The accuracy of the Biblical creation account?

[Kurieuo]

Saying the morning and the evening was a way to stamp a time frame for each day. If God hadn't have put it in like that then you could debate the day length because day could mean lots of different things that is why people get confused they won't to over look that God said the length of the day Him self it was the approximate 12 hour time frame.

Only that "stamp" of time can't be had according to the most popular YEC (AiG/Ken Ham) interpretation which places the creation of the Sun on Day 4 rather than on or before Day 1. Also, this "stamp" doesn't exist for Day 7, God's rest, the symbol of which remains open for us to enter into even until now. (Hebrews 4:9-11)

So then, given we have certain absurdities appearing in this particular YEC interpretation (some YEC interpretations don't have the same absurdities such as ones that place the Sun on/before Day 1), so much the worse for this apparent "stamp".

[Kurieuo]

I'm not sure where we are disagreeing in regards to the toledot

The thing is when we see the towlĕdah phrase used (i.e., "these are the generations of..."), such points not to anything prior, but what is about to come after. This is the way it is always used in Scripture. Therefore, its use in Genesis 2:4 isn't saying this is what happened after God created the heavens and the earth (which would be to point backward), rather it is like the start of a new chapter.

I think I agree with what you are saying above...
Genesis 2:4 is continuing forward from where Genesis 2:3 left off.
The phrase "when God created the heavens and the earth" describes the point at which the narrative beginning with Genesis 2:4 is proceeding from.
"when God created the heavens and the earth" describes what occurred in Genesis 1:1-2:3.
Therefore, the toledot tells us that narrative beginning with Genesis 2:4 proceeds forward from God creating the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1-2:3).

To be honest, since I embraced Genesis 2:4 as the introduction to the second creation account (based upon the logic that the toledoth phrase, "These are the generations of", only ever points forward), I'd not considered a "from" point as you correctly emphasise is given in Gen 2:4b: "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

I think it's important here to note the order of "heavens" and "earth" which isn't "the heavens and the earth" as you accidentally paraphrased, but rather "the earth and the heavens". I've actually been writing a more full post, in my typical long form, to elaborate upon what such means mixed in with some other thoughts.

Nonetheless, I do essentially agree with your observation above. Where I differ is likely where the "from point" is i.e., what "the day" specifically refers to. However, as an argument against YECs claiming days are 24 hours, I do believe the second half of Genesis 2:4 forms a strong argument against interpreting days in Genesis 1 as a period of time.

So then, Gen 2:4b further supports (in addition to the Hebraic poetic form, parallelism and strangeness of days existing without a Sun that isn't made until Day 4) that language or ordinary days in Genesis 1 are being used to provide a literary framework wherein creation events are described.

[DBowling]

Also, this "stamp" doesn't exist for Day 7, God's rest, the symbol of which remains open for us to enter into even until now. (Hebrews 4:9-11)

As I've said before Genesis 2:4 is my poster child for the premise that 'yom' does not necessarily refer to 24 hours within the context of the creation account and in the specific case of Genesis 2:4 cannot refer to 24 hours.
However, as you rightly point out, Genesis 2:4 in and of itself does not prove the day-age premise that day = age within the context of the Genesis 1 Creation account.

But I believe the point you make above does provide Scriptural support for the day-age premise that the days in the Genesis 1 creation account refer to 'ages' as opposed to 24 hours.
As you point out there is no 'evening' mentioned for day 7, because when Moses wrote Genesis, day 7 had not yet ended. And the strong implication of Hebrews 4 is that day 7 hadn't ended at the time Hebrews was written either.
So for positive Scriptural support for the day-age theory, I look to the lack of an evening for day 7 in Genesis 2 combined with Hebrews 4:4-7.

[Kurieuo]

I'd just point out that such doesn't mean Day-Age is correct, that there are other ideas. It doesn't rule out that perhaps Moses just didn't intended anything more than choosing 6-1 day with an evening and morning as the framework for his "stanzas" within which the creation events are detailed.

[PaulSacramento]

Guys, have you ever thought much about WHY the text was inspired to be written in such a way that it would have avoided all of the speculation and curiosity? I mean, God, knowing all future things, certainly knew that unless a certain level of clarity were input into the creation-related passages, that far-future Christians (us), living in the scientific age, would have an enormously distracting, often divisively so, over this issue of the time length of the Creation days. It's almost as if He wanted to keep a significant level of mystery to those days, their events, their time lengths.

I don't know Philip.
I think that God revealed the creation process to the writer of Genesis in a way that His (Moses') audience would understand AND in a way that showed that HE ( YHWH) was the creator God and not the other deities being worshiped around Israel at the time ( Egypt, Babylon, etc).
I think that God knew that as the future generations grew in knowledge and God revealed the universe to them that they would be smart enough to understand this.
Modern Christians CAN reconcile what we know of the universe via science with what Genesis tells us, it is just that same choose not to.

[Philip]

Paul, my point is that God purposely did not guide or make those key passages any more or less clear by design, as He likely wants us to contemplate and sift our multiple lines of evidences (Scripturally, historical / culturally of ancient Mesopotamian understandings, and modern science) to come close - not to certainty, but to realise there are a number or hybrid possibilities as to how the Scriptures are true, and with faith knowing they ARE true, yet before and without having clarity as to HOW. And so THAT level of confidence and acceptance strikes to the heart of how we view God, and to the level we trust His power, love and abilities, as well as how He views the importance and trustworthiness of His word.

