1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Bible starts off with God creating the universe. It should be noted that the existence of God is assumed and never argued in the Bible. This statement immediately catches our attention as it proclaims a beginning. It tells us that the universe did not always exist. God existed before the universe and created it. This tells us that the God of the Bible transcends space and time. He is the transcendent personal creator that formal arguments like the Kalam Cosmological one require. A being not limited by space and time. An uncaused first cause that violates no formal rule or logical principle.

Anyone with any science training in science should see a direct corrolary between Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang Cosmology. Science has unequivocally demonstrated that our universe had a beginning from the Big Bang to the second law of thermodynamics. Not to mention all the philosphical problems that arise in an infinite universe.

It should also be noted that the word used for create in Genesis 1:1 (bara) is used only in describing divine activity. The subject of this verb is always God. It is a type of creating that only God can do. On a side note, reading verses like John 1:1 we see that Jesus Christ also created all things. Clearly evidence of his Deity.

Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

"[T]he universe we can see, detect, and measure was made from that which we cannot see, detect, or measure." (Ross, The Genesis Question, pg 20.)

The Biblical declaration of a transcendant creator who created the entire universe goes unchallenged when placed next to other "holy books." Hugh Ross on page 20 in the Genesis Question tells us that, "No other "holy book" makes such a claim on its own. The concept appears elsewhere only in those books that borrow from the Bible, such as the Koran and the Mormon wrtiings. Ross also goes on to say that, "New scientific support for a hot big-bang creation event, for the validity of the space-time theorem of general relativity, and for ten-dimensional string theory verifies the Bibles claim for a beginning."

It should also be noted that the words translated "heavens and earth" (shamayim and erets )have many different meanings in Hebrew. Hebrew is a very small language. The english language has millions of words while Biblical Hebrew has just over 3,000. But these two words form a coumpound noun and consistently refer to the entire physical universe when found together.

On a side note here are some of the definitions of shamayin and erets.

samayin (shamayin is the plural form hence heavens)
heaven, heavens, sky, visible heavens, sky, as abode of the stars, as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, Heaven (as the abode of God)

"Erets is applied in a more or less extended sense-- (1) to the whole world, (Genesis 1:1) (2) to land as opposed to sea, (Genesis 1:10) (3) to a country, (Genesis 21:32) (4) to a plot of ground, (Genesis 23:15) and (5) to the ground on which a man stands. (Genesis 33:3)" [Smith's Bible Dictionary]

erets
land, the entire earth, country, territory, district, region, tribal territory, piece of ground, land of the living

You should be able to find these definitions in any concordance or dictionary. The reason I gave the definitions is because of the importance of the meaning of the word erets in determining the extent of the Genesis Flood. It shows that a localized flood can also be literally gleaned from the Bible and that the waters need not cover the entire earth but a small portion of it according to the acccount. The Flood account is often labeled 'an exaggeration of history" *winks to oxygen* because there is a lot of evidence for localized floods like the one described in the Bible that is falsely called a global flood. The popular picture of dinosaurs and polar bears being led on to the ark by Noah is inaccurate to say the least. But I fear I am starting to chase rabbits and must get back on course. All in due time...

We are now moving on to Genesis 1:2 which is a very important verse that changes our reference frame during the creation account. We started off with God creating everything. We now jump to the earth.

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Our reference frame is now on the earth's surface not in the starry realm. The text says "darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Ross in the Genesis Question on pg 24, (figure 3.1) tells us that ,"The events of the six Genesis creation days are described from the point of view of the surface of the ocean, underneath the cloud layer, as the second verse of Genesis clearly states." This is a crucial shift as we will soon see.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

Is this the creation of electromagnetic radiation? The first appearance of light? We could play semantics and say, "Define light?" According to science it cannot be as the sun was around before the earth. Light (electromagnetic radiation) was created in the beginning. The initial conditions of the earth's surface was darkeness. There were still planetesimals and all kinds of debris from our original solar nebula surrounding the earth. New evidence in planetary formation shows that all planets start off with thick layers of gases surrounding them. (info from Astronomer Hugh Ross) Planetary debris and these gases keep sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth. Planets start off with opaque atmospheres and this makes the surface dark. This is what the bible is describing. It is only referring to one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum: visible light. It is also not saying that electrons went up an orbital and came back down for the very first time. As verse 1:2 shows, our perspective is on the earth's surface and light appeared (aka sunlight was starting to break through the debris and gas).

The Hebrew supports this. "The Hebrew verb used in God's opening statement, "Let there be light," is haya, meaning "to exist; to be; to happen; or to come to pass." The verbs bara, asa, and yasar, meaning "create," "make," and "form," respectively are not used, and this word choice makes sense." (Ross, The Genesis Question pg 30-31)

Gravity would have over time cleared up some debis and stuff. Genesis 1:3 when understood properly accurately describes the early state of our atmosphere and its transition from opaque to translucent. We now move on to verses 4 and 5 which go together.

