Another Creation question

Age : 57 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 219

I believe in a literal 6 - 24 hour period - days for the creation. As I understand it, at least from my pastor, no one really satisfactorily interpret the hebrew word 'yom' in this passage to mean anything different that 24 hour periods or days as we know them today. So, consequently I believe the Bible is the Word of God, that's what it says, so that's what I believe.

Now then, on to the question -- In verse 1 we see that God created the heavens and the earth. In verse 3, we finally see light. -- So if the most widely accepted scientific theory is the Big Bang, how can this be so?

The heavens and the earth had to have happened faster than the speed of light. Where was the result of any energy expended?

Age : 22 Joined : 04 Jun 2007 Posts : 1477

I'm not sure I understand what your'e asking ... but whatever the answer is, it will probably be an interesting read!

_________________
... a chill rises from the soil ...
... and contaminates the air ...
... suddenly ...
... life has new meaning ...

Age : 57 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 219

Ah Ha! had to go back and edit the original post. Forgot to put a 3 in a very important place.

And by the way Sir Shred and Scourge39 this is a serious question. You don't have to agree with the literal interpretation of day in Genesis 1 to answer it or point me to an explanation. I'm not exactly looking for an argument on the hebrew word 'yom' here, I'm looking for more of a plausible scientific explanation.

It's difficult to deny God, with that foundation to start with, there has to be a reasonable answer from scientists who accept a literal 6 - days (24 hour periods of time)

Age : 33 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 2280

Most Evangelical scientists that I'm aware of believe in an old earth, not a young one. I've told you privately that the creation account in Genesis 1 is poetic in its original Hebrew form. It presents a very basic framework of how God created things and doesn't focus on minutae.

The Hebrew presents the days of creation in an alternating pattern of lights, water, and land for days 1 through 6, it's expressing creation poetically, not scientifically. Who knows whether other things did or didn't take place that God simply didn't inspire Moses to write? The Bible isn't a science textbook, nor is that its God given intention. While books attempting to reconcile Scripture with science may be interesting and motivated by good intentions, I believe it's wise to keep theology and science separate. That's not a cop out or an attempt to avoid apparent contradictions. It simply respects both disciplines as viable and allows them to fulfill their unique roles. I've taught long enough to know that many Christians concern themselves with questions about Scripture that the text itself simply doesn't provide answers for. I've found that 'So what,' 'Who cares' and 'Is that the point the text is trying to make' are the three best responses to irrelevant questions about Scripture. In their curious quest for essentially useless knowledge, they overlook the point that God tries to make to those who read Scripture. God inspired the Biblical writers to include all of the details that he decreed were important for us to know. If he wanted us to understand every detail of creation, then he would've inspired Moses to write a more thoroughly detailed account instead of the snapshots we have in Genesis 1-2.

Age : 22 Joined : 04 Jun 2007 Posts : 1477

Age : 57 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 219

Sorry Scourge39, the pastor at my church and I had a discussion on Genesis 1 as to whether it was narrative or poetic, and when it was all over, I came down on the narrative side of things. I don't recall where he said he got his Th.d. from. But I know two of the schools he attended were Moody Bible Institute and Trinity here in Deerfield, IL.

If the Bible is the Word of God, I can't see why it cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny as well. In fact, perhaps we should go back to believing the Bible first and primarily and then go about the business of evaluating what science is trying to tell us based upon God Himself says.

Age : 33 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 2280

Age : 78 Joined : 21 Apr 2007 Posts : 1494

Hey, just thought I'd say that I read this thread and saw a post referring to my opinion.

Unfortunately, I have little time and, more importantly, the desire to discuss this issue. I'm burnt out on the topic and have found that very little is produced that is positive when this is discussed here.

If you've talked to your pastor and are content with his explanation and you feel as though you have the proper understanding, then I wouldn't want to try to persuade you otherwise. I'm happy that you've found someone whose opinion you can trust.

Age : 33 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 2280

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:19 pm

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:03 pm

It does usually dwindle at nothing Shred..but I still think this is too good a thread idea to get ugly so fast... so let's take some real time when reading everyone's knowledge or POV, everyone.
Cool

_________________
Dark motions, black eyes, and mournful lust, the wings of solitude
...I'm the hateful raven

I dream in shades of you.

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:19 pm

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:21 pm

It hasn't ... yet.. lol... just you and bgast seem slightly irritated..and Shred dreads this topic... so yeah.... just saying.. Laughing

_________________
Dark motions, black eyes, and mournful lust, the wings of solitude
...I'm the hateful raven

I dream in shades of you.

