Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Genesis 1:31 Commentary
biblenut.ireporter.tv — Genesis 1:31 -- Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
BibleNut- 26 diggs
- digg it
- StarWarsFan, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9Dugg, but I disagree with your assertion/assumption that "good" MUST mean that Satan had not yet fallen. The Bible does not specify when the devil fell from heaven.
The Gap Theory is still a valid theory: Billions of years ago, an initial creation (Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth") which was soon corrupted with death and destruction by the devil (as we know from the fossil record). All life from this initial creation came to an end about 6000 years ago in an unknown catastrophic event (Genesis 1:2 - "And the earth became (check the Hebrew) without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.") which was followed by a period of six literal days, in which creation was re-created (Genesis 1:3-31) and made perfect again (hence, the "very good"). Soon afterwards came the fall of man, in which death and destruction re-entered the world, and remains to this day.
This is certainly not the only interpretation of Genesis 1, but I believe it is the most likely because it has the most scientific evidence to support it.- BibleNut, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5StarWarsFan,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really do appreciate that you take the time to post a comment. But I do VERY respectively disagree. I'm working on my arguments. But they are not done yet. I will try to post them tomorrow.
Just wanted to let you know that I was not ignoring your great post. Thanks! Blessings! - drachemorder, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Don't have very much time tonight, but I really need to briefly disagree with this as well. I don't think the gap theory is a possible valid interpretation of Genesis at all, so it doesn't really matter what the scientific evidence seems to say. (I say "evidence", but what I really mean is interpretations of evidence --- interpretations created by people who don't accept the Bible in the first place, so their theories really shouldn't hold any weight with Christians to begin with.)
If you're going to give away long ages, you might as well go the whole hog and give away evolution as well. I really can't see any difference between them. Both are just an attempt to explain away God.- captric, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Do you understand ANYTHING about Evolution?
- DavidHalko, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8The Gap Theory seems to be an answer based upon faulty interpretation to a problem that does not exist.
First, the supposed problem: the universe, earth, and life on earth existed for a long time before creation.
A faulty presupposition: the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere (used for dating) was constant for all time (from "The Creation") - this can not been proven in the past and has been shown to not be the case in modern time (after the dropping of the first nuclear bomb.)
A faulty presupposition: buried fossils for animals which no longer exist had to be created by a world-wide catastrophy - "The Great Flood" as recorded is conveniently ignored.
A faulty presupposition: the universe is too big, measured by "the speed of light" from one galaxy to another - Genesis indicates God created Light, which would include the particles between the objects in space.
Second, the faulty interpretation: a supposed time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
There is no suggestion in the sentence structure to indicate time had passed. When time is described as passing, the following phrase was used by the author of Genesis 1, "And the evening and the morning were the... day"
Finally, any answer to an invalid question based upon an faulty interpretation is not really worth considering.- StarWarsFan, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3See my comment below.
- BibleNut, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6StarWarsFan,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really do appreciate that you take the time to post a comment. But I do VERY respectively disagree. And these are the reasons for my disagreement. . .
1. You said that you know that Earth was “. . . corrupted with death and destruction by the devil (as we know from the fossil record.)” The problem is that the fossil record is not a valid tool for measuring the Earth’s age. So it cannot be used as proof for the Gap Theory or for Theistic Evolution. The basic assumption of the fossil record is that certain fossils were buried in sedimentary rock at certain, specific times during geological history. This lead to the conception of the Geologic Column. In the Geologic Column, it is assumed that certain fossils should be found in certain layers in the Earth’s strata. The GC is an interesting concept, but it too cannot be used to measure the Earth’s age. While the column consists of ten basic (conceptual) layers, all ten layers are found in very few places on the Earth. There are only 25 locations over the entire earth that claim to have the entire column. This makes up less than 1% of the Earth’s surface. (And closer studies have found these locations actually have some layers missing, mixed together or in the wrong order. That is several locations have rock containing ‘older’ fossils that are on top of rock containing ‘younger’ fossils.) Although anti-creationists usually have not disputed that the column is mostly missing, they have argued that we should not expect the entire column to exist in the field. Erosion, they argue, is why the complete column is never found. Hence they claim that rocks deposited during one period would be eroded away during a later period. So, while those defending the column have invented ad hoc reasons to explain the missing geologic periods, they did not deny the hypothetical nature of the column. As Sean D. Pitman, M.C. said, “It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be explained by a relatively sudden global catastrophe. . .” Point—fossils are invalid tools for measuring the Earth’s age. There are just too many assumptions that have never been proven to be fact. And there are too many inconsistencies in the GC to reach a tenable conclusion.
