Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:
...especially since the word 'yom' is used before the markers for a 'regular' day even become visible on day 4.

You are referring to the YEC position that the sun wasn't created until day 4, correct?

You're not suggesting that the sun wasn't actually there before day 4?

I was pretty specific in my words here...
" become visible on day 4"

This is consistent with the RTB premise that the context of the Genesis 1 creation account moves to the surface of the earth beginning with Genesis 1:2. Therefore even though all the heavens and the earth were created in Genesis 1:1 (before God starts working on forming the earth in Genesis 1:2) the luminaries in the sky were not visible from the surface of the earth until day 4 due to the state of the atmosphere at that time.

Become "visible" to whom? The plants with eyes?

This is kind of like the philosophical question...

If a guy goes out into the middle of the woods and there is no woman to hear him...
If he says something, is he still wrong?

The answer to that deep question is... yes?
Even though there is no woman in the woods to bear witness to what he says, he is still a guy.
And inherently that means anything he says is still wrong... regardless of whether or not there is a woman present to hear what he says.

The lack of an observer has no bearing at all on whether or not the luminaries were visible from the surface of the earth. That is a function of the composition and density of the atmosphere.

Which brings us back to K's point, Did Moses understand the creation account that he wrote in the way that Hugh Ross (or Ken Ham for that matter) does?
I believe the answer to that question is ... No

I think K has a pretty good handle on Moses' intent when he wrote Genesis 1. However, I also believe that the Holy Spirit guided Moses to use specific words in his narrative so they were consistent with a scientifically accurate description of what actually happened (see Hugh Ross) in addition to the understanding that Moses had when he wrote them (which may or may not have involved a scientifically accurate cosmology).

The sun could not have been there until day four because God said that was when He created it.
So if God said He created it on day four then He did and it wasn't there until then.


What everyone is over looking there dose not have to be a sun for there to be light.

If you look at what the Bible you will see that it was on day four that God created the sun and caused the light to come from it.

The Bible said on day one God created light and divided the light from the darkness. So that gives a picture of a gray piece of paper having the colors divided with a result of the top half being white and the bottom half being black. Then if you were to have earth setting on the dividing line of the two colors spinning then you would have morning and evening without the sun.

On day 4 it says God created the sun and caused it to divide the day from the night. Not only that but the Bible refered to the light being there before the sun was made.

On day four God said that He made the sun to shine light on the earth. God Did not say He made the light on that day but that He made the sun and caused the light to come from it. So according to the Bible light was already there.

The Bible didn't say God made light on the 4th day but that he caused light to shine on the earth from the sun on day 4. Which indicates that the light was already created.

jpbg33 wrote:The sun could not have been there until day four because God said that was when He created it.
So if God said He created it on day four then He did and it wasn't there until then.


What everyone is over looking there dose not have to be a sun for there to be light.

If you look at what the Bible you will see that it was on day four that God created the sun and caused the light to come from it.

That is not a true statement...
According to Scripture, God created the heavens (which includes the sun moon and stars) and earth (Genesis 1:1) before Day 1 starts.

The word translated 'created' in Genesis 1:1 implies something new coming into existence.
On day 4 in Genesis 1:16 God 'made' two great lights and placed them in the sky. He also 'made' the stars. The word translated 'made' does not imply the same coming into existence of something new that Genesis 1:1 uses when it describes the actual 'creation' of the heavens.
In Genesis 1:16 these lights are being placed in the sky (ie made visible in the sky from the surface of the earth). The heavenly luminaries themselves were actually created back in Genesis 1:1. They were not created on day 4, but they were made visible in the sky on day 4.

As ACB likes to point out there is a difference between things being 'created' in Genesis 1 and things being 'made' in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 does not say anywhere that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4.

Yes God created everything on day one but not in the way you are implying.

God Created the heavens and the earth and light on day one then he took from what He created on day one and made everything from it.

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.

Jpbg,

How long was day one, and where does the Bible say how long it was?

jpbg33 wrote:Yes God created everything on day one but not in the way you are implying.

God Created the heavens and the earth and light on day one then he took from what He created on day one and made everything from it.

Actually, that's not what I am implying...

What I am implying... actually explicitly stating.. is...
God created the heavens (including all the luminaries in the heavens... sun, moon and stars) BEFORE day 1 even starts.

Genesis 1:2 describes the state of the earth after it is created as formless and void and covered by water. Days 1 through 6 describe the process of taking the formless and void earth described in Genesis 1:2 and transforming it and filling it with life and finally humans.

Now Genesis 1:1 is not the only place that the word "created" is used in the Genesis 1 account of creation. On day 5 God "creates" marine animals and birds (which is a fatal flaw with the Gap theory... btw). And then on day 6 Genesis 1:26-27 uses both "made" and "created" in reference to humans.