So many have an unshakable belief that God created and spoke an astounding universe into existence - a universe dependent upon many, ongoing, razor-thin, interactive, and especially complex parameters (meaning, our everyday "normal" is entirely miraculous), and yet they don't trust His ability to control, disseminate and distribute His word (that He came to DIE a horrific death to fulfill) while also guiding His Church of Spirit-filled believers into recognizing and being constantly nourished by it. And that is a totally schizophrenic way to view God, His character, trustworthiness, and His power.

[Ecclesiastes12]

The Bible is meant to provide us with the moral lessons required to live our lives, not to act as a science textbook. God gave us human reason to figure out scientific issues. It's God's morality that man needs.

That being said, the Bible was nevertheless written by mortal men who -- even if God revealed all of the majesty of creation to them -- would not be able to describe it in perfect scientific detail. As far as the broad strokes go, it's probably the most accurate creation story I've heard of. First, there was nothing -- flash of light -- universe came into existence -- Earth was barren -- an atmosphere develops -- plant life grows -- life in the ocean grows -- life on dry land is created -- humans exist. When you look at it from the eagle-eye perspective, it's got creation down pretty well.

[abelcainsbrother]

I know that most do not know the difference between the words created and made. But I would like to point out that Genesis 2:3 tells us that God both created AND made the heavens and the earth.This means that he created them in the beginning whenever that was but he also made the heavens and the earth too and he made them in the six days of Genesis 1.In them 6 days God only created certian living creatures and man and woman,everything else he made as Genesis 2:3 says,Genesis 2:4 too.

[GaroldSpire]

Taking a more scientific approach turning His energy into matter as subatomic particles protons and electrons which initially were too energetic to form molecules and atoms but an electron cooling
Ing down from a high energy state to a lower one emits photons so the first light was not from the sun but rather from electrons which eventually formed hydrogen and helium which accumulated in stars where the elements up to iron were formed then later the remaining natural elements fits the account of creation in Genesis and current understanding of the natural history of the universe

[abelcainsbrother]

I believe the reason Genesis 1 seems so confusing is because people do not know the difference between the words created and made. YEC's and other creationists who claim that the words are interchangeable and mean the same thing are wrong and Genesis 2:1-4 would not make sense if they did.Without understanding the difference Genesis 1 cannot really be understood properly. This is why Moses follows up Genesis 1 with Genesis 2:1-4 he is trying to get us to understand the difference.A simple way to understand is to understand that when God creates something it is always something new that was not created before but when God made things they were not new,but God just worked on whatever is is to restore it or make new again. This is why some translations like the NASB uses the word "work "instead of the word "made" when translating the hebrew word asah.It is because God just worked on what was made to restore it or make new again.Keep this in mind and then read Genesis 1 again several times and notice the words created and made when you do it and realize the difference.

[khalnayak11a]

But my question is not really on where people who don't believe in the Biblical creation are Christians or not, but on why is genesis being taken as poetic and even if it is poetic why does that make it inaccurate in any way.

[Philip]

But my question is not really on where people who don't believe in the Biblical creation are Christians or not, but on why is genesis being taken as poetic and even if it is poetic why does that make it inaccurate in any way.

Hello, khalnayak11a, and welcome to the forum!

The reality is, IF the Genesis passages are merely poetic - that is, at least when it comes to belief that Adam and Eve were not real people who fell into sin - then, there would have been no need for God to send His Son Jesus to provide payment and thus way to be forgiven of our sins. There also would be no transmission of Adam's sin nature to the rest of mankind. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus' lineage is traced from Adam to Jesus, with a long list of Adam's ancestral linkages. Romans 5:12-19 also speaks of Jesus as the second Adam - so, no first Adam, then no JESUS! There are 8 New Testament passages in the Bible that reference Adam. Clearly, these passages reveal Adam to be perceived and asserted to be an actual human being.

[bgmi41075]

Maybe you should go to a place where many people believe Genesis is incorrect. Christ said that He was the way, the truth and the life, that noone comes to the Father except through Him. So then, what makes one a Christian isn't their response to a particular creation account, nor our works, but rather faith in Christ Himself.

[Philip]

Hello, bgmi41075 - and welcome to the GodandScience forum!

Maybe you should go to a place where many people believe Genesis is incorrect.

Not sure what you mean by this - although there is considerable disagreement amongst some Christians about various aspects of Genesis.

Christ said that He was the way, the truth and the life, that noone comes to the Father except through Him. So then, what makes one a Christian isn't their response to a particular creation account, nor our works, but rather faith in Christ Himself.

Correct - faith and COMMITMENT to Jesus as one's Lord is what saves them (Romans 10:9: because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.) A lot of Christians have messed up, inaccurate or misunderstood theological beliefs, but nonetheless are saved per their faith / commitment to Christ!

[foaketom]

What the Bible is saying is that on day one God created everything. Then on day two he seporrated the water and land and air out. Then on day 3 He made plants from what He created on day 1. Then on day 4 he made the sun and stars from what He created on day one and on day 5 He made fish and and the birds from what He created on day one then. Then on day 6 He made land animals from what He had already made on day one. Then on day 6 He after He made the animals He made man from the dust of the earth which was made on day one.