Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

I think the issue MAY be the notion of God being unchanging/unchangeable, which means that IF The Word is God the Son, that means that ever since there was GOD, there was The Word ( and the HS of course), because IF there was a point where there was only God The Father THEN came God the Son, that means that GOD changed.

Bingo! Again, Begotten has to refer to Jesus in the flesh, not the divine nature of God the Son. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.

KBCid wrote:

RickD wrote: Just to clear up the confusion, or confuse the confusion even more, I'm not saying I believe the son wasn't the son(second person of the trinity), before his incarnation. I'm just saying I believe he wasn't begotten, before the incarnation. I think?

Thx for clarifying your position. This 'I think' also is a salient point to have understanding of. Each of us should at all time be able when asked to explain what we believe and why we believe it. So officially I have your understanding correct. Our question to determine then is when begotten becomes applicable. Of course you do realise that if it was not applicable prior to the incarnation then The father was not a father until that point nor was the son a son until that point if your position is correct.

I would also like to say Rick that this is definitely touching the very core of the questioning that I was after to determine if my understandings are correct. I am still reearching my 10 year old notes on the subject so I will get something out shortly.
As an aside I am finding that my notes when they were created were the result of confrontational concepts between my reading and what a group of JW's were asserting. These people used to come to my door every so often and I gave them the time to express their views so, for some reason my understanding differed enough to eliminate their 'truth' as they saw it from my consideration.

As someone with a few family members that are JW's and someone that has even take the JW "bible study" I can assure you that the JW's have answers to every christian doctrine there is, the unfortunate part is that they INTERPRET those doctrines in a way so that the answers THEY have are correct.
In other words, they make doctrines say what THEY want them to say and then point out how they are wrong ( even though they don't say anything of the sort).

jlay wrote: It is just as important to make sure that we are following a sound exegesis when handling those scriptures. For example, it seems too me that you are intent on applying your notions of Father/Son to the text. Are you sure that your use of these terms is consistent with what they meant to a 1st century Jew?

I agree with "sound exegesis" and it has been a primary goal for me to ensure that I am not imposing an unwarranted view / meaning into the text. I see God being the father prior to Christs incarnation because of a variety of scriptural points that make that view warranted. I have also found that by that interpretation it makes every other verse have a relevancy that would be lost without it.

jlay wrote: Here is a paper by our resident philospher Jac, that actually touches on this point. http://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2 ... n-john.pdf Just what is meant by the term, "Son of God." What does it confer?

I understand that there may be rationale asserted by other humans that seem to make alot of sense and at this writing I have not yet reviewed his position so I cannot comment on it. The bad part here is that He is not the one participating in this exchange and by referring me to anyone other than yourself you are truely not providing how you rationalise your belief. There have been a great many people over the centuries who have also provided their own interpretation of the 'truth' as they understood it but, it doesn't mean they were right. God recounts the many peoples who have erred in their interpretations and how that affected their future. I don't want to be one of those people.

jlay wrote:OK, so questions.
-Does the scripture in its whole counsel reveal the divine nature of Jesus?

absolutely

jlay wrote:-Does begotten mean created?

absolutely not. A plain example... man was created not begotten. God designed and implemented the design for every living thing on earth and not one of them was begotten.

jlay wrote:-When John 1:1 says "the Word was God," is it saying that the Word was God? If no, then what is it saying in your opinion?

According to my understanding God is infinite and Christ was a part of God himself that had his own identity. This is how they can converse with each other in these verses;

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...

Scripture cannot be broken so if God asserts an 'us' and an 'our' then there are minimally two distinct entities during the time the writing is concerning. If you assert that God is a single entity that plays a variety of roles then you are saying that he talks to himself in a sybil like fashion.
So when I see the word being talked about I understand this to be the second entity that existed with God 'the father' in the beginning and I see the second entity as being composed of everything that God is composed of and as such he is just as much God as his father is. This is why they are one... they both have the same nature which is in absolute accord with one another. When you read; John 10:30 I and my Father are one. Do you assume this is God saying "This is really just God himself in a flesh suit?
Christ goes on to explain what is meant by being one with his father in several places the first of which is this verse;
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
See Christ is saying I am a distinct entity acting just as my father does in every way. I reflect the image of God in my actions. He is not saying he is the father as an entity. Here again is another one;
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Two distinct entities... both having the same nature, both speaking as one unified front. Paul understood this concept as he relates it here;
Rom 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