So God did "create" other things during the six days of creation in addition to the heavens and the earth which he created before the six days of creation began.

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.

What do we make of verses like:

Genesis 3:20:
New International Version
"Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living".

English Standard Version
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

And is there any significance to the differently translation wordings. One could say, IF there were humans created before Adam, not in his line, that after the flood, she did BECOME the mother of all the living - those whose lineage came through Adam and Eve, and then Noah's family. But it's also true that, at the time Moses wrote the accounts of Adam and Eve, WRITTEN post-flood, that, Eve would have been the mother of ALL living - all living in Moses time.

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through ONE man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned—"

So if all humans inherited their sin nature through one man, what does that say about any possible pre-Adamic men not having had a sin nature, as they would have preceded Adam?

Sorry Phil, but I've read and don't buy into Heiser, Miller et al. re-interpretation of Genesis 1 in light of what evolutionary science says about how humanity arose, of course within the context of "ANE understanding" . Otherwise, for myself, I have read and thought about the arguments made surrounding such.

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Gen 2:4 introduces a new creation episode. The traditional view takes “in that day” to mean “at the same time,” so that Gen 2:5-9 is a new way of describing the same events of Gen 1. However, “in that day” could very easily be construed in the sense of “right on the heels of” Gen 2:1-3. That is, right after God was done resting He got busy again- this time creating a special human (male) for a special place (presumably for a special purpose -perhaps to elect them as His own children amid the rest of humanity [created in Genesis 1], thereby providing a point of analogy with his later election of Israel). Later in Genesis 2:21-23 God creates a second special human, the female counterpart to the earlier created male human.[/list]
What I'm getting at here, is unless one believes and argues that Genesis 2:4 is the concluding verse all prior rather than the introductory verse to what comes after, then Gen 2:4 doesn't really hold much weight in way of an argument for understanding the days in Genesis 1 as representing long periods of time.

Where we agree... you are correct I do see Genesis 2:4 as the beginning of the section of the narrative that runs from Genesis 2:4 through the end of Genesis 4.
I also see the use of YHWH in this section of Genesis as an indicator that God is interacting with his covenant people beginning with Genesis 2:4 as opposed to generic humanity in Genesis 1:26-28 where Genesis uses the more generic Elohim (I was actually discussing this with my dad yesterday).

Here's where I disagree with your position. Genesis 2:4 is one of the 'toledot' transition verses which as you point out marks the beginning of a new narrative. And the toledot is used to indicate a relationship between the narrative beginning with the toledot and the narrative prior to the toledot. According to John Walton (The Lost World of Adam and Eve - Proposition 7). The toledot is used to indicate that the narrative beginning with Genesis 2:4 is sequential to what happened in Gen 1:1-2:3... not a recapitulation of the events that took place during 'day 6' of Genesis 1.

OK... so what does that have to do with the use of 'day' in Genesis 2:4?
My understanding of the function of the Genesis 2:4 toledot is to basically say... this is what happened when/after God created the heavens and the earth in the previous section.

So even though 'yom' in Gen 2:4 is is part of the beginning of a new narrative, it is still used to look back to the creation of the heavens and the earth which is described in the previous narrative. So It is legitimate to say that the Genesis 2:4 'yom' is used within the context of the creation of the heavens and earth which is described in detail in the previous section (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

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.

Now, in response to what you say of John Walton, I don't disagree. If you pick up a book, you might skip chapter 1 and start at chapter 2. You should be able to have a general idea of what is being discussed, even if there are some gaps in your knowledge of things said (because you didn't read chapter 1). In this way chapter 2 is sequential to chapter 1, BUT that's it. Unless an explicit statement made at the start of chapter 2 referring back to chapter 1, then there is no "basically say... this is what happened what/after [chapter 1]." The toledot phrasing isn't such a statement, it is the start of a new thought that points forward.

What is sequential is the juxtapositioning of Genesis 2:4 after Genesis 1:1-2:3. Due to the structuring of these two likely separate stories that had been handed down even unto Moses via ancient storytelling and transcription, who then structured and perhaps edited them together (which is what I believe likely happened). Given this, Genesis 2:4+ was from a different story told than Genesis 1-2:3. As such, Genesis 2:4 can't really refer to anything prior, except such is simply how Moses juxtapositioned the two different stories together when compiling Genesis.

So then, it is due to the order Moses compiles two unqiue and different creation accounts together, that Genesis 2:4+ is sequential to Genesis 1:1-2:3. NOT because of the towlĕdah, which is part of a different story passed down through generations, and which marks the introduction to a new line.

dbowling wrote:Genesis 2:4 is my poster child of an example where yom does not (and cannot) refer to 24 hours within the context of the creation of the heavens and earth.