Genesis 1:4-5 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Thats it for now.

This is from something I am working on right now. I am in a discussion with somebody on "observational descriptions of nature and their impact on Biblical innerancy" and Genesis 1 was brought up amongst many other things so I decided to go through it. I keep giving small installments to this person. They are going on vacation this week so I might get a little lazy ;)

Any comments would be appreciated. Flames would not be appreciated. FYI, constructively criticizing is not flaming ;)

Peace,
Vinnie

Vinnie,

Here are a few websites that you might find helpful as resources for your discussion. Please note that the first website listed below provides, among many other things, a link to Strong's Concordance - a very powerful tool for bible researchers, of which I'm sure you are already aware. The second webpage is an online "Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia". The third provides free online "booklets" which present the concept of intelligent order and design in the Earth-Moon system. The fourth webpage provides many interesting links, but I specifically included this one because it provides a link to a page which provides evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted. The fifth website is devoted to proving Mormonism as a false doctrine.

(Disclaimer: I am not endorsing any of these websites or their content in any way. I am merely providing you with some interesting links to help you in your "research project".)

http://www.eliyah.com/index.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm
http://www.creation-answers.com
http://www.bible.ca/bible.htm
http://www.frontiernet.com/~bcmmin

Have fun!

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Vinnie,

Doesn't science also say that the continents started off as one big land mass, and then separated and drifted apart over time? In relation to the flood, that piece of history could account for a localized global flood, so to speak, couldn't it?

Also, I'm reading a book right now called "The Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgotten Books of Eden", that contains books that were rejected by the early church for some reason or other. It includes two additional books about Adam and Eve taking place after the fall of man, and after they were thrown out of the garden, among others. You may find it interesting. I'll be citing it soon, as it gives a really good depiction of Satan and his purpose and means of deception. How he presents himself to Adam and Eve may prove to be intruiging to some who post out here. We'll see...

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

I'm about to go to the movies so I am going to be brief ;)

Searcher, thanks for the links. I must say I find 2 and 4 to be yucky ;)

Lori, the problem with that idea is that I think that super-continent pangea thing was extant millions of years ago, if not billions. I am not sure on the exact time scale. I know creationist (young earth) talk about some verse from the Bible and say that continental drift occured in 6,000 years or something but that info is inaccurate (thats how it seems based upon research I have done). So it doesn't seem to fit (the localized global flood). That verse that they use is in one of the psalms I think.

"I'll be citing it soon, as it gives a really good depiction of Satan and his purpose and means of deception. How he presents himself to Adam and Eve may prove to be intruiging to some who post out here."

Ever read the screwtape letters by C.S. Lewis? Heres the basics: uncle screwtape is an advanced tempter of human beings. He is training his nephew wormword, a junior tempter, how to effectively capture human souls. They fight the enemy (aka God and his heavenly host). The battle field is a human being's life. It shows what type of material we are tempted with and how we may be led astray or made blind etc etc. It is all fiction but it is a good read.

Its a series of letters exchanged between nephew and uncle. You never see wormwoods letters though. But by reading Screwtapes response you can tell what was going on and what wormwood was saying/asking etc.

A brief look at what it is sorta like:
Day 1
Dear wormwood, I see your tempting of the human subject is going good. I want to give you a few pointers. Use his x against him blah blah blah :)

The patient eventually becomes a christian and wormwood still tempts him and stuff and tries to pull him away utilizing his uncles help.

Anyways, I got tomorrow off from work *wohoo* so I should find some time to supplememnt my Genesis 1 "research project."

Peace,
Vinnie

Btw, link 4 was yucky not only because of the science stuff but because of the RCC stuff. I have been to that site before.

Peace,
Vinnie

Vinnie,

My brain must be on the energy saver setting today (I blame it on the liquid refreshments that were provided at the wedding reception I attended last night ;) ), but what do you mean by the "RCC" stuff? I definitely thought you would like link #2 (although I was pretty certain you would disagree about the simultaneous dinosaur and human tracks at link #4).

Personally, I love websites that help me find information, whether the information supports my own point of view or not. Sometimes it is helpful to understand the debate from your opponent's point of view, as it helps you to better construct your own arguments. But maybe that's just me. Oh well, I hope the other websites will be of some use to you anyway.


------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

The page starts off with a link to a site that allegedly displays "54 scientific facts disproving the Big Bang evolutionary theory about the origin of matter and the stars."