The many are to be considered one body every part of which is united with a single nature and a single front reflecting the Father in all things with help from the HS of course but each individual is still a unique entity. again Paul;
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Notice that Christ is a distinct entity apart from the father. If Christ was simply God in a flesh suit Paul would not have needed to include Christ as part of the verse as just naming God would have covered it all right? I can literally keep referencing verses that attest to the apostles understanding of Christ being a separate entity than the father;
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
I mean really how much more plain can this verse be? think about it... what mystery was hid 'in' God from the beginning?... Christ. The same Christ that Paul asserts God used to create all things. Two separate and unique entities acting as one.

jlay wrote:-What is meant "by the Word became flesh?" (John 1:12)

This would actually be Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
This verse is a crucial one which reveals the mystery of who the word is. The word is Christ the son from the beginning. We know the word existed from the beginning, we also know that God in conjunction with the word created everything. We know that the word (Christ) became a flesh and blood son taking on a different form than his first estate in order to save us since it required blood, actual blood to redeem us. Christs first estate was an existence in the same form as his father... no blood only spirit and power.

jlay wrote:-How does this relate to Phil.2:7 ? -According to this verse, how did Christ become human?

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men...

You should actually start with 2:6... because Paul and Timotheus both understood that Christ was Christ prior to the incarnation. They asserted as much in 2:6... Christ was in the form of God. This was Christs first estate prior to the incarnation. In verse 2:7 it says quite clearly "AND was made in the likeness of men". Remember the HS made / created the flesh body for Christ to inhabit and while within that body he reflected his father in all things.

jlay wrote:-Is God immutable?

That would depend on what about God is being considered. He obviously changed from not creating to creating... this was a change. He created for 6 says and stopped. Another change. But if we are to consider that what he meant by unchanging was his nature then I would agree that this is what is being asserted as unchanging.

jlay wrote:Does the incarnate Christ have a dual nature?

Absolutely not. Here is where we have confirmation that Christ has one nature, the same as his father;
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

If he did not reflect his father in every way with an unchanging front then he would not have been able to say;
John 14:9 ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father...

jlay wrote:Is the incarnate Christ fully God and fully man? Yes or no.

What do you mean by fully God? A single entity or an entity with the same exact nature as God? My answer cannot be a yes or no because your question can cover several meanings. I assert the second way I just defined "an entity with the same exact nature as God" who at one point had the same form as well. When Christ took on the form of a man he left his first estate and became both spirit and flesh. He had a different form when he was with the father prior to the incarnation;
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
See Christ had an existence with the father prior to the beginning and he had a glory of his own just like the fathers. Two distinct entities one common nature both acting on one accord.

dayage wrote:KBCid, RickD gave you a good link on the Biblical evidence for the Big Bang.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-ban ... t-it-first

I will examine it.

dayage wrote:I would like to add a little to this:
In the above article it is shown that the Bible speaks of God as having stretched the heavens in the past and continually stretching them in the present, but could that have implied a universe that is growing larger and larger to the original audience?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... and on the 7th day he rested. God set things in motion during 6 days, if part of that motion was to make the universe continue to expand then it would nullify;
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

These verses define that a separation was made and heaven... where the stars were subsequently placed was specifically between the waters. God defined the scope of space. In Job God alludes to his organization of heaven;
Job 38:33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
Again God clearly states;
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
He ended the forming of anything on day 6. That which has ended cannot continue to occur.

dayage wrote:Some have rejected a literal understanding of the Bible's teaching on an expanding universe by pointing out that the heavens (universe) are likened to a tent and/or curtains which make up a tent (Ex. 26:1-13, 36:13-16; Is. 40:22; Psalm 104:2). They claim that this means that it should not be taken literally.
The Hebrew verb natah (stretch) was used for the initial stretching out (pitching, setting up) of a tent (Gen. 12:8, 26:25; Jeremiah 10:20), but it was also used in reference to a tent being made larger (Is. 54:2-3). So, indeed natah would have suggested, what astronomers now know to be true, that space was initially stretched out when it was created (Isaiah 42:5; at the Big bang) and the Qal active participle form of natah would suggest its continued expansion.

One could assert that the movements of the bodies within the heavens may be moving away from each other just as we can say the moon is moving away from the earth. What they can't say is that the space alloted for the heavenly bodies to exist in is growing larger on its own nor can they infer that God is continuing to expand it. It plainly states that he created for 6 days and then rested. No more creation has occured past day 6. So if planets and galaxies are moving away then it can only be from the degradation of Gods initial forming.
Note the tense in this verse;
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The word "were' is used in that verse. It clearly doesn't say "By the word of the LORD are the heavens being made". They were made... they were finished . If anyone wants to infer that creation is ongoing then they must wrestle with Gods own word which says they were finished.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

KBC, I believe the firmament here, is the sky. This creation story is written from the perspective of the Spirit of God hovering over the surface of the land.