2. As for the Earth being dark and void – well, at that point in Scripture (Genesis 1:2), everything WAS dark and void. It is not until Genesis 1:3 that light appeared. So, it was (KJV) ‘dark and void.’ The Hebrew word used for ‘was’ is hayah. This word’s primary meaning is ‘to be.’ True, it can mean ‘become,’ but that does not mean that the world was previously inhabited, then destroyed. It just means that God’s work was in process, but not yet finished. Furthermore, the words “without form, and void” in Genesis 1:2 come from the Hebrew phrase “tohu waw bohu,” which means “unformed and unfilled.” This indicates the earth was not yet formed or filled.
3. Another objection to the Gap Theory is that it allows for millions of years of death and suffering before the fall of Adam. Yet Romans 5:12 makes it clear that death came into the world trough Adam. Animals and people were meant to live forever. So, how could there have been death over millions of years before Adam? If death did not enter by Adam, then that makes God the direct creator of evil. The Gap Theory would imply that God used violence, decay and death on a world-wide scale for at least three billion years in order to accomplish some unknown purpose.
4. Then, we have the phrase, ‘And there was evening, and there was morning. . .’ This phrase lays evidence to a young earth. I have explained this in several posts on my blog. Thus, I won’t bore you by restating my position.
5. As far as Creation being ‘very good’ with Satan being ‘bad,’ well, it is just an opinion, but I still cannot conceive that God, at that point, could call everything ‘good’ when there was such a ‘baddy’ on the loose. Remember, God was looking over His WHOLE creation (Heaven and Earth) when He called it all ‘very good.’ Thus, my position stands that, at this point, Satan would have been included in all that was good. I believe that Satan was a good guy for quite a while. Also, the idea of God declaring the creation to be ‘very good,’ knowing that there were millions of years of death and suffering is an untenable position to take.
In conclusion, if Genesis 1 cannot be understood, if it is not an accurate account of ‘the beginning,’ then why bother reading the rest of the Bible? If it is scientifically inaccurate, then the entire Bible would be one big lie. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not they are going to believe the Bible or not. It has proven itself to me too many times.- StarWarsFan, on 05/13/2008, -0/+41. I agree that the fossil record is not the best way to date the age of the Earth. I mentioned it only to counter the common objection to the Gap Theory that there couldn't have been death before Adam. See point 3 below.
2. The fact that light is not mentioned until Genesis 1:3 is another common objection to the Gap Theory, because we know that dinosaurs had eyes and it wouldn't make much sense for them to exist for billions of years with no sunlight. But remember, according to Genesis 1:1, the heavens (which would include the sun) and the Earth were already created. Thus, God created the sun in verse one ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth") and then during the six days, he re-created the sun because it had been darkened in verse two due to some sort of catastrophic event.
Most people view verse one as a sort of introductory verse, like saying "This chapter is about creation, here's how it happened..." and then explaining the six day creation account in the following verses. But if you take each verse chronologically, God created the heavens and the Earth in verse one, and thus it would be contradictory to say that the Earth was dark and unformed in the very next verse. It would make sense, however, to say that God created the heavens and the Earth in verse one, and then say that the Earth became unformed and dark in verse two. "Unformed" doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth hadn't been created yet - verse one said the Earth had been created. God's work was in progress for however much time fills the gap between verses one and two, and God's work was never completed (in other words, the Earth was never fully formed and completed) until the end of the six days. And "unfilled" still makes sense if we interpret hayah to mean "became" - the Earth became unfilled, which suggests it was filled prior to that.
It can be a little confusing at first, but I can see how both interpretations make sense. It really comes down to whether you interpret the verses chronologically or if you view verse one as a kind of introduction and not a chronological part of the creation account. Because if verse one is a chronological part of the creation account, then hayah has to mean "became" - it wouldn't make sense to say the Earth 'was' unformed right after saying that the Earth had just been created.
3. I believe that death did exist before Adam, but when God re-created all life on Earth in six days, the problem of death was fixed. When Adam and Eve were first created, there was no longer any death. But then Adam and Eve sinned, and death re-entered the world. Thus, death did come through Adam, and therefore there could not have been death when Adam was originally created, but there still could have been death in the ages before Adam. This does not mean that God is the direct creator of evil. See point 5 below.
4. This is actually a good point which I hadn't considered before. It wouldn't make sense for God to name "evening" and "morning" and "day" and "night" during the six days of re-creation if those things had already existed for billions of years. It doesn't disprove the Gap Theory, but it's a good point.