Astronomy is one of my passions. I should be starting college this fall (if I can finish all my paperwork). Local one for now (math and science major) but I will be taking astrophysics (God permitting of course ;)) in the future. I love astronomy and have been reading books on the subject for a few years now.

That page is filled with a lot of bad science. "Sometimes it is helpful to understand the debate from your opponent's point of view, as it helps you to better construct your own arguments." I only will debate creation/evolution out of bare necessity. It causes to many problems. People (Christians included) can really go at it in those discussions. The person I am discussing Genesis with now can discuss things in an intelligent manner without being arrogant or getting all mad. Its great to be able to discuss stuff with people like that. Thats the only reason I am putting a lot of time into this Genesis stuff. This person isn't a young earther by the way. He raised a few objections about the creation account. It goes back to what our original discussion is all about: biblicl innerancy and what it is, does it exist? and what it means? etc.

And I have discussed old earth/young earth many many times with creationist so I am aware of where they are comming from. Thanks again for the links though. I do appreciate them.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. RCC is an abreviation for Roman Catholic Church.

Peace,
Vinnie

Here is a supplement to my original post. I finished up to Genesis 1:3 in my original post and I did verses 4 and 5 today. Six through 8 will be comming soon to.

This supplement shows that it is biblically ok to believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth, and a 14.5 billion year old universe.

Genesis 1:4-5 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Now that the atmosphere is no longer opaque we can tell that there is such a thing as day and night. The sun's light wasn't able to reach the surface and therefore day and night were nonexistant on the earth until this time. But now that the light comes through we can tell that here is a day and night cycle. It should be noted that the sun still cannot be seen from earth at this time. The atmosphere has gotten more light-permeable but it is not until its transition from translucent to transparent that the outline of the sun can be seen.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the creation account between Christians is the length of the "days" in Genesis. Young earther argue that God created everything in 6 days. Old earthers like myself would say God created this stuff over billions of years. Now I want to point out to young earthers and others alike that I am not saying it is impossible for God to have created the universe in 6 days. If he wanted to I assume he could have. But I am distinguishing here between what God could have done and what God did do.

We all naturally (newtonian thinking) assume one day is exactly 24 hours no matter what. But one day on on Jupiter is about nine hours. On Venus, one day is longer than its entire year!!! It takes longer to rotate once about its axis than it does to traverse one complete revolution around the sun on Venus! Einstien came along and radically changed our newtonian view of space and time. Gerald L. Schroeder in his book "The Science of God" has argued that God could have created the universe in 6 days in his reference but from ours it took 15 billion years. This may sound like science fiction but rest assured it is not. There is a time dilation formula that anyone who knows simple algebra can use. The postulates of relativity are the roots of time dilation. There are no abbsolute reference frames and the speed of light is always constant regardless of its source's motion (2 postulates of relativity). Using these facts we could create a "light clock" and very very easily demonstrate in a thought experiment what has been experimentally verified over and over again: the fact that time does dilate. Time is not universal. All of our times travel at slightly different rates. The difference in rates is so small that here on earth we call them negligible or zero. Traveling at relativistic speeds changes the picture entirely. The Bible even declares that a day to the Lord is like a thousand years. Verses like that seem to hint at God's multi-dimensionalness. There are a few parts of Schroeder's work/interpretation that I disagree with but I generally find his info to be very interesting. Especially the time dilation stuff. I would suggest picking up that book. On a side note, I have quoted from Hugh Ross already and will continue to do so. I would definately suggest any of Hugh Ross' work/books as his material is very accurate, well researched, and up to date. You can visit his online ministry at www.reasons.org (http://www.reasons.org) as well.

We briefly touched on the "days" in Genesis up above. The Niv study Bible text note on verse 1:5 (first appearance of the word "day" in the Bible) says, "Some say the creation days were 24-hour days, others that they were indefinate periods." I want to delve a little deeper into the subject and look at the Hebrew meanings of the word translated "day."

The word for "day" in the Genesis account is yowm. Yom means a few things: sunrise to sunset, sunset to sunrise, a space of time (defined by an associated term), an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days). The third definition of yowm up above shows why the Niv text note says, "Some say the creation days were 24-hour days, others that they were indefinate periods." It says that because a literal interpretation of the text can also say 6 epochs instead of 6 days. There is noithing in the Genesis account that must be translated as 6 literal 24 hour days. Look up the word "day" in a concordance or Hebrew lexicon.

