your response be to that argument?

This text tells me, not that he ברא (created) everything in six days, but that he עשה (made) them, which is exactly consistent with what I shared in my other post. That which took place in Bereshiyt 1:3 and onward, only accounts for what he did with the building blocks already in place in verses 1 and 2 by means of ברא. It does not tell us anything specifically about the length of time in verses 1 and 2.

[gregoryfl]

You may wonder why I keep referring to ברא as 'hewing' rather than 'creating'. The word carries the connotation of cutting something in preparation, for the making of something. Here is one little known use of the word which gives this meaning from a very easy to understand human viewpoint.

(Jos 17:15)
And Joshua answered them, If thou art a great people, then go up to the wood, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim is too narrow for thee.

Here we see that they were to cut down, or hew, a section of trees in the forest to prepare a place for them to live. The word 'cut down' is this word ברא. Same word as in Gen 1:1. In breaking down the letters that define this word (which is my passion) it is a 'hewing' בר for the purpose of 'cultivating' א. God, in a sense, cut or hewed out of himself all that exists. He did this by his word, which comes from within him, his mind, thoughts and plan, if you will. That is why he can be spoken of as being in all things...i.e. He fills heaven and earth...yet not be those things.

Ronen

[Lazarus Short]

...what are your thoughts on creation out of nothing... somewhere I read that that has become a "plausible hypothesis" ???

The universe is mostly empty space, the galaxy is mostly empty space, the solar system is mostly empty space, and the atoms are mostly empty space.  God made space and matter, but the amount of matter, as we dig deeper into the "matter," is disappearingly small.  Therefore, creation out of nothing doesn't really take us so very far.  Spoken into existence, our present world/age is not entirely real (it is an image), but the New Earth and the New Heavens will be.

RE: not entirely real... it is an image
Lazarus, I'm not certain I understand what you are sharing... it sounds to me like the physical is not real??? in which case, I offer a Scripture that causes me to reflect a bit ...

Luke 24:36-39
Now while they were talking about this, Jesus Himself took His stand among them and said to them, Peace (freedom from all the distresses that are experienced as the result of sin) be to you!

But they were so startled and terrified that they thought they saw a spirit.

And He said to them, Why are you disturbed and troubled, and why do such doubts and questionings arise in your hearts?

See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself!  Feel and handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.

Well, I see it this way:  The spiritual/invisible world came first, and that makes it real reality, if that makes sense to you.  At the Creation, the earthly/visible world was made, and being not a part of the original reality, it is less real than the spiritual/invisible realm.  Of course it is/seems very real to us on this side of the veil, but that will change when we step over...

[anna274]

Thanks Lazarus for the explanation.

re: "...if that makes sense to you."

Yes, it makes sense to me-- philosophical sense;  it's just that I have great need to learn 'what saith the scriptures'.

[marie glen]

The problem for the Young Earth View:

Resolving the concept of measuring "days" as a 24 hour period before the appearance of the sun in the fourth "day" being that the sun and moon were created with the purpose to make those measurements. Why did he create lights in the heavens on the fourth day "to separate the day from the night" when this separation was said to be already done in the first "day?" Also, resolving what is the "light" that God said to "be," seeing as though God already is Light, so what is the light he spoke into existence as distinct from himself, if the sun itself were not created until the fourth day?

..but isn't that kind of like saying before the clock was created, there wasn't time? :Chinscratch: ?  :smile:

The problem for the Old Earth View:

Resolving the fact that the sun was made in the fourth day and after the third day, but that vegetation was created in the third day. How did vegetation exist without the sun for supposed millions of years between "days" before the sun appears? Obviously, vegetation needs photosynthesis (from what we now understand). And, obviously there was light from the first day to the fourth day....but not from the sun as we know from the fourth day. What was the physical light coming from, if not the sun?

   :thumbsup:

To me it seems a stretch to think that the writer of the creation story as inspired by God was unaware of all these strange issues. It seems intentional to me.

To me, there is way more mystery in this short account than either Old Earth or Young Earth proponents allow or resolve. It's almost like the author of the creation account is not even intending to represent creation how it actually happened, but using physical creation as a parable of some kind and leaving the details of actual creation as a mystery to be solved by science.

God says in other passages that he created all things, but I am wondering if the Genesis account is really the place to find the literal way he created them. I can say this with the knowledge that many things in the Bible have been misunderstood and that by intentional misdirect from God (Christ's parables for example, intended to conceal the kingdom mysteries.)

God outright says that he creates mysteries, so I am just wondering out loud about this one. Am I not seeing it correctly? What are your ideas that might resolve the issues for a literal account? What do you think about the possibility that it's not a literal account?

Maybe there is something I am not seeing that resolves the literal account within itself? Open to all thoughts/ideas.

Very interesting! Even before reading further in this thread..

I have a strong tendency of leaning towards the very literal of "yom", "one evening and one morning a day".

I don't think of this description as the how.. (a big bang tho I would think what with elements moving around so quickly in one day:)

but just a overall description.. and I don't trust science to find the answers.. but when we need to know, by prayer and waiting upon Him, one would begin to know..

I guess i'm pretty much a diehard literalist as i see otherwise as a Pandora's box leading to confusion, as to what's literal and what's myth.. (except prophecy which makes use of symbols.. literal events depicted by symbols)

   ?  :smile: God bless

[marie glen]

Here is another for consideration.

Gen 1:26 gives an account of humans being made, yet Gen 2:7 (following the 7th day of rest) gives amother different account where Father specifically breathes spirit into the man just created.

This does not indicate the ,8th day, just a time following. We know Cain went to another land filled with an unaccounted for people, which might have stemmed from the first creation story. Father created the garden of Eden and placed Adam and Eve in it at some later time. Possibly 1,000's of years later.

Just good for thought.  :Peace2:

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

Hi Julie  :smile: i've always thought of this as an insert.. like in a history book or magazine, an insert that provides more info on a certain thing.. just food for thought too.. theory :laughing7:

[marie glen]

In the Beginning [TIME], God [SPIRIT] created [ENERGY] the Heavens [SPACE] and the Earth [MATTER].  How about that, there are the four fundamental building blocks of physics, time, space, energy, and matter, plus Spirit "the Fifth Element," which more and more scientists are coming to see as necessary in the grand scheme of things.

..that's awesome! :))

[marie glen]

OUT OF LOVE, FOR HIS GLORY, GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS.

:thumbsup: sounds kool!

..thoughts on creation out of nothing... somewhere I read that that has become a "plausible hypothesis" ???

i think of "In the beginning God" so think of everything made as made out of one thing, one substance or essence.. God...

I continue to look at John 17 for what I think is a basic outline of God's glorious plan to bring all to be with Him for all eternity.

awesome! i love that chapter,  :Chinscratch: i'm off to read it..  :dsunny:
I had planned on not posting for a few weeks on the few Christian forums that I visit often, but it seems that man plans, but God directs our steps.
[/quote]

[eaglesway]

For awhile now, I keep thinking..if the earth is only 7,000 literal years old, what was Eternal God doing for all that "time" before that?   

Why do you/we think God would be so secretive about it?  I honestly don't know, except somehow it's for our benefit and His glory, but that leaves a whole lot of "blanks"... trust, right?  :)

Re:  what was Eternal God doing... before???

What saith the Scriptures?

but first, my very brief commentary :)

It seems to me that in John 17, Jesus tells us what He and His Father were doing before....     sharing love and glory, discussing God's glorious plan to bring ALL to be with Him for ALL eternity.

Just three verses (I encourage all to read all of John Chapter 17)

John 17
v 5   Now, Father, bring me into the glory we shared BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.
v 8   for I have passed on to them the message You gave me.  They accepted it and know that I came from You, and they BELIEVE YOU SENT ME.
v 24  Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am.  Then they can see all the glory You gave Me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.

Great post.

Not to mention that I am sure they were also just loving each other an hangin out enjoying one another's company :o)

[Seth]

The problem for the Young Earth View:

Resolving the concept of measuring "days" as a 24 hour period before the appearance of the sun in the fourth "day" being that the sun and moon were created with the purpose to make those measurements. Why did he create lights in the heavens on the fourth day "to separate the day from the night" when this separation was said to be already done in the first "day?" Also, resolving what is the "light" that God said to "be," seeing as though God already is Light, so what is the light he spoke into existence as distinct from himself, if the sun itself were not created until the fourth day?

..but isn't that kind of like saying before the clock was created, there wasn't time? :Chinscratch: ?  :smile:

But the question is, how is time measured? We know a 24 hour day from the rotation of the earth in accordance with the sun. Not only that, Jesus said that a day is 12 hours, not 24 hours, and the word "yom" is used to mean all different kinds of times in the Bible, as in a day of judgment for Israel, or the day of Moses. It can refer to an era, rather than a single day.

Notwithstanding all that, the sun was created on the fourth day. So the Young Earth literal view loses some credibility with me because it's hard to prove that the days were 24 hours, when there was no sun.

It's not saying there was no time. But there is no saying for certain how GOD was measuring that time, especially before the fourth day. There is no proof that God was measuring "day" at that point the same way man does now according the sun and moon, when God hadn't yet created the sun and moon to use for these measurements.

I think WhiteWings alluded to this when he said that the Jews view the creation account from the perspective of God time rather than man's time. With God a day can be as a thousand years...

I think Ronen has an interesting idea of how the days may not be sequential as well. Either way, to me I used to be resistant to not taking the Genesis account literally, until I really started to read the text, and saw that the text itself is much more complicated than I had thought, and that the text itself seems to be resisting a simple, literal reading as to a series of 24 hour days.

[eaglesway]

To me it is literal, as periods of time, but even so - it is clear that there were no 24 hour days before the sun and the moon and the stars were created. The word, yom, gives no indication of the exact duration of the "day" it refers to since yom, throughout the scriptures is used to refer to periods of time with various durations.

[Seth]

To me it is literal, as periods of time, but even so - it is clear that there were no 24 hour days before the sun and the moon and the stars were created. The word, yom, gives no indication of the exact duration of the "day" it refers to since yom, throughout the scriptures is used to refer to periods of time with various durations.

It seems to me that God is using the literal creation but explaining it in a mysterious way. Even if the "yom" is a long period of time, what does that say about how plant life in the third "day" engaged in photosynthesis without the sun on the fourth "day?" This would make the earth older than the sun by thousands/millions/billions of years. The plant life would have to subsist on a source of physical light coming from a mysterious source. We can always defer to the miraculous for an answer, but if so, it's equally valid to question whether or not God even intends for us to take Genesis 1 as a sequential, literal account.

[Seth]

What I am wondering is if God rearranged the account in order to create a prophecy about Christ, rather than showing us how the universe was actually created. Maybe God is USING his creation to tell a story of Jesus, and therefore using the parts to form the prophecy without regard for how creation actually happened. All throughout the Bible God used literal things to reveal Christ. Maybe God is doing that with the creation story itself, and therefore his goal with Genesis 1 is different than we thought.

I am wondering if God is allowing scientists to discover how the universe was created (by God). But in Genesis 1, God is taking all the elements and putting them together to teach about Christ, something science cannot do.

In the beginning was the Word. Maybe that is why God started with "let there be Light" even though the sun was created on the fourth day, as if to say that the Word is the true light from which creation may distinguish the dark (evil) from light (good) regardless of the physical light. Just something I am wondering...

[sheila]

....... :2c:   what I understand of it[not much!]  is the Ancient of Days is actually the Great Day....

  where the heavens are all rolled up into one place[TODAY] like a scroll....  the heavens...sun moon stars etc

  as keepers of time/days/seasons/ages...time all rolled up into TODAY.

  imagine the linear time as a long long scroll...that when it is rolled up it is no longer linear

   but spiraled togather in one place[book of life/creation]

   the ancient of days exists before He writes/speaks the creation into existence.......

  I AM the first and the last[of the scroll of life He writes] the beginning and the end[of the scroll]

   He exists when it is finished..and rests..... the new creation is already written into the scroll of life

     a golden thread all the way through it........from Genesis  prophecy of the woman's seed

to the end call to come drink lifes water free

   since He is Light..it is always TODAY[Day] where He is....He knows what dwells in the darkness

[like when we were being formed in the lowest parts of the earth[woman's womb]

   the thing is to remember..the creation as He writes it[or speaks it as WORD] is first the natural

...then the spiritual.....and according to where are place is written or prepared for us in this scroll

we roll up[return into the heavens..or come down..into the natural..through this linear 'time' design

[Seth]

I like that way of thinking about it. I don't think in terms of timeLESSness, but rather a higher dimension of time that our minds cannot yet grapple with. We will see as in a clear mirror soon enough. I think the scroll metaphor is a good one to consider...

[anna274]

Thanks Seth and Sheila


re: ...the scroll metaphor is a good one to consider.  I agree wholeheartedly!! :)
re: ...creation as He writes it [or speaks it as WORD] is first the natural... then the spiritual

Much, much tasty (taste and see) food to consider or as the Bereans ...search the Scriptures...always keeping in mind, of course, to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.