Genesis Chapter One

[Coolhand]

Were starting a "through the Bible" study in our ministry, starting at the beginning. I've been reading through this exegetical commentary:

 

http://www.thestonescryout.com/creation/genesis_1-2_exegetical_commentary?fbclid=IwAR3b01OoB_gd6nkvo_1ijM-ZA1IUfKzD-2tq3bdaqVAfOA3a53-fEcegsl4

 

The translators of the NIV use center justified to show poetry, and left justified to show prose, but Gen 1 is neither. There is some confusion in regard to what Gen 1 is. Some say its a song, or a poem, or a polemic of Moses against the Egyptian's Gods. I'm firmly in the "other" camp and think it is literature.

 

I think writer is trying to get the point across that God is the creator and the source, and that the the sabbath day is blessed. I'm talking about Genesis 1:1 through 2:3.

 

Anybody got any good exegetical commentaries to share? I try to stay away from the devotional commentaries.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Coolhand

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Not commentaries, but a question.  Does Genesis 1:16 have anything to do with Astrology?  Or am I seeing something that isn't there?

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

Ok Coolhand, let me start by saying, I see Genesis 1 as a best explanation of how the universe began to a man 3500 years ago. Men who did not have the knowledge that we have accumulated over time.

 

I was once taught that when looking at scripture, if a text can be looked at from more than 1 perspective, it should be. All possible views should be examined, and the most likely or most reasonable understanding should be given the most validity.

 

The first thing I think we should discuss is the use of the word Yom. The Hebrew word Yom has multiple meanings. While it is traditionally understood to be a 24 hour day, it is also used to refer to the time from sunup to sundown, just as in English. Where it gets interesting is when we look at some of the other ways Yom can be used. The most applicable, to me, would be that Yom can be used to denote an undetermined amount of time, such as an Eon or age. When we look at the use of the word Yom through out Genesis 1 as an age or Eon the whole text seems to have taken on a different level of explanation. In my opinion, when looked at in this way it seems that science is finally catching up with what is being explained in Genesis. There are only a couple of places where science and Genesis disagree. In those areas science can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's explanation is more accurate than the Genesis account.

[Pastor Dave]

For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. Up until the early 20th century the best minds in science were adamant that the universe had no beginning nor would it have an end. It was known as the steady state theory. After Einstein's equations on general relativity were discovered George Lemaitre proposed, in 1927, an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts with spiral nebulae and calculated the Hubble law leading us to the big bang theory.

 

After three and a half millennia science finally caught up to the Bible saying that the universe had a definite beginning. While Stephen Hawking said that there was no need for a first cause, that goes contrary to everything else we know about the physical universe. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

Ok Coolhand, let me start by saying, I see Genesis 1 as a best explanation of how the universe began to a man 3500 years ago. Men who did not have the knowledge that we have accumulated over time.

 

I was once taught that when looking at scripture, if a text can be looked at from more than 1 perspective, it should be. All possible views should be examined, and the most likely or most reasonable understanding should be given the most validity.

 

The first thing I think we should discuss is the use of the word Yom. The Hebrew word Yom has multiple meanings. While it is traditionally understood to be a 24 hour day, it is also used to refer to the time from sunup to sundown, just as in English. Where it gets interesting is when we look at some of the other ways Yom can be used. The most applicable, to me, would be that Yom can be used to denote an undetermined amount of time, such as an Eon or age. When we look at the use of the word Yom through out Genesis 1 as an age or Eon the whole text seems to have taken on a different level of explanation. In my opinion, when looked at in this way it seems that science is finally catching up with what is being explained in Genesis. There are only a couple of places where science and Genesis disagree. In those areas science can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's explanation is more accurate than the Genesis account.

 

I cheerfully agree with you, that the Creation "Days" of Genesis, could be a large, indeterminate time.  That just means we are using the language of poetry, instead of more precise measurement.  A tougher problem is sequence.  Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. Up until the early 20th century the best minds in science were adamant that the universe had no beginning nor would it have an end. It was known as the steady state theory. After Einstein's equations on general relativity were discovered George Lemaitre proposed, in 1927, an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts with spiral nebulae and calculated the Hubble law leading us to the big bang theory.

 

After three and a half millennia science finally caught up to the Bible saying that the universe had a definite beginning. While Stephen Hawking said that there was no need for a first cause, that goes contrary to everything else we know about the physical universe. 

 

 

Yes.  As you point out, these are interesting times for Cosmology and Physics.  Also, as you point out -- an interesting time for secular scientists, who were loath to accept a starting time for the Universe.  A Genesis style "Beginning."

