The Creation Account

[gregoryfl]

What I am wondering is if God rearranged the account in order to create a prophecy about Christ... 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...

The patterns do indeed reveal Mashiach. Even though the sun, moon, and stars were in their raw material present from even before what is called 'active period one', one of the reasons (aside from the natural agricultural timeclock) they are not designated as light sources until what is called 'a fourth active period' has to do with Mashiach.

He is also spoken about in the pattern of 3, 30, and 300, in which are hidden all throughout the scripture prophecy speaking of his death, burial, and resurrection.

There is life on the earth from day 1, even though it is not directly mentioned. Here is why I see that.

Like I said, all the raw materials for heaven and earth were already present from verse 1.

The condition of the earth in verse 2, being under water, was in a buried state.

The prophet states (using the pattern of 3) After two days he will revive us. On the third day he will raise us up, and we will live before him. (Hos 6:2). We also need to see verse 3 with this as well, which goes on to say...Let us acknowledge YHWH. Let us press on to know YHWH. As surely as the sun rises, YHWH will appear. He will come to us like the rain, like the spring rain that waters the earth."


On the first active period, he reveals the light out of the darkness, which Paul declares to be about the glory of the good news shining in our formerly dark hearts. The light was always there, just hidden by the darkness, waiting to be revealed. Also, as it is written...As surely as the sun rises, YHWH will appear.

On a second active period, he reveals the atmosphere we call 'sky', by dividing the waters vertically. This creates what is needed for 'life', which is concretely understood to be animation by the act of breathing. Without the sky, life on earth would be impossible. After 2 days he will revive (chayahnu...breathe us). With the sky being revealed, the conditions are also there for rain to occur. As it is written...He will come to us like the rain...

On a third active period, he now proceeds to reveal the yabbashah 'dry ground', by dividing the waters horizontally, gathering them to one place. This gathering is called 'miqweh' (I use the more ancient pronunciation of Hebrew...w for v). This refers to what westerners call 'baptism'. Miqweh also expresses the idea of expectation, of a sure hope, such as Jeremiah writes about...

YHWH, the hope (miqweh) of Israel, all who forsake you shall be disappointed. Those who depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken Yahweh, the spring of living waters. (Jer 17:13)

Now the stage is set for the expectation to be revealed. On the third day we now have all of the conditions necessary for the first life to be revealed...as it is written...On the third day he will raise us up, and we will live before him.

What is raised up?

Life from seed. Plantlife, as it rises out of the ground. Indeed, the seed proves to be foundational throughout scripture, pointing to the most important seed, of Israel, of Mashiach, and man in him.

As an aside, there is a possible allusion to the cross in the vertical and horizontal dividing of waters.

The seed was there from day 1, buried in the ground, buried in the waters of miqwah, eagerly awaiting, hoping, expecting...for the light of YHWH to appear, and the removing of all that hides that which provides life. Then, life was revealed out of the ground from which it was hidden, springing from the bondage of the ground into the spaciousness of the atmosphere above. It so happens that the word 'y'shua' concretely means 'spaciousness'.

Beneath the literal layer, it all indeed points, as Yeshua himself said, to himself, speaking of his death, burial, and resurrection on the third day.

Ronen

[Seth]

Very cool Ronen. I think the idea of "A third day" and "A fourth day" is definitely something to think about.

Specifically, what do you think the reason for adding "THE" to the sixth and seventh day would be? How would those two days interact with the others which do not have the definite article "the"?

[gregoryfl]

Very cool Ronen. I think the idea of "A third day" and "A fourth day" is definitely something to think about.

Specifically, what do you think the reason for adding "THE" to the sixth and seventh day would be? How would those two days interact with the others which do not have the definite article "the"?

Shalom Seth,

I wrote this in an earlier post...

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

but will add a little more to it from Shemot 16, which adds witness to this.

Notice that when Israel was told to gather for each of 5 days, they are referred to without ה.

יום ביום, not היום בהיום

Then YHWH said to Moses: Behold Me causing bread from the heavens to rain for you. When the people will go forth they will pick up a day's matter in its day, that I may probe them, whether they shall go by My law or not.
(Exo 16:4)

In the next verse, however, he does not say ביום ששי (a sixth day), but rather ביום הששי (the sixth day).