The word "were' is used in that verse. It clearly doesn't say "By the word of the LORD are the heavens being made". They were made... they were finished . If anyone wants to infer that creation is ongoing then they must wrestle with Gods own word which says they were finished.

I don't think Dayage would disagree with that. Look at stellar evolution. God set in motion, the stages a star goes through in it's evolution. Just like God created human life, and life continues, when a sperm and egg meet. Then the human develops into a full grown person, and if natural processes are allowed to continue until the end, the person will die.

RickD wrote:KBC, I believe the firmament here, is the sky. This creation story is written from the perspective of the Spirit of God hovering over the surface of the land."

That view is dependant on one thing. The earth would have had to already exist.
Gen 1:9-10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
These verses infer that the earth was being formed. I gave a breakdown of how this works in a preceeding post if you want to see more on that rationale. Of note on this subject is the understanding that 'nothing' was created until Gen 1:3. This is one of the differing perspectives we are discussing in the thread so it won't do much good to rehash past content until a conclusion can be acertained. One of the greatest points made in scripture was that;
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Now look through genesis and tell me where 'the word' was used to create... I'll give you the same hint as I posted earlier;
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light... This is the very first commandment of God and it came through the word and we should all know that "without him (the word) was not any thing made that was made". Thus no command no creation.
What you need to provide here is a rationale of how Gen 1:1 was an act of creation when in fact there was no word given. All gen 1:1 gives is a description of what occured in the 6 days of creation. God created the heavens and the earth. Clearly we can see that heaven didn't exist until Gen 1:14 when God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night. Gen 1:1 is a description of a completed heavens and earth yet clearly it was not completed as of Gen 1:13. Remember created is used in past tense in vs. 1 and it applied to the heavens and the earth. The layout of genesis is a parallelism. It happens alot in scripture where a verse occurs and then another right after it says the same thing another way. Its kind of a signature of God. It is also what Joseph smith used when he wrote his book to make it read in a similar manner to the bible.

RickD wrote:I don't think Dayage would disagree with that. Look at stellar evolution. God set in motion, the stages a star goes through in it's evolution. Just like God created human life, and life continues, when a sperm and egg meet. Then the human develops into a full grown person, and if natural processes are allowed to continue until the end, the person will die.

Yay!!! we have found common ground. the creation has variability 'designed' into it. Yea Rick some things just have a very reasonable rationale about them.

RickD wrote:I hope this helps: http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-ban ... t-it-first

Here is my take on this article Rick. In the paragraph below we see the interpretation of Gen 1:1 as many people have understood it;

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 The proclamation that God created (bara’) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18).

These people feel that the first verse was a statement of an initial partial act that God performed. They would be incorrect. Nothing was created without the word and the word doesn't begin till gen 1:3. The creation of the heavens and earth as referenced in the six places other than the assumed partial act in 1:1 is a reference to the completed heavens and earth not to the assumed partial act of Gen 1:1. Thus, all the references do not reference the same concept alluded to by the interpreters. There is a difference between a partial creation and a complete creation. So, the seven referenced verses either infer a completed creation or they all don't.

Here we see another point that I just posted about;

What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching.

You can infer that these verses imply "continual or ongoing stretching" but the fact is as stated by God that he performed every act that he was going to perform in six days after that he rested. He is not stretching out anything past the six day point. Therefore if by natural degradation planets and galaxies are drifting away from their initial positions that God placed them at then they are moving into already existing space.

Again;

"The participles in lines one and three of Isaiah 40:22 characterize our sovereign God by His actions in all times, sitting enthroned above the earth and stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising his creative power in His ongoing providential work."

Let me reiterate this again;
Gen 2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

The heavens and the earth were finished... past tense and final... nothing creative ongoing here. God rested from "all his work which he had made". A fairly concrete statement of finality.

"This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth’s crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

The possible variable/ evolving surface of the earth cannot be considered as an ongoing creation. Just as we are not an ongoing creative act of God. He created our reproductive systems 'in the beginning' and then he rested from all his work just as he finished his earth 'system' and solar system and every other system involved in the heavens and the earth.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself.