 

The difference between a mind set of religion and science; is that when new evidence is presented -- a scientist follows that evidence wherever it takes him -- regardless of personal bias.  Regardless of likes and dislikes.  Regardless of beliefs.

 

I like to think that this is my orientation, to evidence regarding God.  In the absence of evidence, I don't believe that God exists.  Presented with compelling evidence -- like it or not -- I am prepared to reconsider, regardless of where the evidence takes me.  I think that most Atheists would say something similar.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

13 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

The first thing I think we should discuss is the use of the word Yom. The Hebrew word Yom has multiple meanings. While it is traditionally understood to be a 24 hour day, it is also used to refer to the time from sunup to sundown, just as in English. Where it gets interesting is when we look at some of the other ways Yom can be used. The most applicable, to me, would be that Yom can be used to denote an undetermined amount of time, such as an Eon or age. When we look at the use of the word Yom through out Genesis 1 as an age or Eon the whole text seems to have taken on a different level of explanation.

 

I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5)

But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).  

[Pastor Dave]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I cheerfully agree with you, that the Creation "Days" of Genesis, could be a large, indeterminate time.  That just means we are using the language of poetry, instead of more precise measurement.  A tougher problem is sequence.  Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.

 

 

 

Thanks for your acknowledgement of the possibility of the days not having to be 24 hour days.😎 

 

I'm not quite to the fourth day yet. Hopefully we will be able to get there though .😌

😁

[Pastor Dave]

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Yes.  As you point out, these are interesting times for Cosmology and Physics.  Also, as you point out -- an interesting time for secular scientists, who were loath to accept a starting time for the Universe.  A Genesis style "Beginning."

 

The difference between a mind set of religion and science; is that when new evidence is presented -- a scientist follows that evidence wherever it takes him -- regardless of personal bias.  Regardless of likes and dislikes.  Regardless of beliefs.

 

I like to think that this is my orientation, to evidence regarding God.  In the absence of evidence, I don't believe that God exists.  Presented with compelling evidence -- like it or not -- I am prepared to reconsider, regardless of where the evidence takes me.  I think that most Atheists would say something similar.

 

 

Yes, science is generally known for finally admitting when a previous theory is proven to be false ... Usually years and years later, sometimes decades pass before new theories are accepted. But hey, at least they usually, eventually become accepted.

 

I understand that you feel the need for compelling evidence in order to believe in God. That's fine with me. I would enjoy being the person who presents you with that compelling evidence though, I don't think it's likely to happen in this thread.

[Pastor Dave]

34 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5)

But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).  

 

I'm not telling you to stop believing in the six literal days of creation Dan. Twenty years ago I could argue 24 hour days as well as anyone. I suppose I still could.

Coolhand was asking for exegesis of Genesis. I'm just trying to give him one that might be less mainstream.

Yes I also used to use 2 Peter when I first got away from the 6 24 hour days.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that how I see Genesis 1 is the only way that could be right. Just wanted to put a less talked about possibility out there to think about.😁

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Thanks for your acknowledgement of the possibility of the days not having to be 24 hour days.😎 

 

I'm not quite to the fourth day yet. Hopefully we will be able to get there though .😌

😁

 

 

A lot of my objections to the Bible follow the same pattern.  As literal history -- as science -- Scripture is at best problematic.  If we are looking at poetic expression -- I'm not motivated to argue with artistic expression.

 

Back to the opening lines.  Modern translation varies greatly.  I don't remember which translation it was.

 

"In the beginning, God began creating the Heavens and the Earth."

 

It changes everything.  In the standard version, Creation was long ago and far away.  It feels like a fairy tale.  In this version, Creation is still happening.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Yes, science is generally known for finally admitting when a previous theory is proven to be false ... Usually years and years later, sometimes decades pass before new theories are accepted. But hey, at least they usually, eventually become accepted.

 

I understand that you feel the need for compelling evidence in order to believe in God. That's fine with me. I would enjoy being the person who presents you with that compelling evidence though, I don't think it's likely to happen in this thread.

 

As people, I expect we are all stubborn about our passions.  What matters is yielding to the evidence.

 

The company is agreeable and the conversation is pleasant.  It's enough.     

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

15 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

For example, the first three words of the Bible state, in the beginning. Up until the early 20th century the best minds in science were adamant that the universe had no beginning nor would it have an end. It was known as the steady state theory. After Einstein's equations on general relativity were discovered George Lemaitre proposed, in 1927, an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts with spiral nebulae and calculated the Hubble law leading us to the big bang theory.