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:27 pm

It just has that odor of; "if you don't believe the way we believe, your a heretic", I loath that mentality! Evil or Very Mad

Age : 57 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 219

I'm not irritated at all. I have a lot of respect for Scourge39, but recently it seems that I have learned a few things that don't exactly agree with his approach. I used to agree with him a lot more than I do now, but I have found my pastor to be a great guy and I have had several good conversations with him on things such as the creation and end times. He makes more sense to me than anyone else ever has. It's all good with me and Scourge. If SirShred is burnt out on the subject. so what. People get burnt out sometimes. It's all good. Let me just add, my pastor is just some Joe Schmo who doesn't know anything. He really does have his Th.D. and continues to study.

But no one has yet to provide me with any direction or a plausible answer to the original question. I'm all good with the spiritual explanation of the 6 literal day creation. I am just extremely curious as to the mechanics of the heaven and earth showing up before the light.

Age : 20 Joined : 21 Jul 2007 Posts : 2021

Subject: Re: Another Creation question Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:31 pm

Age : 20 Joined : 21 Jul 2007 Posts : 2021

Joined : 13 Apr 2007 Posts : 923

Interesting topic.

It's instructive to note that the opening chapter of Genesis basically contains a discussion of the interval that began on Day 1 and that ended on Day 6... the first six days of elapsed time, as we presently know it.

-- Genesis 1:2-5 provides a snapshot of Day 1.

-- Genesis 1:6-8 provides a snapshot of Day 2.

-- Genesis 1:9-13 provides a snapshot of Day 3.

-- Genesis 1:14-19 provides a snapshot of Day 4.

-- Genesis 1:20-23 provides a snapshot of Day 5.

-- Genesis 1:24-31 provides a snapshot of Day 6.

Notice that this enumeration covers every verse in the chapter, except for the very first verse.

Therefore, in the scheme of things, this single verse, Genesis 1:1, provides little more than a backdrop to the main discussion of Genesis 1... this opening verse provides just a general point of reference, by briefly citing that prehistoric period that preceeded Day 1. In his so-called Chronological Bible, Dr. Reese identifies this period as "Eternity Past".

By the way, I do not mean to allude to the Gap Theory, per se. I only mean to draw your attention to the general outline of the chapter.

And taking the entire book into consideration, we find that Genesis, the so-called book of beginnings, does not set out to discuss the beginning of the universe, as people often suggest. The discussion is instead focused upon mankind and the beginning of mankind's present dispensation, as sinners in need of a Savior. And to be sure, the essential story that concerns mankind begins at Genesis 1:2, on Day 1.

In my opinion, it's best not to get hung up on the transition between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. But that's a whole different discussion.

As for our present quandary, it seems you have formed the notion that there is an inherent coupling between Genesis 1:1 (the creation of the heavens and the earth) and Genesis 1:3 (the diffusion of light)... but with all due respect, I believe such a coupling to be completely imaginary.

Keeping things in context, the natural observation is simply that the "light" (of Gen. 1:3) was introduced to conquer over the "darkness" (of Gen. 1:2). The marriage here is really between verses 2 and 3. And as for verse 1, according to the general outline of the chapter, this verse stands alone, and merely alludes to that un-quantified period of "time" that preceded Day 1.

And besides, just because God said "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3, this does not mean that there was no light prior to Genesis 1:3.

An example of this is found elsewhere in this very same chapter, where we are told that the "lights" of the sky were not diffused upon the earth until Day 4 (Gen. 1:14-19). And yet we wonder what to make of these lights, since we were told earlier in the chapter that light had already been diffused on Day 1 (Gen. 1:3).

But the answer here is the same. Just because God diffused these lights upon the earth on Day 4 (Gen. 1:14-19), this does not mean that there was no light prior to Genesis 1:14.

By the way, there is also a school of thought that suggests the "light" of Genesis 1:3 could perhaps be referring to the "shekinah glory" of Christ, which seems to reveal itself several times throughout Scripture. I can get back to you with some Scripture references on this subject if you're interested. Let me know.

Joe

Age : 57 Joined : 06 Apr 2007 Posts : 219

Nice to see you Joe. I appreciate that synopsis. I did state that I discussed this subject with my pastor, and I did, but did not have the opportunity and was not able to discuss the verses on the creation prior to light.

As to light before the creation. Hmmm. Don't know what to think yet. Must mull it over. Certainly we know that the glory of God lights up all of heaven and is more than we can bear to see in our present state. Sort of makes sense that light existed before the creation.

My pastor eluded to the shekina glory also, but we were not able to get into it.

As a second topic and perhaps we might want to start an additional thread, I wonder when the ark of the covenant is found and placed in the newly rebuilt temple if the shekina is going to shine again. If so, under what premise?

Prior to my recent visitations back to the CMR, I was undecided about where I stood with regard to the end times. I leaned more along the lines of a post trib position, or amillenialsim, but recently after several discussions with my pastor, I have come back full circle to a pretrib position. It seems to make more sense to me and some of the problems that I had with that position have been answered to my satisfaction. Hence some background as to where that second topic came from.