Day 4

[Shirtless]

I've been in a History of World Religion class for a few months now. We're finished Hinduism and we're now on Buddhism. Since I've started the class, my teacher (as careful with his wording as he may be) has been making comments that make Christianity un-unique and in the realm of myth, where it doesn't differ much from other religions. I feel he has nice things to say about Christianity, but when you're an expert on world religion, you can't help but generalize.

I felt like this is giving a negative first impression on students who came to learn, so I asked if I could have an opportunity to speak to the class. He said sure, but that it would have to be at the end of the course. I've begun preparing, and the primary topic I will talk about is the six days of creation in the more scientifically (and to many, Literarily ) accurate view of Genesis.

I've been re-reading the article from this site about it, and I'm still amazed at how scientifically accurate each passage is...

...except day 4. The apologetic interpretation of day 4 seems like a stretch to me. That being, that the references to stars and such are not about the creation of the sun and stars and sunrise and the moon:

The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. So why does the text say God made the Sun, moon, and stars in verse 16? Actually, the Hebrew verbs indicate an action completed at some time in the past.

Okay, by the 4th day the clouds over Earth moved so light could shine through, and a water cycle had started and vegetation began to grow. So how could seasons, days, and years be available on only the 4th day, when

A. you could see the stars, the sun, and the moon already.
B. the Earth was already rotating, so days and nights started the moment that those clouds revealed the sunlight on the first day.
C. the vegetation needed seasons and the sun to survive, so God would have "let" the sun be seen on the third day.

My big question is, just what did God do on the 4th day? It seems like day 4 was a blended part of days 1,2, and 3.

If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.

Good point, but I'm going to be talking to people that have been taught that Genesis is a myth anyway. I've read other Genesis stories, and if you concern yourself with the inconsistencies, your brain will just explode.

I'd appreciate any help!

[Jac3510]

Very briefly, you have to remember that Moses was writing from a geocentric perspective. If you miss that, then you'll miss out on any viable interpretation of Genesis 1.

That said, the interpretation of day four works very well. The earth would have been at a point where the atmosphere was very thick but not opaque. If you have ever been outside on a cloudy night, you'll notice that you can't see any stars. Some nights, you can't even see a full moon! So, I don't see anything wrong, exegetically speaking, with taking this interpretation. I've not looked for any scientific verification, but it certainly is plausible, and I have my bets that its going to be pretty accurate.

Let me also refer you to Kurieuo's article Genesis Creation, Science and Light. He does an excellent job there explaining the position.

As far as WHAT God did . . . He did just what the Bible says He did. He made the sun, moon, and stars (in our interpretation of "made," naturally). Again, from a geocentric perspective, there is nothing wrong with this concept at all. Clearing that translucent atmosphere would have done the trick.

[Shirtless]

Thanks. I would also like some other info for my presentation. I would like to know how to spell and pronounce some forms of Aramaic and Greek. I've only found a few Aramaic sites and I can't contact them.

I just figured it would make me look cool. For example, Jesus Christ(the messiah) would be Yeshua ______ ?

I'll get back to you on any other stuff...

[August]

Shirtless, if you go to e-sword.com you can download the Hebrew Names Bible. Deborah did it, and she thinks it's really cool. It has all the original Greek and Hebrew names in there.

[Shirtless]

Oh, yeah...and I would like an explaination for the description "formless and void" in Genesis 1.

[Shirtless]

Another thing…I've seen many translations of Genesis 1, and the article “The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account” emphasis that there's a conjunction (“and”) after Genesis 1:1, which links it with 1:2. I would like to know if this “and” exists in the original Hebrew. There's another Old Earth Creationist site that deals with each Hebrew word used in Genesis, and the sentence goes like this:

In the beginning God1 created2 the heavens5 and the earth20. Now the earth2O was formless and empty7

So I scroll down to 20, and I see “ERETS”, which is the word for “Earth”. So as far as I can tell, the Hebrew is saying “…and the Earth Earth was formless…”, at least I think.

Even more important, the word for “formless and empty” is “BOHUW”, which means “empty; void; devoid of existence” I'm not really sure how to interpret this, especially since it talks about how “darkness was over the surface of the deep” immediately afterwards. Any help would be appreciated!