5. According to the Gap Theory, Satan must have already fallen from heaven billions of years before Adam and Eve. Otherwise, it must have been God who was behind all the death and suffering which existed in the ages of the dinosaurs, etc., and that wouldn't make much sense. If Satan corrupted the initial creation with billions of years ago, that does not mean that God created evil, nor does it mean that God used violence and death on a large scale for billions of years. Rather, it means that God created the world perfect, and Satan (not God) corrupted it with evil and after a few billion years, God restored the Earth to perfection, created Adam and Eve, and then Satan came along and corrupted the world with evil again by tempting Adam and Eve to sin. Why God waited for billions of years before restoring the Earth is something we'll never know - it's like asking why God still hasn't, after six thousand years of evil, restored the Earth to perfection again. We can know God, but we cannot know the ways of God - His wisdom far surpasses our meager understanding.
If the devil fell from heaven before God stated that His cration was "very good"... would the devil be called "very good" as part of God's creation? I've never thought about that before. The Bible never explains where angels came from. It's always been assumed that God created the angels in the beginning, although they are not mentioned in the creation account. We know that the devil was an angel who fell from heaven, but if angels were not created by God, they would not be part of God's creation, and thus the devil would not be included in God's creation when God said his creation was very good. It's possible that angels were not created by God, although I don't know where they would have come from if they were not, unless they always existed. But some people think that for a being to be coeternal with God, it must be coequal with God. I don't necessarily agree with that, however.
In conclusion, if Genesis 1 is not scientifically accurate, it does not necessarly mean that it is wrong or that the Bible is a lie. It only means that our interpretation of Genesis 1 is wrong. This is the main reason why I believe the Gap Theory interpretation. I have heard young-earth creationist arguments, and they make a lot of great points, but they don't, in my experience, stand up to the tried and true theories of mainstream science (taken a look at the http://www.talkorigins.org talk origns archive lately?).- drachemorder, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8You make a serious faux pas referring to talkorigins. That is an overtly atheistically biased source. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the sun rises in the east.
Here's where I come from. The amount we know about the universe is really quite small, yet the more we learn about it, the more we get dragged back in a general sense to the conclusion that the universe was created. Secular science didn't used to believe the universe had a beginning, yet it was dragged kicking and screaming to that conclusion with the Big Bang theory. And now we learn that space and time are thoroughly intertwined, not really all that different from one another, to the point that the concept of "simultaneity" may not hold up over large-scale distances. When the speed of light is a hard upper limit that seems to be absolutely inviolable, and everything that happens is relative to your reference frame, is it even meaningful to speak of things happening simultaneously on opposite edges of the universe? Who's to say that we won't eventually discover a framework whereby the whole universe with its vast scale came into being in the space of what, from our frame of reference, is just a few hours or days? Indeed, there are people who are working on such frameworks, and though they aren't perfect, they have some fairly amazing potential. Why can't we have faith that such things will be discovered, and the things claimed in the Bible will turn out to be the most accurate description after all? More to the point, doesn't God expect us to have that sort of faith?- rightwingattila, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3You're really streching here my friend. Even when my little one was one year old she knew that God created the hevenes and the earth. Please, I beg of you, listen to what the Lord says and not what man says...
- BibleNut, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Dugg even though I disagree with some of your points. But you do make some good points. I wish I had time to comment on your comments, but I have to work to pay the bills. Love reading your posts though. :) Blessings!
- DavidHalko, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2"if Genesis 1 is not scientifically accurate, it does not necessarly mean that it is wrong or that the Bible is a lie."
Science works by observation, recording, testing, re-observation, and re-recording.
The only observers, according to Genesis 1 in The Scriptures, during the Creation, was God (those in the God-Head, where God and The Spirit were mentioned.)
We have recorded observations from the only known observers, as The Scriptures, if one believes in divine authorship.
The Heavens and Earth were created with "age" (i.e. light was created, even though we know that it would take millions of years to travel from it's source to reach the Earth; Adam was created not as an infant; etc.)
There is no other known observer and any other modern hypothesis that depends on the observation of the "age" of any created thing is really irrelevant.
In short, science is not an effective tool to determining origins, if the universe is really created.
Communications recorded from the only known observers are the only reasonable scientific option we have to discuss origins.
- drachemorder, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8You make a serious faux pas referring to talkorigins. That is an overtly atheistically biased source. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the sun rises in the east.
- StarWarsFan, on 05/13/2008, -0/+41. I agree that the fossil record is not the best way to date the age of the Earth. I mentioned it only to counter the common objection to the Gap Theory that there couldn't have been death before Adam. See point 3 below.