 

After three and a half millennia science finally caught up to the Bible saying that the universe had a definite beginning. While Stephen Hawking said that there was no need for a first cause, that goes contrary to everything else we know about the physical universe. 

 

Well, this is a bit outdated (again) as science is moving back to the "steady state" theory. In short: the big bang came from a massive black hole which had swallowed all previous matter from our galaxy and all matter in our current galaxy will be swallowed up back again when all the stars become black holes one by one again. Culminating in one big black hole again which wil eventually burst again in a new big bang...

 

This is also philosophically the only explanation as everything that has a start, must have an ending...

[RevBogovac]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

A tougher problem is sequence.  Having the Sun, Moon and the other stars, all turn up on the fourth day -- that's a much tougher pill to swallow.

 

 

This is an obvious error in the bible, as basic physics (measurement of light, carbon dating et cetera) disproves it....

 

Unlees you jump yet through another loop and declare some mythical creature put all those things in there just to deceive us...

[RevBogovac]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days [...] Such verses seem to indicate [...] So imo [...] But many Christians believe [...] Figuratively speaking [...] Other scripture support [...] But most refer to [...]

 

Hi Dan... 

 

4 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

[...] I could argue [...] that might be less mainstream. [...] I also used to use [...] I'm not trying to convince anyone that how I see [...] a less talked about possibility [...]

 

One would think that if that book really was inspired by an almighty god it would be more consistent and less prone to interpretation... 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Well, this is a bit outdated (again) as science is moving back to the "steady state" theory. In short: the big bang came from a massive black hole which had swallowed all previous matter from our galaxy and all matter in our current galaxy will be swallowed up back again when all the stars become black holes one by one again. Culminating in one big black hole again which wil eventually burst again in a new big bang...

 

This is also philosophically the only explanation as everything that has a start, must have an ending...

 

 

There are some interesting ideas in modern physics and cosmology.  I don't think this thread is the place for it.

 

More to the point.  It's not enough to say that a god created the Universe.  Even if this is so -- I doubt it -- the question remains.  Which god?  There is the God of the Bible.  There is the God of Deism.  There is the God of Pantheism.  There is the God of Hinduism. 

 

Without getting stuck on the details, of competing ideas in physics -- there is natural process.  My vote is for natural process.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Hi Dan... 

 

 

One would think that if that book really was inspired by an almighty god it would be more consistent and less prone to interpretation... 

 

 

In fairness, it is the most closed minds, that speak with total certitude.  This kind of caution about meaning, suggests -- to me -- a thoughtful examination and open mindedness.  I have to respect that.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I personally believe that the creation story was 6 literal days, simply because the Hebrew seems to explicitly describe it as so. "And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:13). Such verses seem to indicate a 24 hour period by describing the rotation of the earth for each day. So imo, the day-night cycle equates to a literal day; "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5)

But many Christians believe that one day equals a thousand year period. "In the day you eat of the fruit of this tree you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:17). Figuratively speaking, Adam, and all his offspring before the flood, died within a day (1000 yr). Other scripture support one day year; "I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:6). And a prophetic day as described in Daniel 9:24-27 is equivalent to one year. The Day of the Lord also last a millennium. But most refer to this verse; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).  

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

On 5/23/2019 at 10:59 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

I'm not telling you to stop believing in the six literal days of creation Dan. Twenty years ago I could argue 24 hour days as well as anyone. I suppose I still could.

Coolhand was asking for exegesis of Genesis. I'm just trying to give him one that might be less mainstream.

Yes I also used to use 2 Peter when I first got away from the 6 24 hour days.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that how I see Genesis 1 is the only way that could be right. Just wanted to put a less talked about possibility out there to think about.😁

 

No problem, I'll admit that creation could have been done in literal days, thousand year days, or eons. My opinion isn't usually in line with mainstream Christianity. Here's a video that explains it better than I can, if you have time to listen to it. I studied with Pastor Arnold Murray for several years before he passed away, and most of my comments are based on his teachings. 

 

 

[Pete]

I just take Genesis 1 to be the myths of bronze age people. It is hard for me to see Genesis 1 as literal as it talks of days, morning, evening etc. All of which need a Sun to create. Interestingly the Sun was not created to the third day. I see this as poetic conjecture.  It holds importance because of its historic view point but not as a scientific fact. If a God created all then this proposition of Gen 1 is not plausible as a means of creation.  This and there is 13 billion light years across the known universe and many stars we cannot see with our eyes.. That is just the known universe. For all this to be about just the creation of this planet beggars belief for me. If there is a God then Gen 1 is not accurate for me.