And it will come to be on the sixth day when they prepare what they are bringing in that there will come to be a duplicate amount over that which they are picking up day by day.
(Exo 16:5)

Then, regarding shabbat, he again uses the definite article ה, when he writes:

Six days shall you pick it up, yet on the seventh day, the sabbath, none shall come to be on it.
(Exo 16:26)

Most know about the set apart condition then of shabbat, the 7th day. The 6th day is also important, because it represents the completion of the work done during the 5 days prior to it. It is rightly called the day of preparation, for it anticipated the 7th day shabbat.

On another level, we can see then that man was given 6 days in which to spend it however he needed to or wanted to, to work, rest, etc. Man is not told he has to work 6 days, but is given those day to do so. The Hebrew does not say man must work 6 days, but that whatever work he does must only be done during those 6 days in which he is given. The 6th day however, is different because in it all work must be completed...none can be left over for the seventh day. In that sense it is different from the previous 5 days. The 6th and 7th days are linked together in that way.

On yet another level, we can see that man (the last and crowning point of his creation) is made, not on a 6th day, but on the 6th day. It was that for which all creation eagerly awaited, the defining mark of his creation, and upon that completion he gave man shabbat for him to rest in, setting the example on that first shabbat. Man, and creation itself, would be incomplete without it.

Likewise, Mashiach is our rest, given for us to rest in him. He gives definitiveness (ה) to our existence. Just as that first shabbat did not have an evening and morning to end it, so to Mashiach would provide the true rest for us which will never end.

At least this is what has been given to my understanding at this time.

Ronen

[Seth]

I definitely understand where you are going with regards to the deeper meaning of the 6th day and the 7th day (ie 6th day represents completion of the work and the 7th represents resting from the work). In fact, I see all kinds of references to the Law and Israel there.

For example, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. As I have said in a previous post, that there is ample evidence to suggest that the term "heaven and earth" represents the structure of government, namely Israel (ruling class "heaven" and common class "earth"), which is why God refers to the judges of Israel as "Gods" not in the literal sense, but in the sense that they judged the "earth" below them, the non-judges.

So when God created heaven and earth it was without form and void, and dark. The light was the Law dividing the day from the evening, and the light is to see with: exposure. That's what the law did, exposes sin to the sinner, shines upon things which are done in the dark.

For 6 days God works (creating this this first "heaven and earth"), but he rests on the 7th day, Christ representing the resting of the Sabbath. So when the New Heaven and the New Earth are created, they were without form and void, but the light which God calls into being goes to the inward part shines a light unto the darkness from within the heart, rather than from external works.

------------

Concerning the literal creation, though, what I am wondering is what the significance of the definite article "the" has to do with the literal aspect, if anything. In other words, do you believe that ALL 6 days are not necessarily in order from that perspective, or do you believe - again concerning the literal creation - that the 6th day is the one that occurs in a latter part of the creation?

In other words, with your understanding, do you believe there is no way to scripturally tell which order the creation was made literally, just that God is saying I did all these things in certain days, but not necessarily in this order, so that you can see a picture of Christ?

[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.

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.

I definitely agree that it is mysterious and I also know it contains many layers of truth in metaphor, however, I really dont mind deferring to the miraculous, since everything surrounding the pre creation relationship of the Father, The Son, the Angels etc, is miraculous. Since God is the source of all physical science and biological science through the active agent of Jesus Christ (without Him nothing came into being that came into being....all thing hold together in Him....He is before all things that in all things He nmight have the pre-eminence).

For instance, it would be completely reasonable that the light that comes forth from stars, such as the sun, to give life to plants- existed in a more ambient form before the creation of stars themselves as a distribution system for light.

I don't have any problem with people who see the creation story as subject to what we know presently in science, but i personally see what we presently know in science as finally beginning to catch up with the creation story :o)

[Seth]

For instance, it would be completely reasonable that the light that comes forth from stars, such as the sun, to give life to plants- existed in a more ambient form before the creation of stars themselves as a distribution system for light.