When I was Day-Age (and in a manner I'm still "like" Day-Age in many respects, although I no longer classify myself as such since I don't read any time period into yom), this verse was also my "poster child" verse push-back against YECs. It was one of my number 1 arguments, so it wasn't with ease I let go of it. It just can't be used to support the Day-Age position, once one understands the use of towlĕdah and how it points forward, and also that Genesis 2:4 is the start of a different creation accounting.

dbowling wrote:My other point "and there was evening and there was morning, day x" just points out that that phrase cannot be used assert a 24 hour day. I think the phrase most likely refers to the transition between two days. Something like "day x" came to an end and another day began.

No complaint here, such is a valid inference and likely intended. Yet, one should not also ignore the very plain and visual language used. While the words are being used in a style that ends a day in preparation for the next day (ending/introducing a new creation scene), one should also ask themselves why Moses kept/used plain and visual language associated with that of a solar day. What was the purpose of such?

I think Moses uses days, visualisations associated with ordinary days, as part of a literary structure which culminates in Genesis 2:3, stamping the conclusion that Israel's God is the one true God and Lord over all creation, above Ra, above any "god" of the sea, any "god" of the heavens, any "god" of land, nature, life. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day", so Israel was to keep the Sabbath in honour to YHWH who blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex 20:11) Keeping the Sabbath is to acknowledge and pay respect to God (Elohim - Gen 2:3 / YHWH - Ex 20:11), Israel's God, as the one true God and Lord of all creation. This is the importance of the Genesis 1:1-2:3 passage, and why Moses employs the use and language of "ordinary days" in a 7-day structure, rather than utilising a non-day framework akin to perhaps visions of creation scenes akin to the visions of John in Revelation.

dbowling wrote:All this to point out that there are a number of meanings for 'yom' in Hebrew, and contrary to the assertions of the YEC tradition there is nothing in the text of Genesis 1 to indicate that a day is 24 hours or a 'regular' day, especially since the word 'yom' is used before the markers for a 'regular' day even become visible on day 4.

There is nothing in the text of Genesis 1 to indicate ANY individual property of a day (e.g., a period of time) is intended for "day" in Genesis 1. Unlike many today, Moses has little concern over questions of "time".

However, the many visualisations inspired by the plain language used does indicate an ordinary day is indeed intended by Moses. As to why he employs the use of ordinary day descriptors, I say one should pay attention to the literary style and structure of Genesis to understand the reasoning. It also helps to have an Hebraic understanding of "day" which is dependant upon the two great lights, in particular seeing the Sun go through the heavens above Earth. Finally, I again point to the evident parallelism as I mentioned in an earlier post here.

jpbg33 wrote:The sun could not have been there until day four because God said that was when He created it.
So if God said He created it on day four then He did and it wasn't there until then.

It seems the light that was created on Day 1 and God's separating it from darkness on Day 1 (Gen 1:3-4), was something God again did on Day 4 (Gen 1:17-18). Please explain why the double-up here, that is, why was something on Day 1 re-created on Day 4?

Philip wrote: So if all humans inherited their sin nature through one man, what does that say about any possible pre-Adamic men not having had a sin nature, as they would have preceded Adam?

I was looking at 1 Cor 15:45 again recently due to a discussion at this site and I was struck by Paul's observation that Adam "became a living soul". This is a direct reference by Paul to God breathing into Adam the "breath of life" in Genesis 2:7.

I called my dad, who is a Hebrew and Greek scholar, to make sure I understood what was going on in Greek in 1 Cor 15:45 and in Hebrew in Genesis 2:7.

I'm still mulling over the implications of 1 Cor 15:45, so I'm going to kind of share my musings here

According to Paul, Adam became a 'living soul' when God breathed into him the breath of life. Paul also relates 'becoming a living soul' with Adam's status as the 'first man' when contrasted with Jesus as the "second man" and the "last Adam".

I think I have already established through Scripture that Adam was the first person to have relationship with God, and that he was the first person in the lineage of God's covenant people. However, I am contemplating (per 1 Cor 15:45) that Adam was also the first human to "become a living soul".
This is consistent with Genesis 3 which states that prior to Adam, mankind did not 'know good and evil'.

My problem with where this was heading was that in Genesis 1:26-28 mankind was an 'image bearer of God' before Adam 'became a living soul'. I always equated the two phrases, but a little research indicates that I may have been wrong.

According to ANE literature, being an image bearer of God relates to being God's representative or regent. This is consistent with what we see in Genesis 1:28 when mankind is given dominion over the earth and is given the task to fill and subdue the earth.