[Kurieuo]

I've been in a History of World Religion class for a few months now. We're finished Hinduism and we're now on Buddhism. Since I've started the class, my teacher (as careful with his wording as he may be) has been making comments that make Christianity un-unique and in the realm of myth, where it doesn't differ much from other religions. I feel he has nice things to say about Christianity, but when you're an expert on world religion, you can't help but generalize.

I felt like this is giving a negative first impression on students who came to learn, so I asked if I could have an opportunity to speak to the class. He said sure, but that it would have to be at the end of the course. I've begun preparing, and the primary topic I will talk about is the six days of creation in the more scientifically (and to many, Literarily ) accurate view of Genesis.

Sounds great and I hope it all works out for you.

I've been re-reading the article from this site about it, and I'm still amazed at how scientifically accurate each passage is...

...except day 4. The apologetic interpretation of day 4 seems like a stretch to me. That being, that the references to stars and such are not about the creation of the sun and stars and sunrise and the moon:
...

Let me also refer you to Kurieuo's article Genesis Creation, Science and Light. He does an excellent job there explaining the position.

The article Jac gave you should be enough to give you many insights. You probably have read many posts already, but I'd also refer you to read the thread on these boards, Young-Earth Creationism.

A main point to highlight is the change in perspective of Genesis 1:2 where the Spirit of God is hovering over Earth's surface. Therefore when it is dark, it is evidently only dark on Earth's surface (and not everywhere, out in space, or in limbo). Why is it dark? Genesis 1 doesn't say. But a vital passage in Job 38:9 provides further details about why it was dark on Earth! Once these things are realised, it is amazing how everything in the Genesis 1 chapter appears to slip into place. I'd recommend obtaining a copy of Ross' book, The Genesis Question. It will serve as a good basis for exposing the position you wish to expose.

A brilliant powerpoint presentation I'd also highly recommend (you may even want to ask if you can use it!), is In the Beginning: A Look into Genesis One from a Scientific Perspective

Some other pages I'd recommend besides the ones on this website are:
- In the Beginning - A Biblical/Scientific Parallel of Prehistory (provides some important points you may like to mention to the class about what the Bible focuses on, and what Science focuses on)
- The Biblical Creation Days of Genesis (provides support for interpreting Genesis days as unspecified periods of time)

I'll respond to some of your other things in my next post.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Oh, yeah...and I would like an explaination for the description "formless and void" in Genesis 1.

I'd recommend reading over the thread, A brief look at the Gap Theory located at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=118. You might also be interested to read a futher detailed exegesis I present there which sheds details the beginning stages of Earth. Most of what I've read by Day-Age proponents usually don't get as specific as I did in what I wrote there. While I see it as consistent, you should judge for yourself whether or not you find it agreeable.

Another thing…I've seen many translations of Genesis 1, and the article “The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account” emphasis that there's a conjunction (“and”) after Genesis 1:1, which links it with 1:2. I would like to know if this “and” exists in the original Hebrew.

Just to let you know, what I say here is pretty much also written at the thread I just referred you to above.

I remember testing this out for myself as Rich claimed there was a conjunction in his article at The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account. My examination revealed that verse 2 does lead on from verse 1. The Hebrew letter waw, is often used as a conjunction, and it is present at the beginning of verse 2! Rich also presented me with the following which should be helpful:

'“Waw” is the name of the Hebrew letter which is used as a conjunction. It can mean “and”, “but”, “now”, “then”, and several other things depending upon the context and type of waw involved.' It occurs at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 and is translated in the KJV, 'And [waw] the earth was without form, and void.' Plaintiffs use this translation to support the gap theory. However, the most straightforward reading of the text sees verse 1 of Genesis 1 as the principal subject-and-verb clause, with verse 2 containing three 'circumstantial clauses'. 'This is what [Hebrew grammarian] Gesenius terms a “waw explicativum” [also called waw copulative or waw disjunctive] or explanatory waw, and compares it to the English “to wit”.'[Fields] Such a waw disjunctive is easy to tell from the Hebrew, because it is formed by waw followed by a non-verb. It introduces a parenthetic statement, that is, it's alerting the reader to put the following passage in brackets, as it were — a descriptive phrase about the previous noun. It does not indicate something following in a time sequence — this would have been indicated by a different Hebrew construction called the waw consecutive, where waw is followed by a verb (the waw consecutive is in fact used before the different days of creation) [Dr Doug Kelly ] Thus the Hebrew grammar shows that a better translation of Genesis 1:2 would be, 'Now the earth …', and it could be paraphrased, 'Now as far as the earth was concerned …' The court will please observe that this is how the Tanakh translates the verse, as I have pointed out above. Actually, It is as if Moses, by the use of such a joining word, is going out of his way to stress that there is no break between the two verses.