But if you look at the creation story (from a linear perspective), the stars are placed in the sky on the fourth day not before that. And in fact verse 15 says "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

This is all the fourth day. So, from a linear perspective, there is no reason to believe that there was light "upon the earth" until the sun, moon and stars were created. That means that, if we insist on a linear perspective, it means that for millions, or billions of years, the plants lived either without light at all, or light from some other physical light source (other than the sun, moon or stars) that God created on day one.

I have no problem deferring to the miraculous to fill the gap, but to me, I think that makes a non-linear approach stronger since it would not need to make such a claim.

[eaglesway]

Actually that logic is not failsafe, because of our limited perspectve- but it is reasonable, I am not saying it isnt. i am just saying I look for my solutions to incorporate both the direct and the indirect interpretations of the writings. I do not limit them in ether sense, since i assume that they are TRUE, as a starting assumption.

For instance, if light was created as the first act of creation- we have no way of knowing in what way is was shining upon the earth through the third yom. Most certainly it could have been available naturally as well as spiritually, and that possibility(or any other possibility) is beyond our knowledge. Any authoritative assumption precluding or insisting upon it would be simply a possibility rendered as a surety.

I believe from the instant light was created all things were in the light. The waters were separated from each other because, as wav theory is teaching us, everything acts like water the smaller the particles get.

We still don't know why that proton doesnt spin off that nucleus either. I think it is because "All things hold together by the power of His word"  "because by faith we know that the worlds were framed by the Word of God".

[Seth]

Actually that logic is not failsafe, because of our limited perspective- but it is reasonable, I am not saying it isn't. i am just saying I look for my solutions to incorporate both the direct and the indirect interpretations of the writings. I do not limit them in ether sense, since i assume that they are TRUE, as a starting assumption.

I am totally on board with you concerning the Genesis 1 account insofar as other scriptures make it clear that God created all things. By those scriptures, I can tell that the Genesis 1 account has literal components in it.

The thing to consider is in what WAY is it literal? Or, how is God using the literal aspects of creation in Genesis 1 even if he is diverging from the literal also. If we compare it to a house, I think what Ronen is saying, if I am not wrong would be this:

You build a house this way: first lay a foundation, then raise up the walls, then add glass windows, then build the roof, install carpet, then paint it.

The Genesis 1 account would read this way roughly: I built a house in 6 days. I placed windows, one day. I poured a foundation, a second day. I painted the house, a third day. I installed a roof, a fourth day. I raised up walls, a fifth day. I installed carpet, a sixth day.

Now why would I structure it that way? Maybe the order of: windows > foundation pour > house painting > installing a roof > raising walls > installing carpet, while technically not in the actual order contribute to a metaphor I am creating to teach something else not having to do with the actual house.

[eaglesway]

I certainly believe that the creation account is teaching much more than, "God built the house" :o) I love 2 Corinthians 4: 6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Also 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 but just as it is written,

"Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit(Let there be light!); for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God(darkness covered the face of the deep). 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God(the Spirit hovered over the waters). 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words(waters above separated from the waters below).

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him(without form and void); and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one(heavenly bodies/lamps to shine light on the earth). 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Jeremiah quotes it when speaking of the carnality of the nation Israel,

Jeremiah 4:22,23 " For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

It is one of the richest fields in the Word in which to dig. IMO tho, it is still categorically dependable, definitely miraculous, and thoroughly beyond our abitlity to completely encompass it intellectually.

[gregoryfl]

Concerning the literal creation, though, what I am wondering is what the significance of the definite article "the" has to do with the literal aspect, if anything. In other words, do you believe that ALL 6 days are not necessarily in order from that perspective, or do you believe - again concerning the literal creation - that the 6th day is the one that occurs in a latter part of the creation?

In other words, with your understanding, do you believe there is no way to scripturally tell which order the creation was made literally, just that God is saying I did all these things in certain days, but not necessarily in this order, so that you can see a picture of Christ?

That is a debatable answer, which is based on the assumption that God created all that he did IN six days (regardless of length). One thing to consider is that the scripture does not say that God made the heaven and earth in six days.

Look at Shemot 20:11 and 31:17 closely, in particular 31:17. If he wanted to say in 6 days he made heaven and earth, he would have started like this:

בששי ימים עשה...in six days he did make...

Instead he said:

כי ששי ימים עשה...for six days he did make...

This provides further proof that all that he did was for, not in, six days, because it is on THE sixth day that man was created, and shabbat for him. All of what took place on each of the days was for someone, for Adam.