So based on the ANE understanding of what it means to be an 'imagebearer', it is possible for mankind (physically modern humans) to subdue and fill the earth without necessarily being a 'living soul' in the 1 Cor 15:45 sense.

So getting back to Phil's comment, I am moving closer to the conclusion that pre-Adamic mankind (physically modern humans) did not know 'good and evil' and were not 'living souls' in the Pauline sense.

K: Sorry Phil, but I've read and don't buy into Heiser, Miller et al. re-interpretation of Genesis 1

Just to say, K, I don't BUY IN to it either, but have sifted it, wondered about the possibilities. But I by no means think it is beyond interesting speculation. I just don't know. The issue I have comes up the archaeological record, showing people dispersed far beyond the parameters of ancient Mesopotamia, within the timelines typically assigned to the flood event - even with very generous ones. IF the flood did indeed kill ALL of humanity, or if a regional flood killed all humans before they were dispersed from the Mesopotamian region, then it begs many questions. I don't think there are certainties with any of it. But I also know that the Creation itself is ANOTHER testimony - so those ancient geological evidences, and those of ancient civilizations beyond the region - what are we to make of that? It's all exceptionally fascinating.

BTW, I've not read that Heiser thinks pre-Adamic men are a certainty, but one he is pondering, based upon what he thinks the text MIGHT support. One thing that makes me doubt it is that I would imagine that references to such men would have been made more obvious, if nothing more than to contrast the two groups, as there would obviously have been a great spiritual difference between the two lines.

FYI: Just typed this without reading responses to my post of last night.

Genesis 3 doesn't say prior to Adam if it does what verse is that in.

We know that there was 24 hours starting from the first of one day of creation to the start of another day of creation, because the Bible says that the morning and the evening were the days. The day was only about 12 hours long in each account but each one started 24 hours after the one before it.

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.


And if you read in day one God said He made light not the sun or moon and it said He divided the light from the darkness. Then on day 4 God said He made the sun and the stars and the moon. Then He said that He made the sun to divide the light and the darkness. He didn't say that it wasn't already divided but it was the sun that was dividing it at that point instead of Him dividing it.

jpbg33 wrote:Genesis 3 doesn't say prior to Adam if it does what verse is that in.

We know that there was 24 hours starting from the first of one day of creation to the start of another day of creation, because the Bible says that the morning and the evening were the days. The day was only about 12 hours long in each account but each one started 24 hours after the one before it.

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.


And if you read in day one God said He made light not the sun or moon and it said He divided the light from the darkness. Then on day 4 God said He made the sun and the stars and the moon. Then He said that He made the sun to divide the light and the darkness. He didn't say that it wasn't already divided but it was the sun that was dividing it at that point instead of Him dividing it.

What is your understanding of the sequence of events of the following?
a. God creating the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
b. The earth is formless and void and the Spirit of God hovers over the waters on the face of the earth (Genesis 1:2)
c. God separates the light of the day from the darkness of the night (Genesis 1:3)

It comes down to this...
Do you believe that the sun, moon, and stars are part of the heavens?
Do you believe that God created the heavens before he separated the light of the day from the darkness of the night?

I think this basic sequence of events is pretty clear and straightforward in Scripture.

The difficulty occurs when people try to equate the 'creation' of the sun, moon, and the stars (Genesis 1:1) with placing the images/lights from the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament/sky (day 4).
Creating the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens is not the same thing as placing the images of the sun, moon, and stars in the sky/firmament.

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

Kurieuo wrote: 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).
Genesis 2:4 starts a 'new chapter' that picks up right where Genesis 2:3 ended.

I think we're actually saying the same thing about the toledot moving forward from the starting point at the beginning of the narrative.

What is sequential is the juxtapositioning of Genesis 2:4 after Genesis 1:1-2:3. Due to the structuring of these two likely separate stories that had been handed down even unto Moses via ancient storytelling and transcription, who then structured and perhaps edited them together (which is what I believe likely happened). Given this, Genesis 2:4+ was from a different story told than Genesis 1-2:3. As such, Genesis 2:4 can't really refer to anything prior, except such is simply how Moses juxtapositioned the two different stories together when compiling Genesis.

I guess we do disagree on this point. Moses may have used multiple sources when he compiled his narrative, but I disagree that that implies that Genesis 2:4 can't refer to the previous section (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
Especially when you see the same terminology about God creating the heavens and the earth elsewhere such as in Exodus.
I think it is more likely that these similarities are a function of Moses purposefully editing the material (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course) as he brought material from different sources together to form a single coherent narrative. And when he talks about God creating the heavens and the earth in Genesis 2:4 and in Exodus 20, he is purposefully referring to the events of Genesis 1:1-2:3.