Look at Genesis 2:4 The word yowm can be found in there but it does not refer to a literal 24 hour period but to God's creative week. "The word "day" sometimes signifies an indefinite time (Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 22:5; Hebrews 3:8, etc.). In Job 3:1 it denotes a birthday, and in Isaiah 2:12, Acts 17:31, and 2 Timothy 1:18, the great day of final judgment." [Easton's Bible Dictionary]

Some have suggetsed that because of the ordinal (ie fist day, second day etc) that the "days" must be interpreted as 6/24 hour periods. "This argument can be challenged on several counts. For one, it is true only for passages describing days of human activity rather than days of divine activity. For another, nowhere else does the Bible have the occasion to enumerate sequential epochs. More important, the rules of Hebrew grammar do not require that yôm must refer to twenty-four hours, even when attached to an ordinal.

Hosea 6:2 prophesies that "after two days he [God] will revive us [Israel]; on the third day he will restore us." For centuries Bible commentators have noted that the "days" in this passage (where the ordinal is used) refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or maybe more. [Ross, Creation and Time, chapter 5 which is available online]

We now move on to the "evening" and "morning" in the Genesis account. We have discussed a lot so I will quote the scripture i am referring to in case anyone has forgoten it: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Gen 1:5)" We already went through the "day" but do "eveningt" and "morning" signify a literal 24 hour day? Well, here are the Hebrew words translated morning and evening and their definitions:

The words translated evening and morning in hebrew are the words 'ereb' and boqer'

ereb: the beginning of darkness; dusk, twilight, or nightfall; closing, ending, or completion.

boqer: the breaking forth of light; dawn, daybreak, or morning; dawning, beginning or origin.

If you look in a concordance you should see this stuff.

"The Hebrew word 'ereb, translated evening, also means "sunset," "night," or "ending of the day." And the word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of day," "break of day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.

In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of "day," however it is used. For example, "in my grandfather's day" refers to my grandfather's lifetime. So the morning and evening of his day would be his youth and old age." [Ross, Creation and Time, chapter 5, available online]

There is also a very unusual syntax regarding the wording of Genesis 1:5 and the other "days" mentioning "evening" and "morning" in Genesis 1. The Bible apparently leaves the age of the earth and universe open. It should be noted that Christians argue way to much over the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible is much more concerned with who created the universe and why it was created than when this agent created the universe. I usaully avoid young earth/old earth debates. If you want to believe that the earth is 6,00 years old then you are free to do so. But as I have shown, it is Biblically ok to believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth and a 14.5 billion (as three new measurements in 1999 suggested) year old universe. You can read enthusiastically about the new findings in 10 Dimensional superstring thoery while being a Christian who humbly reads and follows God's word.

One other area of the "day" debate that I felt needed to be discussed is the use of the word day in one of the 10 Commandments.

Exodus 20:8-11 ""Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Does this declare that the creation account must be interpreted as a literal seven 24 hour day week? No it does not. The Bible tells us to work 6 days and to rest one. The Bible teaches that God created everything in 6 epochs and had 1 "epoch" of rest. This commandment is pointing to God's creative week as an analogy. This point is further driven home by Exodus 23:10-12.

""For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. 12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed."

6 days of work to one of rest.
6 epochs of creation to one of rest
6 years of sowing and harvesting and one of rest

The common raio here is 6 to 1. As we see, there is nothing in the Bible requiring a 168 hour creative week. We are now moving on to verses 6-8.

Comments are welcome

Peace,
Vinnie

Oh yeah, I believe the pangea thing started to break up 250 million years ago. I am almost positive I read that today. In the beginning there was a primordial ocean covering the whole earth with no land except that which was covered with lots of water ;)

The amount of land increased over billions of years from 0 to 29% of the surface. Then like 250 million yearsa ago that huge landmass broke up or something like that. Not totally sure of how and what blah blah blah. From what I hear geology doesn't tell us much about the very early origin of land either. We seem to only know a few things.

Peace,
Vinnie

The amount of land increased over billions of years from 0 to 29% of the surface. Then like 250 million yearsa ago that huge landmass broke up or something like that. Not totally sure of how and what blah blah blah. From what I hear geology doesn't tell us much about the very early origin of land either. We seem to only know a few things.

Thought I'd stick some irrelevance in here. If I recall my college geology correctly, it seems you can take a little magnetic device out on a boat, sail back and forth through a given area (anywhere on any ocean, but the Atlantic is where it was done originally) and mark magnetic "striping" to clock the repeated changes in the Earth's magnetic polarity.

Besides, the way it looks now, we need to confirm that the body of the moon comes from terrestrial material, possibly knocked loose from the planet by Tiamat, a wandering planetary body, many of whose remains now allegedly spin around the sun in the Martian belts. Whether or not the moon is originally terrestrial will teach us a great deal about the origins of land (and life) on earth, from the scientific point of view.

On the other hand, the wealth of geological information I consider to be useful to someone is detailed enough that most of us don't want to compile it. I think the actual origin of land on Earth, though, is a little like the Big Bang--by the time we figure it out, the objective process examined will no longer be the most important.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)