Incorrect. The bible says nothing about gravity nor electromagnetism beginning. This is entirely interperative license. The inference to the law of thermodynamics that essentialy states that everything that got wound up is winding down does not in fact infer that this is a new property of the universe. Just as we can wind-up a clock and state that it will wind down to a stop is all one can infer from the references given from the bible since at no time does the bible state that God created it. This is entirely and assumption based on an interpretation of what gen 1:1 means. If you look at;

Gen 1:2 ...And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

What do you suppose God was doing here? Suppose for a moment that he was infusing matter that was in a state of entrophy with the energy that wound it up into its current state. Without the constant infusion of energy from his presence it would wind down. It would wind down into the natural state of things that we are given a view of from;
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...

KBCid,

Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha’ erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence. This indicates the heavenly bodies–the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets–were created “in the beginning” prior to the six creation “days.”

KBCid wrote:

Clearly we can see that heaven didn't exist until Gen 1:14 when God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night.

Genesis 1-14:19 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning–the fourth day.

KBCid,
Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth “day.” Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for “made” (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered “God had made” rather than “God made.” This indicates God “had made” the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth “day.”8

This view of the fourth “day” has broad support. For example, Gleason Archer, one of the foremost evangelical Hebrew scholars, states: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day...9 Likewise, Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem states: “[Verse 16] Can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before … This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier …

For a more complete explanation of the info I posted, see this article:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/mortenson.html

PaulSacramento wrote: As someone with a few family members that are JW's and someone that has even take the JW "bible study" I can assure you that the JW's have answers to every christian doctrine there is, the unfortunate part is that they INTERPRET those doctrines in a way so that the answers THEY have are correct.
In other words, they make doctrines say what THEY want them to say and then point out how they are wrong ( even though they don't say anything of the sort).

Some errors are easier for some to detect than others. The greater question that you should be asking and that I ask daily is;

Are the things I have a belief in now just as flawed from Gods POV as those other ones that I can see plainly. This is my greatest worry.

KBCid,

Here's another very good article by Rich, that shows the literal interpretation of the Genesis one creation account:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

KBCid wrote, The word "were' is used in that verse. It clearly doesn't say "By the word of the LORD are the heavens being made". They were made... they were finished . If anyone wants to infer that creation is ongoing then they must wrestle with Gods own word which says they were finished.

I don't think Dayage would disagree with that. Look at stellar evolution. God set in motion, the stages a star goes through in it's evolution. Just like God created human life, and life continues, when a sperm and egg meet. Then the human develops into a full grown person, and if natural processes are allowed to continue until the end, the person will die.

Right on RickD. God allows the laws of physics to "created" snowflakes and rain drops.

Also KBCid, what does an expanding universe have to do with ongoing creation? If I blow into a balloon I make it expand, but I am not creating more balloon. I am just making the surface stretch. By the way, the Bible passages are very clear, that God was and is stretching the heavens long after He finished creating.

RickD wrote:KBCid, Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha’ erets) refers to the entire universe, entire creation and everything that can be seen or has physical existence. This indicates the heavenly bodies–the Earth, Sun, Moon, stars and other planets–were created “in the beginning” prior to the six creation “days.”

Well your half right. You seem to clearly understand that it is a description of a finished creation.

RickD wrote:Genesis 1-14:19 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning–the fourth day.

KBCid,
Verse 16 tells us God made the Sun, Moon and stars on the fourth “day.” Most young-earth creationists focus on the English translation and interpret this verse to mean God created the Sun and Moon that instant. The Hebrew does not support that interpretation. The Hebrew word for “made” (asah) refers to an action completed in the past.7 Thus, the verse is correctly rendered “God had made” rather than “God made.” This indicates God “had made” the Sun, Moon and stars earlier than the fourth “day.”8

of course verse 16 is in past tense. That is because it is giving further information about what came just before it in verses;

Genesis 1:14-15 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

Tell me what tense are the hebrew words in verses 14 and 15, Past or present? and what day did they occur on?

Present tense... 4th day.

And God said........... let there be lights in the expanse of the sky. Sounds like present tense to me. Thus, verse 16 is simply giving a more detailed view explaining the two previous verses where God simply called them "lights"

It would be like me saying;

14-15 And I said "let there be lights in my house" to separate the day from the night....And it was so.
16 And I made two great lights; the greater light in the livingroom to rule the day, and the entry light to rule the night. I put lights in all the other rooms also.

Doesn't that make more logical sense? You must take into account the verses that immediately preceed a verse which in this case do not infer a past tense.

I was not going to post this yet, because I am not finished, but here it is.