(http://2047.rapidforum.com/topic=100287896094)

There's another Old Earth Creationist site that deals with each Hebrew word used in Genesis, and the sentence goes like this:

In the beginning God1 created2 the heavens5 and the earth20. Now the earth2O was formless and empty7

So I scroll down to 20, and I see “ERETS”, which is the word for “Earth”. So as far as I can tell, the Hebrew is saying “…and the Earth Earth was formless…”, at least I think.

It should be noted what you are reading are the Strongs, and not the actual language. To observe the waw you have to lookup a lexicon for the original Hebrew (e.g., http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/ ... 621.html#2). I remember a while back doing a Google search on Hebrew, and it is not too hard to gain a basic grasp to observe the waw. Just remember each line reads right to left, not left to right.

Even more important, the word for “formless and empty” is “BOHUW”, which means “empty; void; devoid of existence” I'm not really sure how to interpret this, especially since it talks about how “darkness was over the surface of the deep” immediately afterwards. Any help would be appreciated!

See my first response in this post.

Kurieuo.

[Shirtless]

The article Jac gave you should be enough to give you many insights.

I've read it. It helped a lot! Great job!

A main point to highlight is the change in perspective of Genesis 1:2 where the Spirit of God is hovering over Earth's surface. Therefore when it is dark, it is evidently only dark on Earth's surface (and not everywhere, out in space, or in limbo). Why is it dark? Genesis 1 doesn't say. But a vital passage in Job 38:9 provides further details

Woah there guy! I'm way ahead 'a ya on that one.

The Hebrew letter waw, is often used as a conjunction, and it is present at the beginning of verse 2!

Cool, thanks for clearing that up.

I'd recommend reading over the thread, A brief look at the Gap Theory located at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=118.

Well, I think your interpretation is missing something: I believe that Genesis is told in a linear way (eg. Genesis 1:1 isn't a summery of the creation), so to say that a collision was the formless and void part ignores the fact that (whether it had "was" or "became") the tohu passage comes before "Let there be light", and you can't really get around it.

HOWEVER, it does get me thinking about the origin of the Earth. I wonder if the Earth was created from an impact with the Sun, causing a big molten chunk of the Sun to break away and form a new planet. This new gassy sphere could be considered "formless and void", however it ignores the statement that God was hovering over the water--if it was that hot, there wouldn't be ANY water!

I guess I got more to look up than I thought...Hope you have other references...the more, the better!

[Kurieuo]

I'd recommend reading over the thread, A brief look at the Gap Theory located at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=118.

Well, I think your interpretation is missing something: I believe that Genesis is told in a linear way (eg. Genesis 1:1 isn't a summery of the creation), so to say that a collision was the formless and void part ignores the fact that (whether it had "was" or "became") the tohu passage comes before "Let there be light", and you can't really get around it.

I agree with a linear approach, and also believe 1:1 is apart of the creation rather than a summary. I'm not sure where the problem or inconsistency is though?

HOWEVER, it does get me thinking about the origin of the Earth. I wonder if the Earth was created from an impact with the Sun, causing a big molten chunk of the Sun to break away and form a new planet. This new gassy sphere could be considered "formless and void", however it ignores the statement that God was hovering over the water--if it was that hot, there wouldn't be ANY water!

I found an article that might be helpful in understanding how Earth may have come to be: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/e ... 30606.html

I guess I got more to look up than I thought...Hope you have other references...the more, the better!

Actually, keep it simple or you'll loose people. An overview should sufficient, and specifics are for anyone who likes to look into it further.

Kurieuo.

[Shirtless]

Actually, keep it simple or you'll loose people. An overview should sufficient, and specifics are for anyone who likes to look into it further.

Well, I needed to know details about "formless and void" because I have a teaching technique where I use the markerboard as a visual aide. Drawing the Earth on the board after reading Genesis 1:1, with it clear as day up there, and then calling it "formless and void" would be a bit messy.