- BibleNut, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5StarWarsFan,
- rightwingattila, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6“The creation narrative cannot be separated from the Bible without undermining its entire foundation. Rejecting the creation narrative would undermine the following doctrines:
A belief in God as the Creator. Derivatives of the word “create” occur 106 times in the Bible (create - 54; creation - 6; Creator - 5; creature - 41).
God’s authority over man is tied to His being man’s creator. John said, "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created." (Rev. 4:11).
The divine origin of the soul of man. Not only does man have a soul, but he also possesses free will - a will that can be subjected to the Devil’s temptations and choose to obey or disobey God.
The origin of sin. The book of Genesis reveals to us what sin is and what are its consequences.
The role of man and woman. Paul ties the headship of man to the order of God’s creating the male and female (1 Tim. 2:13-14).
The institution of marriage. Jesus related God’s original plan for husband and wife to have a lifelong commitment to each other to creation (Matt. 19:1-12).
The scheme of redemption is tied to the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. The role of the serpent, the great tempter of man, is revealed in this account. The origin of sin and what its consequences are for mankind are revealed in this narrative. Man’s hopelessness because of his sin reveals man’s need for a Savior who is the “seed of woman” who crushes the head of that serpent (Gen. 3:15). This interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is confirmed by Romans 16:20 - “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.”
The week as a division of ordered time is derived from the creation week.”
“Genesis lays the foundation on which the whole Bible and God’s work of human redemption is built. If one starts tampering with this foundation, he undermines the whole scheme of human redemption.”
“The book of Genesis is one of the most important books in the Bible because it forms the basis of all revelation. It is necessary to account for the moral condition of man and his subsequent need of redemption by (the Meshiach Nagid - the Messiah the King) the Christ. The book of Genesis is the root whose trunk extends through all Scripture. Therefore, one must treat with utmost seriousness any attacks on the creation narrative.” - Rudiments of the Gospel, Mike Willis - StarWarsFan, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7 The evidence for an old universe is all around us. With dating methods, we can measure the rate of radioactive decay, measure the current amount of radioactive isotopes, and extrapolate back to estimate a date. With spectral analysis, we can measure the rate at which hydrogen fuses into helium inside the sun, measure the current amount of hydrogen and helium in a star, and thus determine the age of the sun. We see mountains that appear to be weathering at the same rate – but some are smoothed by erosion and others are not, indicating a difference in the age of the mountains. We see rivers cutting canyons and valleys, and by measuring the rate at which the valley is cut, we can determine the age of the valley. We see furrows in rocks where glaciers moved across whole continents, leaving behind transported soil. And we can measure how tall those glaciers were by finding areas atop tall mountains where there is no transported soil – indicating that the glaciers were not tall enough to cover the tops of those mountains.
The conclusion that the earth is old is not a conclusion one would come to based on a preconceived notion that the earth must be old in order for evolution to occur. The conclusion that the earth is old is the common sense conclusion anyone would come to by simply observing the natural world around us without any preconceived notions.
Most of my friends are young-earth creationists, and I respect their beliefs. In fact, I am always very interested to hear what young-earthers have to say. I see the young-earth theory as a definite possibility, but not as the only possibility. The only thing I don’t like about young-earth creationism is that it claims to follow the scientific method, but it does not. A scientist following the scientific method collects data from an experiment and then makes a conclusion based on the data. Young-earth creationists usually start with a preconceived notion (6000 years ago the universe was created in six days) and then try to find evidence to support that notion. It’s the opposite of the scientific method.
The result of this is that a presupposition based on one possible interpretation of Genesis leads to a misinterpretation of science. Yes, I will concede that the young-earth interpretation of Genesis seems to be the clearest interpretation (If the Gap Theory were true, you would think that God would tell us plainly in Genesis, rather than hiding the gap in a Hebrew word with multiple meanings). But with so much overwhelming evidence for an old earth, the Gap Theory needs to at least be considered.
Yes, God could have created the universe with light from stars that are billions of lightyears away already reaching us. He could have made some stars be most of the way burnt out to begin with. He could have created mountains that appeared to be rounded by glaciers from the beginning. He could have created canyons that appear to be cut over a long period of time in the beginning. He could have created rocks with many layers from the beginning. He could have made the rate at which hydrogen fuses to helium and at which radioactive materials decay fluctuate instead of remain constant. All of this is possible. But the question would still remain… why? Why would God make the universe and the earth appear old if it was really young?