A futher note here, Gen 1:1 was not a command of God. God made no command until Gen 1:3. No command no creation.

It is just a brief description of what took place first. "In the beginning God created (bara)."
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host

Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. (See verses 1-5)

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

The focus for the rest of Genesis one (verses 3-31) is the transformation of earth, into a habitable place for humanity to rule.

It would appear that we need clarification of concept here. If as you envision the earth was a smooth faced ball with the water described in vs. 2 as being on its surface then what is being described in;
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

The atmosphere was probably foggy or steamy. So, God made an expanse to divide the fog/steam from the ocean's surface. This became the waters above which are the clouds. The waters below are the oceans.

Prov. 8:28
When He established the clouds (shachaq) above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,

2 Samuel 22:12
He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds (ab, shachaq), a gathering of water.

Job 26:8
"He wraps up the waters in His clouds (ab); and the cloud (anan) does not burst under them."

Job 36:27-28
"For He draws up drops of water, they distill as rain in His rain cloud (ed), those clouds (shachaq) pour down, they drip upon man abundantly."

Job 37:11
"Also with moisture He loads the cloud (ab); He scatters the cloud (anan) of His lightning."

Job 38:34
"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds (ab), So that an abundance of water may cover you?"

Psalm 77:17
"The clouds (ab) poured out water; the clouds (shachaq) gave forth a sound; Thy arrows flashed here and there."

Ecclesiastes 11:3
"If the clouds (ab) are full, they pour out rain upon the earth;"

Haya
On creation days one, two, and four God says, haya (let there be or allow there to be). The verb haya is used in these verses instead of bara (create) or asa (make). It does not mean “let appear,” as some old-earth creationists have suggested. Each time that God uses haya, as the main verb in His creation command, it institutes a transformation of the atmosphere (Gen. 1:3, 6 & 14). The ultimate outcome is the visibility/appearance of the lights in the sky, but that is not its meaning.

So, let us examine the evidence supporting this interpretation of those three verses. In Job 38:4-7, God says the stars (and angels) were there at the founding/establishing of the earth. Job 38:8-9 tells us how the earth became dark and covered with water (see Gen. 1:2 & Ps. 104:5-6). In Job 38:9, God says that darkness covered the earth, because He covered the earth with thick clouds.

This establishes that something had to happen to this cloudy/foggy proto-atmosphere to allow light to pass through to the observer. So, in Gen. 1:3 haya refers to a transformation in that proto-atmosphere to make it translucent to light. God may have used the collision, which is believed to have formed the moon, to initiate this first “day.” But as we will see, this transformation was only used to thin the cloudy shroud, not to remove it completely.

In Gen. 1:6 God says haya, to cause an open expanse to form in the midst of the waters. Since it is dividing the waters above the expanse from the waters below, it sounds like the global ocean was still shrouded in something like a global fog, steam or mist. Now, this fog became a global cloud layer (waters above), which still blocked the visibility of the individual light sources, but not the light. Compare this second day of creation with its parallels in Ps. 104:3, 13 and Prov. 8:28.

At this point we have established that the first two uses of haya, clearly dealt with a transforming of earth’s atmosphere. Why would anyone think that the third use would be any different?

On the fourth day God again says haya, "Let there be lights." Genesis 1:14-15 is telling us that on the fourth day God broke up the cloud layer. This exposed, to the observer on the planet’s surface (the Holy Spirit; Gen. 1:2), the individual light sources. These verses along with 16-18, also explain to us the important functions that God gave to the lights. In fact this is the main theme for this whole day. It's all about the functions their visibility would permit.

The “firmament,” “firmament of the heavens,” and “heavens,” of Gen. 1:3-29, are consistently defined as the expanse between the clouds and ocean, where the birds fly. It is the atmosphere.

in Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. "

we see that God is gathering together the raw materials into a specific 'place' within the 'space' which was still composed of the earth and water that were initially separated when he made the space for the heavens from Gen 1:6. If the planetary body we know as the earth already existed then he could have simply commanded "Let the waters upon the face of the earth (or ground) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear".

There are three heavens in the Bible (2 Cor. 12:2), the atmosphere, space and God's dwelling place. The heaven of Gen. 1:9 is the atmosphere and the waters below it are the oceans.

Other creation texts tell us that earth was original covered by a global ocean (Job 38:4, 8-9; Psalm 104:5-6; Proverbs 8:27).