It appears as though the Creator was having these things recorded in such a way as to communicate the beginning of the overarching theme of the entirety of scripture,and not, in my opinion, as an appealing to the scientific mind, or western linear thinking of chronology. For those back then, and for us if we understand Hebrew thought, the creation story becomes easy to remember, and we can pick out what is most important. I believe wholeheartedly that nothing of true scientific fact contradicts scripture, but I do not believe that science and reason was at the heart of why he communicated what he did.

My understanding, therefore, is that he is either not describing the literal order of events at all, or that he is, yet is weaving a storyline and torah through those events by the use or lack of definite articles, and the use of a cardinal numerical expression 'one (as a unity) instead of the sequential 'first'.

That storyline from what I can see is that the pronouncement "very good" could not be made until the end of the sixth day because the sixth day represented the purpose of creation, the 'for' of it. Until man was created, the earlier creations had less meaning, if you will.

This may add to the tension, but, as yet another example...I believe Adam was עשה (made) as the last of his creations, in Bereshiyt 1. Yet he was יצר (formed) first, as the account in Bereshiyt 2 shows. The words used in each instance are very telling, and important for understanding these, not as a contradition, but each having their own torah (instruction) to tell.

Ronen

[eaglesway]

QUOTE: "My understanding, therefore, is that he is either not describing the literal order of events at all, or that he is, yet is weaving a storyline and torah through those events by the use or lack of definite articles, and the use of a cardinal numerical expression 'one (as a unity) instead of the sequential 'first'."

That's cool. Just like the colors of the rainbow fade into one another. Through the prism(water, the word) made "separately visible" as aspects of one inseparable whole- LET THERE BE LIGHT. Their independent beauty still glorious as manifestations of the one light, like the stone with 7 eyes or the seven spirits of God, the wheels within wheels with eyes all about, etc.

[JulieTang84]

We know of the existence of countless galaxies, of which the milky way is but a drop in an celestial ocean.

So did Father hang every star in every galaxy on the fourth day, or just those in our galaxy?

Creation is such a huge topic and is on such a scale that our puny minds can barely grasp that it would take a light particle 100 billion light years to reach the most distant known galaxy.

To even suggest what Father did and when based solely on the words in Genesis is limiting what we are told in Rom 1:20. Where through every galaxy, to a tiny amazingly complex cell, everything g that can be known about Father can be clearly seen.

In all honesty, how can we not walk through our day without jaws dragging on the ground with dumbfounded amazement of all Father is Words are not enough.They were never meant to be.

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

[eaglesway]

Its a beautiful "Why?" isnt it? :o)

The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament reveals the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

The heavens declare His righteousness and all the people will see His glory.(Psalm 97:5-7)

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world have been clearly seen, being understood through the things He has made, even His eternal power and Deity (Romans 1:20)

God that made the world and all that is in it, seeing as He is Lord of heaven and earth dwells not in temples made by  hands, nor is worshiped by hands, as tho He needed anything seeing as He gives to all life and breath and all things; And has made of one blood all the nations for men to dwell ,on the earth and determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitations that they should seek the Lord, and perhaps seek after Him tho He is not far from each one of us, seeing as that in Him we live and move and have our being.....  Acts 17:24-28

maybe God was just looking for friends :o)

[JulieTang84]

Thanks for this EW. So many try to find and understand Father in the pages of the bible, therefore limiting him to the bound pages within. FATHERS instructions tell us that we can learn of his Love, his creativity and his Wisdom that surpasses knowledge itself.


It's so disheartening I am sure for Father to see so many who are blind to who and what Father really is and for that matter where he is and where we are.


Christ's own instructions can be summed up in two words: LOVE & TRUST. Not of ourselves, but of Father from whom all wisdom comes. He is the bringer of all joy and peace; we must learn of him through everything we take for granted, even the air we breathe and the water we drink.


As hard as this may sound to some, such LOVE and appreciation cannot be found in word. His WORD created everything we know. This is where Father is. THERE is no excuse. ROM 1:20

To many people I know hold a bible in their hand and proudly state: "This is my God."

Jesus foretold that many will claim to have done many things in his name, but he will say he does not know them.