Ultimately, only God knows, in His infinite wisdom, exactly how creation occurred. I don’t believe (as some do) that the book of Genesis was intended to be a textbook which we should base our geologic theories on. The point of Genesis 1 is, in my opinion, to show us that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and that He created mankind uniquely in His image. I completely agree with rightwingattilla’s comment on the importance of Genesis. But whether you take an ultra-literal young-earth view, or a Gap Theory view, or another figurative view, the point of Genesis remains the same. The author of Genesis only spends one of the fifty chapters on the creation account. This is because the point of Genesis is not to explain how old the earth is; the point of Genesis is to show that GOD is the Creator, that man is subservient to God, that man sinned and needs God. No matter how you interpret the creation account, the fact that God is the one and only Creator of the universe remains the same. Mankind’s sin and need for salvation remains the same. And God’s plan for salvation remains the same.
Many young-earthers argue that if you don’t interpret the scientific aspects of the Bible literally, you can’t interpret the moral aspects of the Bible literally. But I disagree with this. There are certainly parts of the Bible that need to be taken literally. But if you take the entire Bible literally, then Jesus was a liar. For instance, Jesus said, “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.” If we interpret this literally like it’s a history textbook, and it did not actually happen, then Jesus is a liar. But of course we know that it is not meant to be taken literally – it is a parable meant to teach a moral lesson.
Jesus preached that the most important commandment is, “The Lord our God is one Lord”, and that the greatest commandment is, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and that the second is like it, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. These and all other moral teachings of the Bible are clear and leave little room for interpretation. But the scientific aspects of the Bible (like the creation account) leave great room for interpretation, because they are not the point of the Bible – the Bible was not written to be a scientific textbook. So I advocate a literal interpretation of the moral aspects, and a scientific-based interpretation of the scientific aspects. Contrary to what the young-earthers would have you believe, it does not at all cheapen the moral aspects to take a non-literal view of the creation account. The moral aspects are as clear as day and remain the same no matter how you interpret the creation account.- rightwingattila, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6As a brother in Christ I respect your response. I humbly disagree, but I do respect it!
I’ll be very dogmatic on who Jesus is, that God created the heaven and the earth, the literal fulfillment of prophecy, the inerrancy of Scripture, and every moral teaching within His Word, but I feel that far too many of us Christians become dogmatic on issues that really won’t have any merit in eternity, like the age of the earth, and then become carnal in defending our positions. I say this as one who is most guilty!
I am of the opinion that God said it, I believe it and that settles it. I am a fallible man and although only a fallible man I choose to be fallible on what I understand God has to say and not on what man says.
Yes, I approach the age of the earth with a preconceived notion but at one point in my life I was an evolutionist and believed in what man said. It was through the examination of the evidence that helped lead me to the Truth. There is much evidence for a young earth but it is the interpretation of the evidence that will guide one to a belief in a young or old earth.
Does this make be a smarter or better Christian? Hardly, for I am nothing more then a sinner saved by grace.
Anyone who believes that Christ is who is said He is, that He paid the price for your sins, that He rose again on the third day and now sits at the right hand of the Father, then that person is my brother/sister.- BibleNut, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Amen! Well said.
- BibleNut, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5StarWarsFan,
We agree on something and we disagree on some things. That's okay. As RightWingAttilla said, to believe on Christ is what makes us brothers and sisters. Your comments gave me a lot to think about. I alway appreciate that.
- rightwingattila, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6As a brother in Christ I respect your response. I humbly disagree, but I do respect it!
- lodibug3, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7I believe, as we see Adam, not an infant, that the Lord Created the Heavens and the Earth with age. We don't need a gap theory, we need God, to care for his creation in the manner in which he did.
- rightwingattila, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2What a perfect response! I'm going to use that lodibug, thank you and many blessings!
- BibleNut, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Yes! Excellent point! I had not thought of that!
- DWposts, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4I think this may be the best discussion I have seen on Digg. Both civil and intelligent, good back and forth, and finding common ground. It's too bad that more on Digg aren't like all of you above.
- BibleNut, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed reading our comments. Loving each other doesn't mean we always agree, but it does mean that we recognize each other as fellow human beings. StarWarsFan and I disagree, but he make good points. And he does so respectively. I admire him for that.
You are welcome to put in your 'two cents' too! :)
- BibleNut, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed reading our comments. Loving each other doesn't mean we always agree, but it does mean that we recognize each other as fellow human beings. StarWarsFan and I disagree, but he make good points. And he does so respectively. I admire him for that.
- captric, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1This is the most ill-informed discussion I have ever seen on Digg. A bunch of self honoring so called Christians who believe that an invisible friend in the sky made the earth in 6 days about 4 to 6 thousand years ago. Completely contrary to EVERYTHING that is understood to be fact in physics, chemistry, biology and geology.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by