Then we see other creation texts telling us that God established dry land as a boundary for the oceans (Job 38:10-11; Psalm 104:8-9; Proverbs 8:29; even Jeremiah 5:22)

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

If by chance you wonder how I might logically make such an inference then consider these verses;
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth...
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth...
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...
Gen 7:3 ...to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Gen 7:4 ...and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground...
Gen 8:9 ...for the waters were on the face of the whole earth
Gen 8:13 ...the waters were dried up from off the earth...
etc... etc... etc...

I could quite literally keep on referencing verses where it clearly shows that God understands and verbally recognises the "face of the earth" when it is a planetary body. So it seems quite logical that the earth as a planet did not exist prior to vs. 9 otherwise he would have referred to it just the way he does in a plethora of places after that.

Every one of those references is to the land surfaces, not the planet.

What exactly is not allowed by the hebrew? Each of our sources does in fact personally believe that the first vs. was describing an act. But their beliefs about the act are not what I was pointing out.

See below. Good thing, because they all disagree with you.

The waw disjunctive is properly used as I am asserting, whether the verse was describing an initial act prior to the second verse or whether it was describing an act that was subsequently described by the following verses. The waw disjunctive follows a verb that described action and is at the beginning of a clause. So to re-refernce my original reference lets see what McCabe says a bit more specifically and make sure we are both on the same page for the difference between a waw consecutive and a waw disjunctive;

The word 'and' is properly used as a waw disjunctive because it connects the described and already completed act God performed when he created the heaven and the earth in vs. 1 to the parallel view that begins the complete description of all the individual acts that were involved and performed in all the "waw consecutive" or sequentially connected verses which indicate the temporal movement (waw consecutive) from verse to verse.

Bottom line here is that Gen 1:1 describes all the work God performed up to the time he rested. Gen 1:3-31 gives a closeup view of all the actions involved in Gods work week. Another way I can say this is if I reword things a bit here and say;

I began the discussion on the waw, so why are you going back over the definitions?

A major problem with your interpretation is that verse two is describing an item (earth), not an act. Genesis 1:2 describes what the earth looked like after it was created in Genesis 1:1. That is why verse 2 begins with the waw disjunctive. The waw disjunctive is connecting the item (earth) of verse one, with its description in verse two. If you had read your source or mine, you would have seen that this is how it is used in all of the reference verses. It connects an item, just mentioned, with a description of it. It does not connect an action with a following series of descriptions about how the action was accomplished.

Close parallels to Genesis 1:1-2 using the waw disjunctive:
Judges 8:11 Then Gideon went up by the road of those who dwell in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah; and he attacked the camp, for (waw disjunctive) the camp felt secure.
Here it links to further descriptions of the camp. It does not link to a description of how Gideon made his way to the camp.

Jonah 3:3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the LORD. Now (waw disjunctive) Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days' walk.
Here it links to further descriptions of Nineveh. It does not link to a description of how Jonah made his way to Nineveh.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And (waw disjunctive) the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Here, as in the previous examples, it also links to the further descriptions of an item (earth). It is not a link to a description of how God created the heavens and the earth.

What our sources have said and the evidence bears out, is that the waw disjunctive is not being used to lead into a description of how something occurred. It links an item to a further description of that item.

dayage wrote:Also KBCid, what does an expanding universe have to do with ongoing creation? If I blow into a balloon I make it expand, but I am not creating more balloon. I am just making the surface stretch. By the way, the Bible passages are very clear, that God was and is stretching the heavens long after He finished creating.

The fact that you are infering an ongoing action being performed by God. He is not still stretching anything. Every 'act' that he was going to take was done during the 6 creation days. So if you wish to infer that expansion is just an ongoing result of the initial action of God that would be fine. But an inference of an ongoing action by God past the 6th day is not warranted by the text. At the very most the text infers that God caused the stretching / expanding to occur. We must always take the scriptures in a context that doesn't nullify other texts so when God said he rested from 'all' his work then I would say you can take it to the bank that he is not performing any further actions.

KBCid,

Every 'act' that he was going to take was done during the 6 creation days. So if you wish to infer that expansion is just an ongoing result of the initial action of God that would be fine.

There are these little things called laws, that God put in place to run the universe, etc (Jeremiah 33:25). The "fixed patterns" is the word chuqqah which means a statute or law. Therefore, the ongoing stretching, which the Biblical authors wrote about, is still credited to God. When it is stated that God stretches the heavens, it should be understood that He is the ultimate cause. God stopped creating on day seven. He did not, for instance, stop sustaining the creation (Colossians 1:16-17).