Father is within each of us, when this is realized he can be seen everywhere without.

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

[Seth]

It's been nice talking about this on this forum. Obviously, there is a lack of fear in challenging hot topics here, which is great. The Creation account is a major minefield in the realm of Christianity. It tends to be the first question an athiest would ask, and even Christians can have their faith challenged by it. So it can be an emotional issue for many people, which is why it's nice to have a place to ask questions without alot of fearful blow-back.

[eaglesway]

Reducing God to our own preferences is a futile exercise :o) But religianity, putting "God In A Box"- packaged for marketing and easy consumption is sort of like trading the "bread of life" for the bleached and sugared bread of man-

fills quick, nourishes little.

[dajomaco]

If I find the answer to this question;

How will me knowing the intricacies of creation help me to Love my neighbor?

The answer to the above question will help me to gird my loins and
give me the confidence to explain creation to an atheist. 
   

[JulieTang84]

If I find the answer to this question;

How will me knowing the intricacies of creation help me to Love my neighbor?

The answer to the above question will help me to gird my loins and
give me the confidence to explain creation to an atheist. 

Daj, it won't. We are not given to know, lest we try to do better.

We are called upon to Love & TRUST, knowing that the Spirit will give us what to say when needed.

It is good sometimes to stare in absolute amazement, and be clueless.  :dontknow:

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

[eaglesway]

If I find the answer to this question;

How will me knowing the intricacies of creation help me to Love my neighbor?

The answer to the above question will help me to gird my loins and
give me the confidence to explain creation to an atheist. 

Daj, it won't. We are not given to know, lest we try to do better.

We are called upon to Love & TRUST, knowing that the Spirit will give us what to say when needed.

It is good sometimes to stare in absolute amazement, and be clueless.  :dontknow:

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

It is good sometimes :o)

[dajomaco]

I can have a clue as to why I am amazed.

But I will never be amazed at how clueless I am.

[Seth]

I was amazed at how clueless I was when I discovered all my doctrines were flat wrong. But the key is that I was not content with my cluelessness, but pursued.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

[eaglesway]

It is the Fathers pleasure to give us the kingdom :o)


Ask and it shall be given, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you, :boydance:

[rosered]

    :dsunny:     great thoughts everyone !!    Really helps to just  ponder all these things

I have always heard there are no atheists when your dying 
because death  has no POWER  IN Jesus Christ  and will never fail .
  shame comes to the dying , but  Living is Gods best buisness ! and Jesus was always about His Fathers buisness !!
I  remember  once  a man whom   was angry at God and was always trying to  speak against  God , saying  its just  wishful thinking  , a very faithful   witness
  told him , you cannot be angry at God and  not believe in Him at the same time !  :winkgrin:

  most atheist cannot disprove God , because its faith that makes Gods  greatest proving 
we pray that faith comes ALIVE within them !  its the most precious thing you can posses and without it you cannot please Him !

[Seer After Truth]

I just read this thread today and I enjoyed the discussion.  As this is a controversial topic, one of the refreshing things since coming in the UR way of life is that I can hear everyone and I do not have to be against anyone at all and that is the general tone of the tread, a very good discussion from all points of view without the discussion ever having gone down the tubes....

I would like to offer some other thoughts.

One of my now all time favorite books is The Second Death or the Restitution of All Things by Andrew Jukes.  He packed some powerful punches is just over 100 pages of text.  In my opinion, his analysis was ahead of his time on more than just the Restitution of All Things.  Especially his discussion on revelation.  The pdf google books version I have is dated 1867, so it is around the time that Darwin put out his theory of evolution, which means he is way before we have any real conflict between science and the scriptures (Just to clarify my position - I do not believe there is really a conflict but more later).

His axiom (and I love axioms) in the first section on the nature of Scripture is that it is a veil as well as a revelation.  In page ten (of the book not the file...), he discusses nature as a revelation: 

First, as to Nature, which has been called God's formed word, and which beyond all question is a revelation of God.  Yet how does it reveal Him?  Is it not also a veil, hiding quite as much as it reveals of Him?  Is it not a fact that our sense-readings, even of the clearest physical phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun, are opposed to the truth, and need to be corrected by a higher faculty?

And in discussing Scripture as revelation on page 13-14:

The same is true of Scripture, that is, the written word, which like Nature has gone through six days of change, and like Christs flesh has grown in wisdom and stature. Throughout it is a veil while it is a revelation; and therefore, like Nature, Providence, and the flesh of Christ, it is and must be open to the same reproach, not only of inconsistency, but of setting forth unworthy and even untrue statements of God. For indeed Scripture is a veil, which when taken in the letter, that is, as it appears to sense, makes out God to be just as far from what He really is as Nature and Providence seem to make Him; and yet all the while it reveals Him also, as nothing else has ever revealed Him. For though in Christ's flesh the revelation is complete spite of the veil, its very completeness and compactness keep us from seeing the various parts, which are set before us in Holy Scripture piecemeal (Heb. i. 1.), and in a way that neither Nature nor Providence at present shew Him to us. For the law and the prophets tell us more of God and of His purposes, as to the restitution of all things and the promised times of rest and Sabbath, than Nature yet declares to our present understanding; though indeed Nature may be, and probably is, saying far more to us than any mere human eye or ear has yet apprehended.

The whole section on scripture is mind-blowing.  He does discuss progressive revelation but as I need to keep this brief, I would encourage anyone who has not read this book to read it.

Anyway, my two cents.  First of all, the quote just above about scripture just could have been about Genesis one and two, could it not!  In an earlier part (page five through seven or so), he says that scripture is a divine book by humans and a human book by the divine (That may be my summation...).  In fact he discusses how if you dissected Christ's body you would have a human body, but He is not just a mere human to dissect.  Just the same, you can dissect the Scriptures just like a human book, but it is not just a mere human book.  Jukes says that just like Christ was ultimately incorruptible, just the same the Scriptures are incorruptible.

So without rambling on too much, this is how I see the creation account in Genesis.  (Another aside, my wife has gone through a mighty struggle with the relationship between science and Scripture in the last year so we have had a ton of discussions on Genesis).  Given Progressive Revelation, it is not a scientific statement at all, nor is any statement in Scripture to be understood as a scientific statement.  All of the speech in the Scriptures are [through] human ways of speaking (or a sense reading if you will to use Juke's term).  That is why I included the quote above in reference to the sunrise in the east, setting in the west.

I have also been contemplating revelation in terms of humanity in general.  I think of it this way, if the creation is really a very long time (I think it was), then when humans began to be on the scene so to speak, there was probably a time when perception was just the senses.  If you accept evolution or something akin to change over time, then at some point humans "discovered" themselves (Becoming self-aware (without commenting on sin and such!) I think is right there in Genesis if you will).  Then humanity really starts up and here we are!

If Genesis is not a scientific statement, but a veil as well as a revelation, then it is the message that we need as a revelation, not the veil (sense reading or literal).  The early Fathers understood it as an allegory (at least Augustine I think).

I hope I make sense...

William

[JulieTang84]

What an amazing read SEER  :gimmefive:

Quote:
"The whole section on scripture is mind-blowing.  He does discuss progressive revelation but as I need to keep this brief, I would encourage anyone who has not read this book to read it."

Progressive Revelation: This is a new term for me, but I like it. I have read much on how Father has revealed more of Himself through the Scriptures, kind of like peeling an onion. One layer at a time.

This is not surprising because the intellectual and Spiritual knowledge was very different way back then to what it is now. I personally believe it is impossible to gain the same insights from the early Scriptures as those for whom they were first written because SPIRIT changes everything, something that the peoples of old did not have.

Many believe in the BIG BANG, and quite possibly this was the beginning of physical matter as we know it. But let us consider just one small point. Supposing every rock, mountain, planet, solar system and galaxy was compressed into something smaller than an atom. Now just think of what it would take to compress it in such away that when it exploded, EVERYTHING unfolds and falls perfectly in place.

Father is outside of time, for all time is within Him. There is no time in Eternity, so whether the creation of the Universe took Father, 7 billion years, 7 days or 7 nano seconds in "our" time is quite irrelevant. We need not understand it or reconcile it; rather we must see Father in all things and TRUST Him always just as He asked. Though we may find many reason to not, there is NO reason to deny Love.

Well this is what has been progressively revealed to me.  :girlheart:

Love Julie  :HeartThrob: